This always makes me chuckle in a sick feeling sort of way. It's like the cereal boxes when you were a kid saying "Prize inside!"
Apparently, we just got cat crap in ours.
Bill requires 80% payout in claims from health insurance providers. Daughter in law works for one whose payout now @ 67%, Results she expect her company to fold up and go out of business.
Mark my words.
George Washington himself is going to rise from the grave; go to the White House; and kick Obama out the front door leaving a boot mark on his butt that won’t go away in our lifetime.
We should be so lucky. Whether he's working or retired, we taxpayers are on the hook for this crook's health insurance till he meets his maker. And you can be sure he will hold on to his federal blue cross or whatever as his supplement to medicare until then.
“The loud minority made a lot of noise,” Reid said. “Everybody acknowledges, with rare exception, that what we did with our immediate deliverables was terrific.”
Question- right now we do not have health care, are we now under obligation to get health care from the government? I mean when is this suppose to take place? Having IRS involved has to unconstitutional. Here in Ky and Ohio there are so many people unemployed many have degrees and can’t find a job. My husband has been applying everywhere for over a year now, we simply can’t afford to buy health care. Any savings we had are now gone and we do pretty good on meds. and the doc. gives discounts if we pay as we go. I am just not sure what is expected now and how that is going to have an effect on out tax return.
From the article:”House Democrats changed it in reconciliation.”
So how did this go through reconciliation? Another example of the unconstitutionality of this POS legislation.
I REFUSE TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS.
============================================
No wonder Ohaha's trying to shut us up. Tea partiers, conservatives, all us "right wingers" are the only ones smart enough to know the intricate details of the scam Ohaha, Pelosi and Reid pulled off.
The degradation of our govt by these people is astounding. Is it too much to hope that when the rest of the citizenry find out what really happened, they will rise up and demand these people get out of our govt?
==============================
CLOSEUP OF THE OHAHA ATROCITY Any federal version of health care is unconstitutional since Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not specifically list health care as a power granted to Congress. Not only are the citizenry not bound to comply with any unconstitutional act but we have the responsibility to uphold the Constitution against a tyrannical, runaway government.
REFERENCE The Constitution is the limiting document upon the feds; the federal government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the federal servant cannot become greater than its master........the states.
.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, Andrew P. Napolitano healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" (a legal term) 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 states—to 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 states—and through them the people—a 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 amendments—and 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 ...
Related Stories:
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
“Some cash-strapped states expect this new definition to spawn court challenges, which will ultimately force them to pay exorbitantly high prices to doctors and hospitals for their existing patients.”
Good thing the states are in such good financial shape that they’ll be able to handle this no problem! /massive sarc