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

Skip to comments.

HHS: Call health care reform a law, not a bill
Politico.com ^ | 2/1/11 | KATE NOCERA

Posted on 02/01/2011 10:18:49 AM PST by ColdOne

Even before Monday’s big news broke on the federal case in Florida, the Obama administration was telling health reform supporters to talk about health care confidently as the law of the land.

Richard Sorian, assistant secretary of public affairs for the department of Health and Human Services, said too many supporters were still referring to the Affordable Care Act as a “bill.”

“We need to be talking all the time as to what the law is doing for people, and make sure we remind people it’s the law,” Sorian said at a Herndon Alliance meeting with health care advocates and activists on Saturday. “It’s not a bill… to overturn it would be changing the law. And it’s not a new law. It’s been working for ten months now.”

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: healthcare; obamacare
“We found out that people are stuck in ‘slob-lock,’ where they remain married to someone they aren’t crazy about because the marriage provides them health insurance benefits,” Sorian said with a laugh. “That’s a good one — people can relate to that.”
1 posted on 02/01/2011 10:18:51 AM PST by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

She’s right and it’s an unconstitutional law so that makes everyone who signed this law in violation of the same oath they took to protect the constitution.


2 posted on 02/01/2011 10:22:21 AM PST by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Law bill whatever doesn’t matter what you call it both can be overturned and will be.BTW as I hear it the last judge laid out a 78 page statement attacking many points in it that are unconstitutional and from what I heard his srguments pretty much are irrefutable.He says straight up that if this law stands then the constitution is null and void.


3 posted on 02/01/2011 10:23:37 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

If our politicians want to spend money, establish a committee to go through all of our laws and determine which ones are against the Constitution and which ones are no longer needed. How many more laws can they come up with and how many do we need?


4 posted on 02/01/2011 10:23:37 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Richard Sorian. What a Dick!


5 posted on 02/01/2011 10:23:45 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
How often do we get "laws of the land" status on bills that nobody even read?

Saying Obamma is a great president doesn't make it so either.

6 posted on 02/01/2011 10:24:26 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The Barak Obama regime isn’t very disimilar to the Hosni Mubarak regime. But the American people hate despotism even more than the Egyptians. You gotta wonder how long before political protests like the Tea Party begin to grow in numbers and in confidence like the Egyptian protesters. Peaceful, but determined to stop the Constitution-hating tyrant Obama.


7 posted on 02/01/2011 10:27:29 AM PST by jiminycricket000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

For years I’ve been crying for any bill created by legislaure should go to the judicial branch for a sign-off because way too much legislation becomes “accepted” as law before it ever gets a challenge. Even if we get to challenge it, we have no standing as individuals to do so.


8 posted on 02/01/2011 10:27:59 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

“Are you joking?, You’re joking right?” - US Speaker of the House, January, 2010


9 posted on 02/01/2011 10:29:56 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
"How often do we get "laws of the land" status on bills that nobody even read?"

Since the bill's current standing in Federal Court is un-Constitutional, they can't really call it "the law" anyway. Not until it's resolved in higher Courts in Obama's favor can it be called "law". And I doubt that's going to happen.

10 posted on 02/01/2011 10:33:00 AM PST by jiminycricket000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

Correct. In this way, our politicians may be a little more cautious if there name is attached to something that violates the Constitution. Allow all new laws to go before a commission to determined whether it follows the Constitution before it becomes law.


11 posted on 02/01/2011 10:35:29 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Fine. Start calling it an unconstitutional law.


12 posted on 02/01/2011 10:36:00 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Fine. Start calling it an unconstitutional law. “
_____________________________________________________

Exactly. Opportunity here, when they call it a “law” will be followed immediately by its full name, “unconstituional, void law”. Fact. Exposure is so delicious.


13 posted on 02/01/2011 10:39:29 AM PST by RitaOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RC2

I know it’s silly on it’s face because that’s what congress was sworn to do.........but they are doing something else to this country and they don’t kiss you first.


14 posted on 02/01/2011 10:43:40 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

if this law stands then the constitution is null and void.
“Progressives”, or as I like to call them communists, scoff at the constitution. Pelosi is shocked when someone brings it up. These people need to be out of OUR government and move somewhere and start their own little communist country they can rule.


15 posted on 02/01/2011 10:44:51 AM PST by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
Several times I got very drunk and found women to be attractive.

When I sobered up, I did not still call them attractive.

16 posted on 02/01/2011 10:46:33 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


17 posted on 02/01/2011 10:47:14 AM PST by syriacus (ObamaCare: Helping millions through HURTING millions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

Any member of Congress that puts a law forth and doesn’t check to see if it is Constitutional first, should be fired for not doing the job he/she was sent to Washington to do. If they want to pass a law, pass one like this.


18 posted on 02/01/2011 10:53:59 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RC2
So following that obvious line of logic, how can they possibly vote on a bill they never read or studied? The underpinnings of anything produced by our US legislature is by technical fact, unknown and suspect.

They just throw social engineering at us, masked with a warm and fuzzy title, let it become part of our fabric knowing it is unconstitutional yet hoping they bought off enough in it's scope and mandate that we can't get the horse back in the barn.

19 posted on 02/01/2011 10:59:26 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

It’s not a law I accept.


20 posted on 02/01/2011 11:34:02 AM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

For years I’ve been crying for any bill created by legislaure should go to the judicial branch for a sign-off because way too much legislation becomes “accepted” as law before it ever gets a challenge. Even if we get to challenge it, we have no standing as individuals to do so.

This is one of the very few things that the French got right.
New laws go before the Constitutional Court for review before the President signs them into law.


21 posted on 02/01/2011 11:37:01 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

““We found out that people are stuck in ‘slob-lock,’ where they remain married to someone they aren’t crazy about because the marriage provides them health insurance benefits,” Sorian said with a laugh. “That’s a good one — people can relate to that.”

That’s exactly the quote that jumped out at me. They should hold hearings and invite people in this situation to testify. The premise is that the person with health benefits (most would regard that person as the “responsible” partner) is the SLOB and the person freeloading on their hard-earned benefits (even while ridiculing them behind their back) is the VICTIM. One might think that most spouses in that situation would be quite grateful to be married to a partner with health benefits.

It’s hard to imagine anyone volunteering to explain their slob-lock “plight” to Congress. But it surprises me not at all that progressives would see the world this way.


22 posted on 02/01/2011 11:54:23 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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