Obama agents: Let's leak dilluted information before trial starts, so it won't look like we hid an

reply to post by OnTheFelt


My goodness, so it's a youtube video so it can't be true.

You sir, are an idiot if that's your basis for denying this information.


Gee, are you going to come to my house, slap me with your gloves and challenge me to a duel? "SIR! I challenge you to pistols at twenty paces".
Believe whatever you like! YouTube youself to death for all I care!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Let me say this about jurisdiction, the original House bill (not the Senate bill that was passed into law with the extra deals included) was written by The Committee on Energy and Commerce

That link outlines their jurisdiction, take careful note of number 2.

2. Health and health facilities (except health care supported by payroll deductions).

reply to post by Ahabstar


Thanks for that, but I have some questions. I was not able to read the original bill not passed and have only managed to read about a quarter of the one that has been passed in a linear fashion, but have sort skipped around with it, as is often the case when dealing with a tautological nature of legislation, so I am by no means an expert on the Bill itself, other than it seems to me relatively certain, that Congress has no authority to force people to buy insurance policies. My questions are these, did the original bill stay within that jurisdiction? What is meant by health care supported by payroll?

There seems to be a long line of American Jurisprudence that holds the doctrine of informed consent is a fundamental right of people, even if this committee does have jurisdiction over health, does this mean they can dictate how we handle our health care? The doctrine of informed consent has been used to refuse medical treatment, and the SCOTUS has upheld this even if such refusal meant certain death. So, if this committee has jurisdiction over health, does that mean they have jurisdiction over my health?