http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322 - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322

Looks like this is going to immediately become a major tenth amendment case.

Someone I know over on another site brought up an interesting point- the Democrats having been using the 'interstate commerce' clause to claim constitutional authority in this. If an individual decides simply not to purchase health coverage, they cannot by definition be engaging in commerce, interstate or otherwise.

While I support the notion of universal healthcare, I have serious misgivings about the U.S. federal government claiming the constitutional authority to impose this mandatory coverage as well as penalties for failure to comply. Some states already have their own state health coverage laws, and this seems like the federal congress is well outside its authority to mandate this. The legal challenges are going to be very interesting to watch.

The requirement that everyone pay in to the approved plans increases the cost for many people who are adequately covered. That additional cost is used to fund the inevitable healthcare payouts for those who are now included and whose coverage would have previously been denied. It's a tax by another name. Notice that the mechanism for enforcement of this law will be fines levied on one's federal taxes, resulting in charges of felony tax evasion. If coverage were not made mandatory, few people would choose to pay in to this more expensive system, and it would be a cash loss for insurers.

The more I look at this the more it seems well outside the purview of the federal government. Essentially they lack the cojones to simply say  "We're going to set up a federal insurance plan available to anyone that will not deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, and we're going to directly fund it from federal taxes".

They still didn't get 100% coverage like the uneducated think. They got 30million more. The numbers vary but they may have gotten between around 89-93 percent or so. That last 10 percent or so is where the problem is really going to be. Those are the people who are really indigent. They are the ones who are unable to take care of themselves. Those are the ones with the severe medical issues. No coverage for them.

-------------
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.

 

And agreed, I find this bill unsettling. I hope the Supreme Court knocks it down.

I'm thinking ice floes. Who's with me?

 

 

Are you covered under a provincial healthcare plan?

Are you considered a legal permanent resident of the U.S?

 

But then again, I imagined too many conservatives to not allow Obama into office. Whatevs.

 

It is so good, FOR YOU... (not us, we are above garbage like that stuff we just wrote).

 

http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/ - http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/

... I can often be heard reflecting on  how messed up modern day living is, and how I'd like to run away, with out any one knowing, and go live amongst the forest.

 

 

Interesting...

 

so, this bill is full of back room deals, bribery, pork, shakedowns, and was written behind closed doors for the ENTIRE process. With ZERO republican input, and he is going to sign it today, when it was voted on less than 36 hours ago.

 

What a Liar.

 

I guess since it is only 1/5 of the economy, and 936 billion dollars it isn't big enough to do it according to his promises. No wonder the leader of the house and senate have approval ratings of 11% and 8%...

 

 

 

 

Well, if the public is dumb enough to elect people like this... Then we deserve what we get.

 

Welcome to the United nanny states of America. You will now be controlled by the government.

 

Where a democratic president and the democrat controlled house and senate passed legislation that the public was against?...

 

Well, I'm sure they passed over this in school, but here it is for you patriots that realize the man who ignores history is destined to repeat it.

 

And the liberals who have dumbed down our history should have learned that lesson.

 

 

In 1854 the democratic party did something similar. Shock and horror, it was to keep slaves. (oh, no wonder it was left out of the school books, don't want to point out democrats supported slave owners). 

 

but, they passed legislation under the guise of " /wiki/Popular_sovereignty - popular sovereignty "... Something that has been used by the Administration and media to force us into silence since "everyone is for health care reform". Except this isn't health care reform, it is a massive tax increase, spending over a trillion dollars that we don't have to pay for 6 years of service, in 10 years. Not including the money set aside in the budget, and the money in the stimulus, and the "doctor fix" soon to come. It will cost trillions, and lots of jobs will be lost.

 

And if you remember, that stroke of the pen started the first civil war...

 

http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/local/417276_abortion23.html - http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/local/417276_abortion23.html

 

That is a perfect example of government controlling children without parental consent.

 

In other words...

 

Some government group decided they would help 15 year olds kill a child, without notifying their parent or guardian.

 

Sounds like a death panel to me.

 

 

Remember, the government knows better than you...

1. Pick a controversial case that occurs in an entirely different level of government

2. Draw a nonsense, coincidental link between this case and a controversial piece of legislation that you personally disagree with, that has not yet taken effect, and that you yourself have admitted is not in any way really attributable to the president after who you yourself name the law

3. Fail, gloriously and in public

4. ???

5. Profit

 

This bill is just a revenue generator for the government, under the guise that it will "help" get everyone "better" insurance.

 

What it does, is increase the governments power, by increasing taxes. Significantly increasing taxes, and hiring up to 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce this new tax base.

 

Companies will be spending THOUSANDS more because of this. (oh, that's just free ranting... it really isn't that bad...

 

oh wait.)

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html

 

 

 

And those companies can not afford this added tax burden during the worst recession of all time. (I'm joking since the stimulus was passed because of rhetoric like that)

 

 

THAT is what your media brothers are missing. The president promised to focus like a laser on jobs... And yet the only jobs being created are government jobs, which are funded by wacking the businesses with higher taxes.

 

 

Which means the businesses either raise prices (ammo just went up 20% again..., and what about gas prices?...) or they make less money.

 

Either way, the POOR lose, because they are the ones paying more for goods and services.

 

But, hey, at least if they are still alive in 4 years, then they can get some free healthcare...

 

 

 

 

 

It bothers me to no end the way the media ignores the huge increase in taxes and fines in this bill.

 

 

But, hey, it's easier to pretend that your hero is fixing stuff I guess. While ignoring all the economic indicators that prove it is getting worse by the day...

 

 

 

 

Yes, and it does. What is the current deficit?

 

Will that deficit grow or shrink in 20 years as a result of this bill?...

 

(Even a liberal mind (not you personally, I'm just speaking figuratively)  has to admit that once you add in the "doctor fix" and use the actual figures, instead of tying the cbo's reporting to just the bill, and not the income from the budget, and the stimulus and it STILL only pays for 6 years...)

 

 

This bill will force businesses to decrease costs... While all of their raw materials and transportation and energy costs including health care are going up...

 

 

 

So, what will they do?

 

Raise prices and slash jobs.

 

Everyone will pay more for everything (hmm, not a tax! right?) and less jobs...

 

Which means less revenue for the government.

 

It is all tied together, but I'm sure they covered that in your business classes.

 

 

 

 

 

icanrunontoo.

 

 

No problem, let me explain it in simpler terms.

 

When the government spends too much, they raise taxes, to increase revenue. Thinking that they will have more money.

 

But, what actually happens OVER TIME is that they end up getting less, so they have to raise taxes even more, because for some reason they never spend less, but always spend more.

 

Each time they raise taxes, jobs go away, and revenues end up going down.

 

 

 

When you lower taxes, revenues go up because there is a money shift.

 

Government has less of business money, and business reinvest and grow... Which will actually increase revenue.

 

See Reagan and his tax cuts and the affects they had on our economy.

 

Remember interest rates were 18% when he took office. You grew up reaping the benefits of his policies, all the while the liberal side of the isle was spending all they could while raising taxes, and look what happened...

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2522952320100325 - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2522952320100325