ObamaCare Goes to Court: (3 judges panel rip Obama atty up)

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom

Originally posted by anon72
I find it very interesting how the MSM isn't covering this story.

You won't see a lot of negative press from the MSM on ObamaCare. Insurance companies wrote the bill, and they are major commercial sponsors of the MSM. CNN et. al. will not bite the hands that feed them.

It's being covered on The Factor with Bill O'Reilly.
They all say the same thing.
ObamaCare is going to the Supreme Court where it will be found to be unconstitutional.
------------------------------
It should be repealed today. That would remove uncertainty.

This entire issue, at least to me, was never about healthcare.. To me, it is about whether or not we are going to sit back allow the Federal Gevernment, regardless of which face is hanging on the White House wall, to create laws that force us, the taxpayers keeping the Federal Government running, to purchase a product--any product.

Some have argued that this already exists-- in the form of car insurance. However, we aren't forced to buy a car.

Further, I often wonder if people think things all the way through. What happens when the government mandates that in order for your mandatory health insurance to not lapse, you must receive X amount of vaccines yearly? Including all the vaccines that haven't been developed yet?

What happens when the Federal Government mandates that, in order to cut down on healthcare fraud, everyone receiving medical care must have a RFID chip?

What people seem to forget, and I am hoping judges remember, is that once this goes into affect, the government can pass any and all restrictions and requirements -- all in an effort to provide legitimate, universal healthcare for all? Any additional regulations will simply be added as a requirement for healthcare. And since nobody is exempt, except for all the waiver winners, it gives the perfect medium to further erode our privacy.

Not to mention that this will also allow future legislation to be passed mandating other purchases. We are setting a precedent and people are getting distracted by "what's in it for me?" instead of "where can this possibly lead?".

The Patriot Act is probably the best example of why it's a bad idea to allow government huge amounts of power and leeway. Look at how many freedoms we have lost in order to protect ourselves from terrorists. How many more are we going to lose protecting us from insurance companies?

reply to post by lpowell0627


I think the issue is the - size and scope - of the U.S. Government.
-----------------------
George Soros and Obama want the U.S. Government to grow the economy NOT the private
sector.
Sarah Palin wants the private sector to create jobs and grow the economy.

What's going to happen is that the "individual mandate" will be dropped from ObamaCare. That part doesn't really matter, and never had a real chance at existing in the first place. This whole dog and pony show is just to get people to swallow it in the end (take it up the end?). Then we all pay for it anyway with our tax "contributions", whether we use it, or want it, or not.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
What's going to happen is that the "individual mandate" will be dropped from ObamaCare. That part doesn't really matter, and never had a real chance at existing in the first place. This whole dog and pony show is just to get people to swallow it in the end (take it up the end?). Then we all pay for it anyway with our tax "contributions", whether we use it, or want it, or not.

/TOA

Oops! That won't work.
The "individual mandate" provides the funding for the ObamaCare 3,000 page monster.
No funding = no bill
ObamaCare is going away completely. Good riddance!
--------------------------
When it's gone then certainty will return to the Fortune 500 corporations.

reply to post by anon72


Have you seen the rates? They are straight out of a science fiction movie. Non insurance insurance (which only kicks in after you have spent 15,000. in one year) is 150. a month. up to 895./month for what used to be a standard health insurance in the mid 1980s No co pay free Drs visits, you know what the taxpayer funded, slugs demand on 'our' dime.

If I were a stuntman these rates might be justified but I am not. I work a desk job,

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Actually is the insurance companies the ones that will not be happy without the mandate, because the mandate was their ticket to unlimited funds from tax payers and the government subsidies.

It was the insurance companies lawyers the one that wrote the bill and made sure that in order for them to agree with the health care reform the clause of mandatory had to be there.

I think this is what Obama wanted, call me crazy but when his original bill was striked down and the House came out with a different version of it, he actually knew that the mandatory clause is unconstitutional and that once the supreme court turn it down he can come around and push his original version of the bill, "universal healthcare".

reply to post by marg6043


Man, you are a crafty one. Excellent break down of a very plausable scenario.

I hadn't though about this before.

I will say though that WHEN ObamaCare gets rule BAD, he won't have a foot to stand on nor an ally within a 1000 miles. No one will back him up on ObamaCare 2, IMO.

But, these Democrate/Liberals/Socialist/Progressives are a bunch of interesting folks so I guess anything can happen.... again.

This really changes nothing considering the 'score':

2 judgments have found that PPACA violates the constitution
4 judgments have found that PPACA does not violate the constitution
6 cases are no longer active (lawsuit withdrawn by plaintiff or dismissed for procedural issues)
12 cases still pending initial decision or appealing a dismissal for procedural issues

Still constitutional by those numbers.

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
In this case, that's as it should be. Because everyone keeps forgetting this, I'm going to point out again that the Constitution spells out quite specifically what the federal government is allowed to do. What is not spelled out, it is not allowed to do. The states are a different matter.

In any event, the feds do not have the constitutional power to make "personal responsibility parrots" or anyone else engage in an activity they do not want to engage in--whether it's good for them or not. Never mind everything else. If it's not spelled out, they aren't allowed to do it.

I would say that this is the "thin end of the wedge," except that it's not. The federal government (and I point to the Executive in particular) wants to be able not only to control this activity, but any other activity that they decide--constitutionally, legally, or not--that they want to control.

In summary: It's not a question of whether it's good for you or not. They have not been granted that power....

This right here says it all in a nutshell here. Great post, I wish I had written it.

They indicated it would be the end of the summer before a ruling-if any. Sucks.

Going to be a long hot summer in the city.

I wonder what will happen between now and then...... politically.

Very interesting.....