U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare

Which will only give them a reason, IF (big if) this is over turned to come back with a single payer plan and force us to pay taxes in order to receive health benefits... {shivers}

Immie

That's a given Immie. Obama is on record that he wants a single payer system and he told his loyal constiuents well before the election that it would have to be done incrementally. So, the healthcare boondoggle that just passed which nobody, including Obama, believes will do a damn thing to improve overall healthcare or make it more affordable, is the first step. When it doesn't work as they know it won't, that is their license to move to the next phase eventually arriving at a single payer system.

The insurance companies have been bought off for now, but unless we elect enough conservatives to Congress to turn this around, all private insurance providers will be toast within the next four or five years. And some bureaucrat in Washington DC will be deciding what healthcare you and your loved ones will be allowed which will effectively shut down any serious or organized dissent lest those same bureaucrats retaliate against you and/or your loved ones.

This is a scary scenario any way you look at it.

Four or five years might be a little optimistic. Candidate Obama said within twenty years. I think he's ahead of schedule, but I don't think four or five years is realistic.

Immie

He is the one who has to make it happen though. So looking again to Thomas Sowell who has been ringing the alarm bells re President Obama's agenda for more than two years now, what happens during immigration reform? If they can pull that off in the same manner they passed healthcare, we acquire 12 to 20 million new voters beholden to the President and current leadership. That could be enough to prevent the GOP from regaining control of Congress and could ensure President Obama's re-election. With six more years to use with a willing Congress at his disposal. . . .
 
That's a given Immie. Obama is on record that he wants a single payer system and he told his loyal constiuents well before the election that it would have to be done incrementally. So, the healthcare boondoggle that just passed which nobody, including Obama, believes will do a damn thing to improve overall healthcare or make it more affordable, is the first step. When it doesn't work as they know it won't, that is their license to move to the next phase eventually arriving at a single payer system.

The insurance companies have been bought off for now, but unless we elect enough conservatives to Congress to turn this around, all private insurance providers will be toast within the next four or five years. And some bureaucrat in Washington DC will be deciding what healthcare you and your loved ones will be allowed which will effectively shut down any serious or organized dissent lest those same bureaucrats retaliate against you and/or your loved ones.

This is a scary scenario any way you look at it.

Four or five years might be a little optimistic. Candidate Obama said within twenty years. I think he's ahead of schedule, but I don't think four or five years is realistic.

Immie

He is the one who has to make it happen though. So looking again to Thomas Sowell who has been ringing the alarm bells re President Obama's agenda for more than two years now, what happens during immigration reform? If they can pull that off in the same manner they passed healthcare, we acquire 12 to 20 million new voters beholden to the President and current leadership. That could be enough to prevent the GOP from regaining control of Congress and could ensure President Obama's re-election. With six more years to use with a willing Congress at his disposal. . . .

Hang on there a minute.

Immigration reform is not even in my top five priorities so I have not been paying as close of attention to it as maybe I should, but are you saying that reforming immigration means a) amnesty for illegals (which I have thought was their goal all along) AND b) adding those illegals to the voting roles?

If so, it is time to bump that BS up on my priority list.

Immie
 
Four or five years might be a little optimistic. Candidate Obama said within twenty years. I think he's ahead of schedule, but I don't think four or five years is realistic.

Immie

He is the one who has to make it happen though. So looking again to Thomas Sowell who has been ringing the alarm bells re President Obama's agenda for more than two years now, what happens during immigration reform? If they can pull that off in the same manner they passed healthcare, we acquire 12 to 20 million new voters beholden to the President and current leadership. That could be enough to prevent the GOP from regaining control of Congress and could ensure President Obama's re-election. With six more years to use with a willing Congress at his disposal. . . .

Hang on there a minute.

Immigration reform is not even in my top five priorities so I have not been paying as close of attention to it as maybe I should, but are you saying that reforming immigration means a) amnesty for illegals (which I have thought was their goal all along) AND b) adding those illegals to the voting roles?

If so, it is time to bump that BS up on my priority list.

Immie

Can you think of any reason why amnesty for many millions of illegals, AND a path to citizenship, would be a priority for a government other than to make good little Democrats out of them?

Here is an excerpt from Sowell's most recent column, and this man has spent a lifetime studying the dynamics of American society and politics from the beginning to the present. He is not given to any form of BS:

. . . .They say that, in politics, overnight is a lifetime. Just last month, it was said that the election of Scott Brown to the Senate from Massachusetts doomed the health care bill. Now some of the same people are saying that passing the health care bill will doom the administration and the Democrats' control of Congress. As an old song said, "It ain't necessarily so."

The voters will have had no experience with the actual, concrete effect of the government takeover of medical care at the time of either the 2010 Congressional elections or the 2012 Presidential elections. All they will have will be conflicting rhetoric — and you can depend on the mainstream media to go along with the rhetoric of those who passed this medical care bill.

The ruthless and corrupt way this bill was forced through Congress on a party-line vote, and in defiance of public opinion, provides a road map for how other "historic" changes can be imposed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

What will it matter if Obama's current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That can be enough to make him a two-term President, who can appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power.

When all these newly minted citizens are rounded up on election night by ethnic organization activists and labor union supporters of the administration, that may be enough to salvage the Democrats' control of Congress as well.

The last opportunity that current American citizens may have to determine who will control Congress may well be the election in November of this year. Off-year elections don't usually bring out as many voters as Presidential election years. But the 2010 election may be the last chance to halt the dismantling of America. It can be the point of no return.
Thomas Sowell
 
He is the one who has to make it happen though. So looking again to Thomas Sowell who has been ringing the alarm bells re President Obama's agenda for more than two years now, what happens during immigration reform? If they can pull that off in the same manner they passed healthcare, we acquire 12 to 20 million new voters beholden to the President and current leadership. That could be enough to prevent the GOP from regaining control of Congress and could ensure President Obama's re-election. With six more years to use with a willing Congress at his disposal. . . .

Hang on there a minute.

Immigration reform is not even in my top five priorities so I have not been paying as close of attention to it as maybe I should, but are you saying that reforming immigration means a) amnesty for illegals (which I have thought was their goal all along) AND b) adding those illegals to the voting roles?

If so, it is time to bump that BS up on my priority list.

Immie

Can you think of any reason why amnesty for many millions of illegals, AND a path to citizenship, would be a priority for a government other than to make good little Democrats out of them?

Here is an excerpt from Sowell's most recent column, and this man has spent a lifetime studying the dynamics of American society and politics from the beginning to the present. He is not given to any form of BS:

. . . .They say that, in politics, overnight is a lifetime. Just last month, it was said that the election of Scott Brown to the Senate from Massachusetts doomed the health care bill. Now some of the same people are saying that passing the health care bill will doom the administration and the Democrats' control of Congress. As an old song said, "It ain't necessarily so."

The voters will have had no experience with the actual, concrete effect of the government takeover of medical care at the time of either the 2010 Congressional elections or the 2012 Presidential elections. All they will have will be conflicting rhetoric — and you can depend on the mainstream media to go along with the rhetoric of those who passed this medical care bill.

The ruthless and corrupt way this bill was forced through Congress on a party-line vote, and in defiance of public opinion, provides a road map for how other "historic" changes can be imposed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

What will it matter if Obama's current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That can be enough to make him a two-term President, who can appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power.

When all these newly minted citizens are rounded up on election night by ethnic organization activists and labor union supporters of the administration, that may be enough to salvage the Democrats' control of Congress as well.

The last opportunity that current American citizens may have to determine who will control Congress may well be the election in November of this year. Off-year elections don't usually bring out as many voters as Presidential election years. But the 2010 election may be the last chance to halt the dismantling of America. It can be the point of no return.
Thomas Sowell

Of course, I can think of other reasons... compassion and the fact that Americans and Corporate America wants the cheap labor force are just two reasons.

Now, don't ask me if I think that the Obama Administration has any compassion or really cares about Corporate America except for the donations that come from Corporate America.

I didn't realize that voting rights for illegals was on the table here. That is troubling to me.

Immie
 
Of course, I can think of other reasons... compassion and the fact that Americans and Corporate America wants the cheap labor force are just two reasons.

Now, don't ask me if I think that the Obama Administration has any compassion or really cares about Corporate America except for the donations that come from Corporate America.

I didn't realize that voting rights for illegals was on the table here. That is troubling to me.

Immie

If they are made legal, that removes the 'cheap labor' from the equation. Corporate America will be required to pay the prevailing wage.

Compassion, perhaps, but when have you EVER seen politicians demonsrate compassion unless there was something in it for them?

They won't TELL you that voting rights are in the works, but there is absolutely no other reason to make illegal immigration a top priority at this time. And I'm pretty darn sure that it will quickly become the next high priority along with a fast track to citizenship. At the very least they keep the pro-amnesty camp securely in their back pockets.

Also, with his bogus expansion of oil drilling, I am convinced that Obama is setting the stage for the next round in the Cap & Trade battle.
 
Of course, I can think of other reasons... compassion and the fact that Americans and Corporate America wants the cheap labor force are just two reasons.

Now, don't ask me if I think that the Obama Administration has any compassion or really cares about Corporate America except for the donations that come from Corporate America.

I didn't realize that voting rights for illegals was on the table here. That is troubling to me.

Immie

If they are made legal, that removes the 'cheap labor' from the equation. Corporate America will be required to pay the prevailing wage.

Compassion, perhaps, but when have you EVER seen politicians demonsrate compassion unless there was something in it for them?

They won't TELL you that voting rights are in the works, but there is absolutely no other reason to make illegal immigration a top priority at this time. And I'm pretty darn sure that it will quickly become the next high priority along with a fast track to citizenship. At the very least they keep the pro-amnesty camp securely in their back pockets.

Also, with his bogus expansion of oil drilling, I am convinced that Obama is setting the stage for the next round in the Cap & Trade battle.

One bone of contention with your post.

Making illegals legal won't change the fact that they are willing to work for rock bottom wages so they will still be "cheap" labor. Maybe not quite as cheap as they are today, but still cheap.

Immie
 
Of course, I can think of other reasons... compassion and the fact that Americans and Corporate America wants the cheap labor force are just two reasons.

Now, don't ask me if I think that the Obama Administration has any compassion or really cares about Corporate America except for the donations that come from Corporate America.

I didn't realize that voting rights for illegals was on the table here. That is troubling to me.

Immie

If they are made legal, that removes the 'cheap labor' from the equation. Corporate America will be required to pay the prevailing wage.

Compassion, perhaps, but when have you EVER seen politicians demonsrate compassion unless there was something in it for them?

They won't TELL you that voting rights are in the works, but there is absolutely no other reason to make illegal immigration a top priority at this time. And I'm pretty darn sure that it will quickly become the next high priority along with a fast track to citizenship. At the very least they keep the pro-amnesty camp securely in their back pockets.

Also, with his bogus expansion of oil drilling, I am convinced that Obama is setting the stage for the next round in the Cap & Trade battle.

One bone of contention with your post.

Making illegals legal won't change the fact that they are willing to work for rock bottom wages so they will still be "cheap" labor. Maybe not quite as cheap as they are today, but still cheap.

Immie

But many employers using illegal labor now are not paying FICA, SUTA, FUTA taxes or work comp premiums for wages paid under the table. Once these people are legal, it will be much more difficult for employers to avoid those expenses.

Also being eyeball to eyeball with many illegals over the years convinces me that these are not ignorant or unintelligent people. They keep their mouths shut now to avoid deportation. Once they are legal, they won't be so willing to be exploited as illegals.

And, once they are legal, it's a simple administrative action to bring them all under Obamacare too. And I think that is why Obama, Pelosi et al didn't put up any fight at all when that issue came up. They know full well that saying illegals won't be eligible for universal healthcare is a gimmick that won't mean a thing once they make all the illegals legal.

Watch in the politics section for a new thread I intend to start to explore the illegal immigration issue.

Edit: The link is here so that we don't further hijack this thread with illegal immigration:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...migration-the-next-great-national-debate.html
 
Last edited:
Yea...sure they will

Just like they struck down Roe vs Wade, Social Security and Medicare


Roe v Wade is was a SCOTUS Decision.

Both Social Security and Medicare are Federally taxed and Federally funded programs.

The Health Care Insurance reform is an unfunded mandate that infringes on an area that has been regulated by states forever and that mandates private citizens to purchase products from private companies.

Beyond that, it is also a creator of deficites of a magnitude that we have never seen before. The expense will be like that if we were at total war for the remainder of our existance as a republic.

Putting the morality of this aside, it's both illegal and ill conceived. If the government wants to have a government health care system, then initiate one. That is not what this monstrocity does and not what it is intended to do.

It is the stimulus without the top end limits on spending.
 
Of course, I can think of other reasons... compassion and the fact that Americans and Corporate America wants the cheap labor force are just two reasons.

Now, don't ask me if I think that the Obama Administration has any compassion or really cares about Corporate America except for the donations that come from Corporate America.

I didn't realize that voting rights for illegals was on the table here. That is troubling to me.

Immie

If they are made legal, that removes the 'cheap labor' from the equation. Corporate America will be required to pay the prevailing wage.

Compassion, perhaps, but when have you EVER seen politicians demonsrate compassion unless there was something in it for them?

They won't TELL you that voting rights are in the works, but there is absolutely no other reason to make illegal immigration a top priority at this time. And I'm pretty darn sure that it will quickly become the next high priority along with a fast track to citizenship. At the very least they keep the pro-amnesty camp securely in their back pockets.

Also, with his bogus expansion of oil drilling, I am convinced that Obama is setting the stage for the next round in the Cap & Trade battle.

Is the why Reagan was involved with amnesty for illegals: to make good little Republicans? Of course it was.
 
Yea...sure they will

Just like they struck down Roe vs Wade, Social Security and Medicare

Well if Obamacare turns out as well as SS and Medicare, we should be, uh, totally screwed.
This year SS will pay out more than it brought in:
Uh-Oh -- Social Security Fund to Pay Out More Than It Receives in 2010 -- Politics Daily

And here is Medicare:
The cost of Medicare is a good place to begin. At its start, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.

The Medicare Monster - Reason Magazine

I just can't see that when confronted with facts, the left simply ignores them and continues to bang the drum Obama tells them to bang.
 
Of course, I can think of other reasons... compassion and the fact that Americans and Corporate America wants the cheap labor force are just two reasons.

Now, don't ask me if I think that the Obama Administration has any compassion or really cares about Corporate America except for the donations that come from Corporate America.

I didn't realize that voting rights for illegals was on the table here. That is troubling to me.

Immie

If they are made legal, that removes the 'cheap labor' from the equation. Corporate America will be required to pay the prevailing wage.

Compassion, perhaps, but when have you EVER seen politicians demonsrate compassion unless there was something in it for them?

They won't TELL you that voting rights are in the works, but there is absolutely no other reason to make illegal immigration a top priority at this time. And I'm pretty darn sure that it will quickly become the next high priority along with a fast track to citizenship. At the very least they keep the pro-amnesty camp securely in their back pockets.

Also, with his bogus expansion of oil drilling, I am convinced that Obama is setting the stage for the next round in the Cap & Trade battle.

Is that why Reagan was involved with amnesty for illegals: to make good little Republicans? Of course it was.
To add to this, this is absolutely true.
 
Until now.

One big step for Democrats; on giant step towards the elimination of individual freedoms.

Immie

And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

I believe the way this particular bill is constructed it is unworkable and unsustainable, but set that aside for the moment.

Regarding mandates in general enforced as a tax on income not to exceed a certain amount, how in your opinion is this unconstitutional? What language, clause or precedent limits the Federal government's power to tax income in a manner that would bar this method of enforcement?

1. First it has been argued that the commerce clause can be used to regulate commerce but not to compel individual citizens to ENGAGE in commerce, especially with "government controlled" INSURANCE which is not paying for services received but paying for a plan that someone may not want or use. Right now, people have the freedom not to purchase insurance until they deem they need it; but this bill would require paying for a plan whether or not it is needed or used, under the same IRS penalties as not paying taxes. [Note: It has also been argued that the authority to impose or regulate mandatory car insurance belongs with the state, not federal government, and the same applies to health insurance. Given the disparity in immigrant populations and welfare fraud, the states with a greater burden of law enforcement in these areas should be able to pursue alternative reforms in funding of health services such as by financial restitution for drug and human trafficking, or corporate corruption for which taxpayers are owed billions of dollars.]

2. The religious exemption clause is restricted to members of a nonprofit 501(c)(3) that has been in existence since 1999 and whose members share medical expenses because of their religious beliefs. This is discriminating on the basis of religion, and does not protect all citizens equally who may believe in other options (such as funding teaching hospitals that serve vets or immigrants or other neglected populations not adequately covered yet). The federal government cannot be in the business of defining "whose religion" qualifies for exemption by such narrow terms that not all people could apply freely. NOTE: this same argument can also be made with conscientious objectors to war, the death penalty, immigration or marriage laws, or other policies that infringe on dissenting religious beliefs.

3. The Code of Ethics for government service (see http://www.houstonprogressive.org) calls for federal officials to "seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished." The most cost-effective means of providing universal health care to more people is by adding spiritual healing to psychiatric and medical treatments, which has been shown to reduce or prevent the need for more expensive procedures, and even healing the cause of addictions or disease that otherwise result in dependence on longterm medications. However, the methods of spiritual healing and recovery are all voluntary and cannot be mandated or regulated by federal government. So by mandating federal funding of health care, either the ethical requirement of cost-effective procedures OR the federal protection of religious freedom must be sacrificed. The only way to meet BOTH requirements of religious freedom and cost-effective programs is by voluntary participation and funding.

In general, as I posted elsewhere, I find it contradictory that the same parties that oppose penalties or criminalization of the choice of "abortion" would instead criminalize or penalize the choice of "alternatives to health insurance." How can religious freedom to choose abortion be protected, and not freedom to opt out of health insurance?

This argument would prove that the parties supporting this bill are doing so for political gain or favor instead of upholding Constitutional equal protections for all people and interests that are supposed to be represented. See again the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, by which federal officials cannot put "private promises" or "loyalty to party" above public service and upholding Constitutional laws and regulations of the US and all governments therein. ethics-commission.net

This bill can only be enforced constitutionally by "voluntary compliance" and cannot be mandated against consent of citizens affected without violating the Code of Ethics.
 
Last edited:
Newsmax, right.

I have less problem with him using Newsmax than I do with him quoting such a total political hack like Lanny Davis. Napolitano, a former judge, used sound legal reasoning based on his understanding of the Constitution with regard to both federal and state powers. Davis is no constitutional lawyer and his answers are influenced by whatever he thinks most favors his own ultra liberal agenda - NEVER by the actual intent behind any part of the Constitution.
 
frazzled, Napolitano is a far right jurist, bordering on if not mired in libertarian philosophy. In that sense, he is no more relevant than some of the far left libs.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top