Who Will Do The Firing?

[Flanders]

It’s been a longtime coming and it still has to go the SCOTUS:

If the president wants to witness a refutation of his assertion that the survival of the Affordable Care Act is assured, come Thursday he should stroll the 13 blocks from his office to the nation’s second-most important court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There he can hear an argument involving yet another constitutional provision that evidently has escaped his notice. It is the origination clause, which says: “All bills for raising reveornue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”

XXXXX​

What will be argued on Thursday is that what was voted on — the ACA — was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not originate in the House, which later passed the ACA on another party-line vote.

Let the lawyers talk about the law. Us poor slobs want to talk about the myth of a non-political Supreme Court by looking at the politics involved in:

Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services :: Health Care Lawsuits

First, John Paul Stevens limited his “political considerations” to justices retiring:

John Paul Stevens says he thinks it's appropriate for Supreme Court justices to factor in political considerations when weighing a decision to retire.

April 21, 2014
Retired Justice Stevens lets the cat out of the bag on politicized Supreme Court
Thomas Lifson

Blog: Retired Justice Stevens lets the cat out of the bag on politicized Supreme Court​

Instead of High Court justices at the end of their careers let’s go back to the beginning.

Every judge is nominated to the federal bench for political reasons. Every liberal is put on the SCOTUS to uphold every law that threatens Roe v. Wade. Most have more than one political agenda. Sonia Sotomayor is there to uphold every aspect of affirmation action. Elena Kagan was put on the SCOTUS specifically to uphold the ACA. God only knows how many political agendas Ruth Ginsburg has going for her.

Rather than slip on the soft soap about liberal and conservative justices working together to uphold the Constitution think about their political agendas. Once you start thinking along those lines you will see that the conservative political agenda most often upholds the US Constitution, while the liberal political agenda most often tortures the US Constitution beyond recognition. Proof: Which side reads things into the Constitution that were never put there by the Framers? Example: The government dictating behavior cannot be found in the Constitution, yet social engineering justified by High Court decisions does just that. The ACA is no exception:

The ACA’s defenders say its tax is somehow not quite a tax because it is not primarily for raising revenue but for encouraging certain behavior (buying insurance). But the origination clause, a judicially enforceable limit on the taxing power, would be effectively erased from the Constitution if any tax with any regulatory — behavior-changing — purpose or effect were exempt from the clause.

Obamacare's doom
By George F. Will, Published: May 2

George F. Will: The next Affordable Care Act challenge - The Washington Post​

NOTE: Thank God that liberals seldom call for amendments to the Constitution. When they do get an Amendment like the XVI Amendment they read all kinds of crap into it. When they cannot get what they want without an amendment they get what they want through the courts.

In the Old Testament no man could enter the holiest of holy without risking his life. In Socialism government revenue is the holiest of holy.

I’ve often said that no Supreme Court will ever vote to deny, reduce, or eliminate government revenues. Overturning the ACA would prove me wrong.

In addition to government revenues, I believe that the Court’s only considerations in deciding Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will be purely political —— government jobs, the education industry, and Wall Street.

Government jobs

I do not know how many government jobs have been created by the ACA so far. I think the IRS alone has hired thousands of new agents. According to Nancy Pelosi 400,000 jobs have been created with many millions more to come (four million is a lowball opener):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJKGWEkkE7E&feature=player _detailpage"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJKGWEkkE7E&feature=player _detailpage[/ame]​

No matter the number hired since March of 2010 every one of those people will have to be discharged if the ACA is overturned. Will the High Court do the firing? Will Republicans do it when they repeal HillaryCare II? The politics say no in both scenarios. That’s exactly why the Administration manipulated the number of unemployed so it currently reads 6.4 percent. Overturning the ACA will drive that number even higher than the true number of well over 10 percent.

The truth is: Driving parasites away from the public trough is a good thing for the country. It should have been done when the economy was booming. It wasn’t; so Democrats, and the media, are now in position to blame higher unemployment on conservatives, or the Supreme Court, for firing all of those wonderful parasites should the ACA be overturned or repealed. I can hear them saying “We brought unemployment down to 6 percent and those meanspirited conservatives ran it up to 15 percent.” Blaming conservatives for high unemployment is a variation of Bill Clinton taking credit for the good economy that was forced on him by Newt Gingrich and technology.

The education industry

The fear of firing parasites from government jobs is compounded in the education industry in that higher education relies on a substantial number of their graduates going to government jobs. The reason for higher education subsidies falls apart when there are no government jobs to go to. In short: The ACA is supposed to provide millions of college graduates with high paying jobs in the years ahead. The education industry, more than any other herd of parasites, will take the biggest hit if the ACA is overturned or repealed.

NOTE: There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to be involved in education on any level. The Common Core disgrace is reason enough to get the federal government out of education.

Wall Street

HillaryCare I & HillaryCare II were designed to enrich the insurance industry. Bailing out the healthcare insurance industry with income tax dollars allows the government to bailout Wall Street’s absentee owners in perpetuity. Here’s how it will work:

For some reason, President Obama hasn’t talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation. Indeed, it’s bad enough that Obamacare is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00 (that’s $1.071 trillion) over the next decade (2014 to 2023) from American taxpayers, through Washington, to health insurance companies. It’s even worse that Obamacare is trying to coerce Americans into buying those same insurers’ product (although there are escape routes). It’s almost unbelievable that it will also subsidize those same insurers’ losses.

But that’s exactly what it will do—unless Republicans take action. As Laszewski explains, Obamacare contains a “Reinsurance Program that caps big claim costs for insurers (individual plans only).” He writes that “in 2014, 80% of individual costs between $45,000 and $250,000 are paid by the government [read: by taxpayers], for example.”

Bailing Out Health Insurers and Helping Obamacare
8:01 AM, Jan 13, 2014 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

Bailing Out Health Insurers and Helping Obamacare | The Weekly Standard​

In brief: Healthcare insurance industry stocks traded on Wall Street will be called too big to fail; hence, insurance industry bailouts will be used prop up the stock market forever while patient care deteriorates to Third World levels.

 

[Flanders]

Once again Democrats show themselves to be lying sneaks:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X-oK7K8DU4Y]One Federal Job Lost To Sequester Special Report All Star - YouTube[/ame]​

Americans should not be fooled over the obvious humor the sequestration scare tactic unleashed. When it comes to firing everybody hired for the Affordable Care Act the media will make the Democrats look like saints. When it comes to actually firing people the media will side with the Democrats just as they always do on government shutdowns.

The sequestration lies should warn Republicans of the importance Democrats place on being seen as job creators. That’s why talk show Democrats never distinguish between government jobs and private sector jobs. Conservatives and Republicans should prepare for the inevitable with an immediate all-out campaign to inform the public that repealing the ACA includes firing all of the people that were put on government payrolls since March of 2010. (See Pelosi’s numbers in the OP.) Waiting until the debate about repeal begins would be a gift to the Democrats.

NOTE: I believe the public will applaud firing everyone connected to the ACA just as they applauded when Ronald Reagan fired all of those air traffic controllers.

Incidentally, the media bombards the public with numbers about everything except how many government jobs have been created for HillaryCare II to date.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Them's a lot o' words, Cletus! Where'd ya git em?

 

[Flanders]

Them's a lot o' words, Cletus! Where'd ya git em?

To LoneLaugher: Here’s a few more for you. Bob Unruh’s piece is an update of Sissel-v.-U.S.-Department-of-Health-and-Human-Services. (See OP.) This excerpt gives another reason to repeal the XVII Amendment:

. . . at the 1787 convention, George Mason explained why the Senate was not allowed to raise taxes.

“The Senate did not represent the people, but the states in their political character. It was improper therefore that it should tax the people … Again, the Senate is not like the H. of Representatives chosen frequently and obliged to return frequently among the people. They are chosen by the Sts for 6 years, will probably settle themselves at the seat of Govt. will pursue schemes for their aggrandizement – will be able by weary[ing] out the H. of Reps. and taking advantage of their impatience at the close of a long session, to extort measures for that purpose.”

U.S. senators originally were selected by state legislatures, not a direct vote of the people. The law was changed by the 17th Amendment in 1913.

Attorneys: Constitution silver bullet for Obamacare
Appellate ruling expected to be elevated to Supreme Court docket
Published: 16 hours ago
by Bob Unruh

Attorneys: Constitution silver bullet for Obamacare​

I doubt if George Mason could envision long-serving senators working for their own agenda rather than pursuing schemes for aggrandizing their states. Nor could he ever imagine the US Senate turning into a nest of traitors determined to abandon the sovereignty won in the WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE.

 

[LoneLaugher]

A little knowledge is a useless thing, bro. What are you leaving out?

 

[Flanders]

I wish they would stop bull-shitting the troops:

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled against a challenge to Obamacare’s individual mandate based on the origination clause of the Constitution.

XXXXX​

In a unanimous ruling in Tuesday’s case, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the D.C. Circuit panel held that since the individual mandate’s purpose was to require people to buy health insurance, not to raise revenue, the law did not need to comply with the origination clause.

JOHN ROBERTS IN COSTUME​

The entire Kabuki dance is being performed to make the public think wise judges engage in debates about this or that law. That’s pure bullcrap.

I’ve often said that no Supreme Court will ever vote to deny, reduce, or eliminate government revenues. Overturning the ACA would prove me wrong.

In addition to government revenues, I believe that the Court’s only considerations in deciding Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will be purely political —— government jobs, the education industry, and Wall Street.

XXXXX​

HillaryCare I & HillaryCare II were designed to enrich the insurance industry. Bailing out the healthcare insurance industry with income tax dollars allows the government to bailout Wall Street’s absentee owners in perpetuity.

Assuming it will go to the Supreme Court, just once I would like the Nifty Nine stop finding ways to enrich the federal government and Wall Street and square the ACA with individual liberties.

In a unanimous ruling in Tuesday’s case, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the D.C. Circuit panel held that since the individual mandate’s purpose was to require people to buy health insurance, not to raise revenue, the law did not need to comply with the origination clause.

XXXXX​

Thus, one of the largest tax increases in our nation’s history (an estimated $4 billion in only 2016) was not a revenue bill because any revenue is “a byproduct of the Affordable Care Act’s primary aim to induce participation in health insurance plans.”

It Wasn’t a Tax Before It Was a Tax: Court Upholds Obamacare Individual Mandate
Elizabeth Slattery / July 30, 2014

Court Upholds Obamacare Individual Mandate​

 

[Flanders]

No matter the number hired since March of 2010 every one of those people will have to be discharged if the ACA is overturned. Will the High Court do the firing? Will Republicans do it when they repeal HillaryCare II? The politics say no in both scenarios. That’s exactly why the Administration manipulated the number of unemployed so it currently reads 6.4 percent. Overturning the ACA will drive that number even higher than the true number of well over 10 percent.

Do you smell a dead rat here?:

The U.S. economy added 209,000 jobs in July, continuing a strong stretch that represents the nation’s best job creation streak since the late 1990s.

XXXXX​

Construction added 22,000 jobs in July, while the manufacturing sector showed growth of 28,000 jobs, including 12,000 in the auto sector.

US economy gains 209K jobs
By Vicki Needham - 08/01/14 08:37 AM EDT

US economy gains 209K jobs | TheHill​

That’s 50,000 private sector jobs. I’ll wager that the other 159,000 jobs are parasite tax dollar jobs; most likely created by the Affordable Care Act.

 

[BobPlumb]

The Donald!

[ame=http://youtu.be/75SEy1qu71I]Donald Trump "You're Fired" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Flanders]

Wall Street

HillaryCare I & HillaryCare II were designed to enrich the insurance industry. Bailing out the healthcare insurance industry with income tax dollars allows the government to bailout Wall Street’s absentee owners in perpetuity. Here’s how it will work:

For some reason, President Obama hasn’t talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation. Indeed, it’s bad enough that Obamacare is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00 (that’s $1.071 trillion) over the next decade (2014 to 2023) from American taxpayers, through Washington, to health insurance companies. It’s even worse that Obamacare is trying to coerce Americans into buying those same insurers’ product (although there are escape routes). It’s almost unbelievable that it will also subsidize those same insurers’ losses.

But that’s exactly what it will do—unless Republicans take action. As Laszewski explains, Obamacare contains a “Reinsurance Program that caps big claim costs for insurers (individual plans only).” He writes that “in 2014, 80% of individual costs between $45,000 and $250,000 are paid by the government [read: by taxpayers], for example.”

Bailing Out Health Insurers and Helping Obamacare
8:01 AM, Jan 13, 2014 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

Bailing Out Health Insurers and Helping Obamacare | The Weekly Standard​

In brief: Healthcare insurance industry stocks traded on Wall Street will be called too big to fail; hence, insurance industry bailouts will be used prop up the stock market forever while patient care deteriorates to Third World levels.

Talking heads have all but dropped any mention of the ACA. Even when it was the number one topic I cannot recall one MSM outlet mentioning the boon to Wall Street. Phyllis Schlafly’s voice is the only public voice I’ve heard that dares to broach the forbidden subject. It is a brief mention, but it is a lot more than you’ll hear on TV:

Officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare is neither affordable nor protective of patients. It promised subsidies for millions of Americans to buy new health insurance and to pay costly premiums that have driven insurance company stock values to record highs.

Stunning Setback to Obamacare
by Phyllis Schlafly
July 30, 2014

Stunning Setback to Obamacare​

The ACA is killing working Americans at the same time it enriches Wall Street’s absentee owners. Should Republicans find some backbone and repeal HillaryCare II the media will crucify them for firing all of those parasites who got government jobs created by the ACA. They will also take the blame for the stock market crashing. Not one media outlet will blame the crash on the worst piece of legislation ever passed.

 

[Flanders]

The fear of firing parasites from government jobs is compounded in the education industry in that higher education relies on a substantial number of their graduates going to government jobs. The reason for higher education subsidies falls apart when there are no government jobs to go to. In short: The ACA is supposed to provide millions of college graduates with high paying jobs in the years ahead. The education industry, more than any other herd of parasites, will take the biggest hit if the ACA is overturned or repealed.

Ted Cruz will do the firing.

Repealing the ACA is a sure thing. Ted Cruz promised he will rescind Taqiyya’s EOs, etc. on his first day in office. Add last night’s additions to the list and Ted Cruz is the only chance Americans have of turning this country around for the better.

All that changed tonight, however, when Ted Cruz called for the elimination of the Department of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Commerce, Department of Education, and the IRS. The liberal media will be focusing on the fact that he mentioned eliminating Commerce twice. I prefer to focus on the merits of what he has announced.

Ted Cruz proposes eliminating Energy, HUD, Commerce, Education, IRS

Ted Cruz proposes eliminating Energy, HUD, Commerce, Education, IRS​