Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Howard Dean Claims Unpopular ObamaCare Mandate Could be Ruled Unconstitutional
NewsBusters ^ | August 9, 2010 | P.J. Gladnick

Posted on 08/09/2010 7:16:20 AM PDT by PJ-Comix

A well known political figure appears on MSNBC's Daily Rundown and announces, in the wake of Missouri voters overwhelmingly supporting Proposition C to remove the insurance mandate from ObamaCare, that it is so unpopular that it will probably be removed from that legislation or that the courts will rule it unconstitutional. So was the person who delivered this opinion a conservative Republican? Nope. It was Howard Dean, former Democrat presidential candidate and chairman of the DNC who made that statement to a surprised Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie.

The Daily Rundown conversation begins with Chuck Todd discussing the Proposition C landslide in Missouri:

CHUCK TODD: In Missouri this week there was referendum on the ballot. Non-binding but it was, frankly, the legislature didn't want to deal with the issue of healthcare and this mandate and about whether the state should challenge the mandate on the new healthcare plan. It got 71%. Yes, more Republicans turned out than Democrats. But 71% in Missouri, that has to make Democrats nervous, particularly in that Senate race. Robin Carnahan has got an uphill battle.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: chucktodd; howarddean; obamacare; romney; romney4dnc; romney4obama; romney4obamacare; romneycare; savannahguthrie
Imagine how those idiot Democrats who voted for ObamaCare with its highly unpopular mandate must feel? Now they have to figure out a way to backtrack on the mandate.
1 posted on 08/09/2010 7:16:23 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

I predicted that the insurance mandate would be thrown out, and that the dems would then use the loss of revenue as an excuse to move closer to gopvernment run health care a la canada.


2 posted on 08/09/2010 7:18:09 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Doesn't really matter.

The only purpose of Obamacare and the mandate is to destroy the current health care system.

Mission accomplished!

3 posted on 08/09/2010 7:18:16 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Democracy aims at equality in liberty. Socialism desires equality in constraint and in servitude.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

considering Dean is for a complete gov run system and not the half ass’d obama-care. His comments dont surprise me.


4 posted on 08/09/2010 7:21:40 AM PDT by Casaubon (Internet Research Ninja Masta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

I thought the Donkeys were calling it a tax now which puts it in the same boat as Social Security and Medicare. On the other hand you aren’t required to pay SS and Medicare if you aren’t working but those who don’t work won’t have to buy healthcare either, it will just be given to them (much like it is now with Medicaid, the “public plan”).


5 posted on 08/09/2010 7:24:05 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

The GOP should introduce legislation to exempt three groups of people from the mandate:

1- Those making less than $250,000

2- Those who do not see their premiums reduced by $2500 per year as Obama promised

3- Those who were unable to keep their present insurance coverage as Obama promised


6 posted on 08/09/2010 7:26:47 AM PDT by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
OK, it's time for the other states to follow suit...

missouri


7 posted on 08/09/2010 7:28:37 AM PDT by FrankR (It doesn't matter what they call us, only what we answer to....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

The way that the bill was written it cannot be changed and in addition if any part is ruled unconstitutional the WHOLE bill becomes unconstitutional.San Fran Nan made it that way.


8 posted on 08/09/2010 7:32:00 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

They don’t need a mandate anyway. Just make screw things up so the only rational choice is buying a government plan. Just need a few high profile cases where the uninsured get sick and the IRS garnishees their paycheck and assets and people will fall in line.


9 posted on 08/09/2010 7:33:28 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

Here’s how it goes down. They back off on the mandate and play it up as them being flexible, and listening to the people. RINO republicans will crow about their big victory but it’s all irrelevant since the statists get everything they want anyway.


10 posted on 08/09/2010 7:36:17 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle

I hope the mandate is found unconstitutional, rather than having them repeal the mandate by statute. The reason is, the Dems were in such a hurry to pass the bill, they neglected to include a severability clause. That means that if any part of the bill is found unconstitutional, the whole bill is overturned.


11 posted on 08/09/2010 7:37:24 AM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

The ONLY thing the GOP should do is repeal the entire thing lock stock and barrel. Anything less is a total failure for constitutional government.


12 posted on 08/09/2010 7:37:24 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Tell that to Christ United Methodist Church. They push it constantly in their weekly newspaper, how we must have social justice by providing health care for all.

My local congregation features the health care plan prominently on its bulletin board when you walk in the front door on the way to the sanctuary. Full bulletin board display on the provisions of healthcare and what provisions will kick in year by year.

Some churches feature Jesus on their bulletin boards. The Methodist church features Obamacare.

13 posted on 08/09/2010 7:38:08 AM PDT by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
I'm sure any second rate lawyer could come up with 10 arguments why that doesn't apply in this case.

That means that if any part of the bill is found unconstitutional, the whole bill is overturned.

14 posted on 08/09/2010 7:38:50 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

let’s hope so...


15 posted on 08/09/2010 7:43:26 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: earlJam
The GOP should introduce legislation to exempt three groups of people from the mandate: 1- Those making less than $250,000....

Wealthy people can afford to get by without insurance, paying out of pocket. An exemption won't do the rest of us any good -- we *need* insurance. And Obamacare is going to destroy the private health insurance industry for those of us who need it.

The focus on the individual mandate is misplaced. You can eliminate the mandate, but if the rest of Obamacare stands, we who need health insurance will be left with few options other than crappy, expensive health plans.

However, the focus on the mandate by the state attorneys general who are suing, is the best way to get Obamacare ruled unconstitutional. The law has no severance clause, so if one bit is found unconstitutional, the whole thing collapses.

But if we lose in the courts, removing the mandate legislatively, while getting the wealthy off the hook, would still leave the rest of us screwed.

16 posted on 08/09/2010 7:52:19 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; FromLori; Gilbo_3; NFHale; ...

Around the time of the final Obama-care push Dean like most democrats jumped on board just to have a democrat win against Republicans. But Howard Dean was already on record for opposing that bill, which was basically the Senate Bill (with more taxes and pork) with mandates without a public option. He had previously told progressives to kill the Senate bill. Progressives hated the idea of a mandate to private insurance companies, but they sold out their principles for a D win against Republicans. Now they must live with it.


17 posted on 08/09/2010 7:52:34 AM PDT by sickoflibs ( "It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

I hope the mandate is found unconstitutional, rather than having them repeal the mandate by statute. The reason is, the Dems were in such a hurry to pass the bill, they neglected to include a severability clause. That means that if any part of the bill is found unconstitutional, the whole bill is overturned.
__________________________________

Are you sure there is no severability clause? I find that hard to believe (as an attorney who has drafted model legislation)....Admittedly, I don’t know...


18 posted on 08/09/2010 7:57:03 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tulane
Are you sure there is no severability clause? I find that hard to believe (as an attorney who has drafted model legislation)....Admittedly, I don’t know...

Yes, last week I saw interviews with Virginia's Ken Cuccinelli and Florida's Bill McCollum -- and both of them mentioned that there is no severance clause.

19 posted on 08/09/2010 8:01:37 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

Watch for the dems to pull something like “deeming” it to be severable.

They’ll try to get around the whole bill being declared void.


20 posted on 08/09/2010 8:03:44 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Ike Skelton will be sent packing also....finally..and why all the crocodile tears about the Dems who are gonna lose, after all, didn’t Waxman say they were “difficult” to deal with?


21 posted on 08/09/2010 8:04:48 AM PDT by ken5050 (Save the Earth..It's the only planet with chocolate!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Wow! Hey, we have a shot at knocking the whole thing out!


22 posted on 08/09/2010 8:06:10 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tulane

Indeed. Even Howard Dean of all people is speculating that the individual mandate could be found unconstitutional. And that would mean the entire law goes down with it.

LOL. I guess they should have listened to we Tea Party people after all: READ THE BILL! Ironic, isn’t it?


23 posted on 08/09/2010 8:09:48 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Watch for the dems to pull something like “deeming” it to be severable.

By the time the Supreme Court rules on this, the Dems probably won't have their huge majorities in both houses to pull it off. In fact, they might not have control of one or both houses anymore.

24 posted on 08/09/2010 8:14:24 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix

“I certainly noticed the vote on Prop C, the healthcare law, and message received,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) said.

McCaskill, however, makes the point that people “don’t realize” how beneficial the “mandate” for health care will be. “A lot of noise about the mandate that people have gotten so focused on that they don’t realize that there’s going to be more access and affordability and more choices,” she said.

(source: McCaskill Weekly Radio Call)

Harry Reid is convinced that the only reason the Missouri voters voted against the health insurance mandate is because they don’t understand ObamaCare. Here’s the quote:

“It’s very obvious that people have a lack of understanding of our health care reform bill ... The more people learn about this bill, the more they like it.”


25 posted on 08/09/2010 8:14:42 AM PDT by listenhillary (When will our government stop abusing us and stop hurting our children?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

Can someone, anyone, tell me what this says?
Who is exempted from the health care bill?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/senate-health-care-bill/original.pdf

H. R. 3590

Page 329
18 ‘‘(d) APPLICABLE INDIVIDUAL.—For purposes of this
19 section—
20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable indi
21 vidual’ means, with respect to any month, an indi
22 vidual other than an individual described in para
23 graph (2), (3), or (4).
24 ‘‘(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS.—

Page 330
1 ‘‘(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMP
2 TION.—Such term shall not include any indi
3 vidual for any month if such individual has in
4 effect an exemption under section
5 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and
6 Affordable Care Act which certifies that such
7 individual is a member of a recognized religious
8 sect or division thereof described in section
9 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established te
10 nets or teachings of such sect or division as de
11 scribed in such section.
12 ‘‘(B) HEALTH CARE SHARING MINISTRY.—
13 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Such term shall
14 not include any individual for any month if
15 such individual is a member of a health
16 care sharing ministry for the month.
17 ‘‘(ii) HEALTH CARE SHARING MIN
18 ISTRY.—The term ‘health care sharing
19 ministry’ means an organization—
20 ‘‘(I) which is described in section
21 501(c)(3) and is exempt from taxation
22 under section 501(a),
23 ‘‘(II) members of which share a
24 common set of ethical or religious be
25 liefs and share medical expenses

Page 331
1 among members in accordance with
2 those beliefs and without regard to
3 the State in which a member resides
4 or is employed,
5 ‘‘(III) members of which retain
6 membership even after they develop a
7 medical condition,
8 ‘‘(IV) which (or a predecessor of
9 which) has been in existence at all
10 times since December 31, 1999, and
11 medical expenses of its members have
12 been shared continuously and without
13 interruption since at least December
14 31, 1999, and
15 ‘‘(V) which conducts an annual
16 audit which is performed by an inde
17 pendent certified public accounting
18 firm in accordance with generally ac
19 cepted accounting principles and
20 which is made available to the public
21 upon request.
22 ‘‘(3) INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—
23 Such term shall not include an individual for any
24 month if for the month the individual is not a citizen

Page 332
1 or national of the United States or an alien lawfully
2 present in the United States.
3 ‘‘(4) INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS.—Such term
4 shall not include an individual for any month if for
5 the month the individual is incarcerated, other than
6 incarceration pending the disposition of charges.
7 ‘‘(e) EXEMPTIONS.—No penalty shall be imposed
8 under subsection (a) with respect to—
9 ‘‘(1) INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD COV10
ERAGE.—
11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any applicable indi
12 vidual for any month if the applicable individ
13 ual’s required contribution (determined on an
14 annual basis) for coverage for the month ex
15 ceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household
16 income for the taxable year described in section
17 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and
18 Affordable Care Act. For purposes of applying
19 this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household in
20 come shall be increased by any exclusion from
21 gross income for any portion of the required
22 contribution made through a salary reduction
23 arrangement.

Page 333
1 ‘‘(B) REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION.—For
2 purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘required
3 contribution’ means—
4 ‘‘(i) in the case of an individual eligi
5 ble to purchase minimum essential cov
6 erage consisting of coverage through an el
7 igible-employer-sponsored plan, the portion
8 of the annual premium which would be
9 paid by the individual (without regard to
10 whether paid through salary reduction or
11 otherwise) for self-only coverage, or
12 ‘‘(ii) in the case of an individual eligi
13 ble only to purchase minimum essential
14 coverage described in subsection (f)(1)(C),
15 the annual premium for the lowest cost
16 bronze plan available in the individual
17 market through the Exchange in the State
18 in the rating area in which the individual
19 resides (without regard to whether the in
20 dividual purchased a qualified health plan
21 through the Exchange), reduced by the
22 amount of the credit allowable under sec
23 tion 36B for the taxable year (determined
24 as if the individual was covered by a quail

Page 334
1 fied health plan offered through the Ex
2 change for the entire taxable year).
3 ‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULES FOR INDIVIDUALS
4 RELATED TO EMPLOYEES.—For purposes of
5 subparagraph (B)(i), if an applicable individual
6 is eligible for minimum essential coverage
7 through an employer by reason of a relationship
8 to an employee, the determination shall be
9 made by reference to the affordability of the
10 coverage to the employee.
11 ‘‘(D) INDEXING.—In the case of plan years
12 beginning in any calendar year after 2014, sub13
paragraph (A) shall be applied by substituting
14 for ‘8 percent’ the percentage the Secretary of
15 Health and Human Services determines reflects
16 the excess of the rate of premium growth be17
tween the preceding calendar year and 2013
18 over the rate of income growth for such period.
19 ‘‘(2) TAXPAYERS WITH INCOME UNDER 100
20 PERCENT OF POVERTY LINE.—Any applicable indi
21 vidual for any month during a calendar year if the
22 individual’s household income for the taxable year
23 described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient
24 Protection and Affordable Care Act is less than 100
25 percent of the poverty line for the size of the family

Page 335
1 involved (determined in the same manner as under
2 subsection (b)(4)).
3 ‘‘(3) MEMBERS OF INDIAN TRIBES.—Any appli
4 cable individual for any month during which the in
5 dividual is a member of an Indian tribe (as defined
6 in section 45A(c)(6)).
7 ‘‘(4) MONTHS DURING SHORT COVERAGE
8 GAPS.—
9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any month the last
10 day of which occurred during a period in which
11 the applicable individual was not covered by
12 minimum essential coverage for a continuous
13 period of less than 3 months.
14 ‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of
15 applying this paragraph—
16 ‘‘(i) the length of a continuous period
17 shall be determined without regard to the
18 calendar years in which months in such pe
19 riod occur,
20 ‘‘(ii) if a continuous period is greater
21 than the period allowed under subpara
22 graph (A), no exception shall be provided
23 under this paragraph for any month in the
24 period, and

Page 336
1 ‘‘(iii) if there is more than 1 contin
2 uous period described in subparagraph (A)
3 covering months in a calendar year, the ex
4 ception provided by this paragraph shall
5 only apply to months in the first of such
6 periods.
7 The Secretary shall prescribe rules for the col
8 lection of the penalty imposed by this section in
9 cases where continuous periods include months
10 in more than 1 taxable year.
11 ‘‘(5) HARDSHIPS.—Any applicable individual
12 who for any month is determined by the Secretary
13 of Health and Human Services under section
14 1311(d)(4)(H) to have suffered a hardship with re
15 spect to the capability to obtain coverage under a
16 qualified health plan.
17 ‘‘(f) MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—For pur
18 poses of this section—
19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘minimum essen
20 tial coverage’ means any of the following:
21 ‘‘(A) GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PRO22
GRAMS.—Coverage under—
23 ‘‘(i) the Medicare program under part
24 A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act,

Page 337
1 ‘‘(ii) the Medicaid program under title
2 XIX of the Social Security Act,
3 ‘‘(iii) the CHIP program under title
4 XXI of the Social Security Act,
5 ‘‘(iv) the TRICARE for Life program,
6 ‘‘(v) the veteran’s health care program
7 under chapter 17 of title 38, United States
8 Code, or
9 ‘‘(vi) a health plan under section
10 2504(e) of title 22, United States Code
11 (relating to Peace Corps volunteers).
12 ‘‘(B) EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLAN.—Cov
13 erage under an eligible employer-sponsored
14 plan.
15 ‘‘(C) PLANS IN THE INDIVIDUAL MAR
16 KET.—Coverage under a health plan offered in
17 the individual market within a State.
18 ‘‘(D) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH PLAN.—
19 Coverage under a grandfathered health plan.
20 ‘‘(E) OTHER COVERAGE.—Such other
21 health benefits coverage, such as a State health
22 benefits risk pool, as the Secretary of Health
23 and Human Services, in coordination with the
24 Secretary, recognizes for purposes of this sub25
section.


26 posted on 08/09/2010 8:33:35 AM PDT by Jonah Vark (Any 5th grader knows that the Constitution declares the separation of powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kevao

But would the whole law get tossed out or just the medical care mandates? That would leave the part for his well armed domestic security force, the part he may have truly wanted all along. (Que evil laugh)


27 posted on 08/09/2010 8:41:54 AM PDT by PeteePie (Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people - Proverbs 14:34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PeteePie

The whole law gets tossed out. No severance clause means that if any part of the law is struck down, the *entire* law is struck down.

Knowledgeable people I have talked to are very surprised; these severance clauses are usually standard. But in the mad rush to ram the bill down our throats, someone forgot to put the clause in. And, since nobody read the thing before voting on it, it went through unnoticed. LOL!


28 posted on 08/09/2010 8:50:06 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kevao

I know nothing about the law so please help me to understand this.

Certain groups of people are exempted from the health care bill so does that mean that the law does not apply equally to all? Would that deem the law unconstitutional? Then the whole law is kaput?


29 posted on 08/09/2010 9:11:07 AM PDT by Jonah Vark (Any 5th grader knows that the Constitution declares the separation of powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz

What is the stand the United Methodist Church has on abortion. My guess is the pro-aborts agree with it.


30 posted on 08/09/2010 9:17:51 AM PDT by jesseam (Been there, done that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DManA; PJ-Comix

Ted Kennedy (who has been sober for almost an entire year now!) said that was the plan many years ago. He said they would implement socialized medicine bit by bit. He knew that the more government was involved the more problems there would be and then the sheeple would cry out for ... even more government. Ignorance and covetousness are the demagogue’s greatest allies.


31 posted on 08/09/2010 9:24:25 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Vark
Certain groups of people are exempted from the health care bill so does that mean that the law does not apply equally to all?

That is correct.

Would that deem the law unconstitutional?

An objective court would rule that way. No telling how today's courts would rule.

Then the whole law is kaput?

If *any* part of the Obamacare law is struck down, then the *entire* law goes down with it. The authors forget to put in a severance clause. So, YES.

32 posted on 08/09/2010 9:57:46 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Thanks for responding. Music to my ears.
Can’t wait to see the health care bill go down.
I hope the fat lady sings SOON.

Are you from Missouri?


33 posted on 08/09/2010 10:18:32 AM PDT by Jonah Vark (Any 5th grader knows that the Constitution declares the separation of powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Vark

No, I’m not from MO. But I am from VA, and we are doing our part to slay the Obamacare beast. Our suit got a favorable ruling from a judge last week.


34 posted on 08/09/2010 10:28:05 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: camle

“I predicted that the insurance mandate would be thrown out, and that the dems would then use the loss of revenue as an excuse to move closer to gopvernment run health care a la canada.”

Many dem activists (or at least those who consider themselves liberals rather than ‘progressives’) originally opposed the bill, seeing it as an insurance industry give-away, and had to be brow-beaten and bribed into supporting it. The chief argument used to sway them was ‘we know it’s no good, but we will fix it later.’

As you said, this was never intended to be the final version of the bill. Although, between its unpopularity and the dems fading electoral prospects, it seems unlikely the planned ‘fixes’ will ever be implemented.

In my own wishful thinking, this is a great opportunity for the Supreme Court to remind Congress that they only have the powers outlined in the Constitution, and no others. In the perfect scenario, their ruling would be broad enough to unravel many previous federal power grabs. But that might be TOO MUCH wishful thinking.


35 posted on 08/09/2010 11:27:02 AM PDT by COgamer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: COgamer

i agree, and that new justice, what’s her name? the one that looks like jabba the hut? she will only vote for whatever side claims the most power for the government.


36 posted on 08/09/2010 11:31:04 AM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Vark

Not one person responded to my previous post!

26 posted on Monday, August 09, 2010 10:33:35 AM by Jonah Vark

Gee I was hoping there were some legal types who hang out here. Does that mean that not even one person here can understand what the health bill says? Someone, anyone, please tell us what groups of people are exempted from buying health insurance in Øbamacare?


37 posted on 08/09/2010 4:25:17 PM PDT by Jonah Vark (Any 5th grader knows that the Constitution declares the separation of powers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Forcing people to subsidize private corporations.

How could any good socialist vote for that? ;d


38 posted on 08/09/2010 4:59:25 PM PDT by Impy (DROP. OUT. MARK. KIRK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson