Hr 3962 passes!

[The T]

I can't wait to hear all the liberal bitching when they go into work and their employers tell them, "Sorry, we cannot afford to pay health insurance anymore. We are going to opt to pay the 8% penalty because it is so much cheaper. We are dropping our health coverage as soon as this contract is up. Laying off 20% of you and everyone is going to have to take a 15% cut in pay. You are all on your own in regards to paying for you health insurance. You can thank Madam Nancy for this."

Immie

Right on target. And human nature being what it is? The Logical Conclusion to this travesty.

 

[VodkaIce]

Kitter's:

"NAZI" is an ideology as well, to which reflects EVIL in its greatest form.

Moreover, it represents SLAVERY and destruction in every form. The demise of cultures, intelligence as seen in the form of communication (e.g. media, books, etc), freedom to architect our destiny, freedom to choose our religion, freedom to choose who we marry or not, and much more.

It reflects the gestapo antics that PROMOTES FEAR and imposes ABSOLUTE TOLITARIAN (SP?) policies in every venue of our lives.

 

[Navy1960]

The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: "n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.

These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.

The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly. In the most recent Commerce Clause case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005) , the court ruled that Congress can even regulate the cultivation of marijuana for personal use so long as there is a rational basis to believe that such "activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not "regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity." Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any "activity," such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.

Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a "tax" rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus's (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an "excise tax" of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.

But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington D.C.-based attorneys, served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey: Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

I find the celebrations on this bill somewhat interesting and a little premature considering the many hurdles it has yet to overcome, one of which I named above. One other thing if all else fails, you can move to a state that will likely pass a law that will offset the mandates next year such as Arizona which has already placed a measure on it's 2010 ballot to do just that and has already passed the state house and senate. Another thing to consider and I will repeat it here is that vote as close as it was is not a good sign if your a supporter for this bill as it goes to the Senate.

Well written.

Thank you T, I mentioned something about whats going on here in Arizona, we had last year prop 101 which failed by 9000 votes which was similar to the new measure that passed the house and the senate. However the new measure is a little more narrow than prop 101 was and is much more likely to pass in large numbers here. I started a thread on it a little while back, but thought it might be worthy of discussion here.

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification | Tenth Amendment Center

 

[VodkaIce]

I took the time to glance at most of the remarks herein.

The destruction of the United States from being one of the most powerful nations, and now joining ranks with third world impoverish nations has been a well executed plan by the neo con's.

It was well orchestrated by the think tanks of the Rockefeller foundation. It's about greed and power.
The Rockefeller's are behind the International Banking power house. It finances every warring stance that the United States has engaged in. It is behind every IMF riots which has destroyed economies throughout the world, and includes the United States.

It is NOT the Islam's that we should FEAR. But the terrorist lies behind the Rockefeller foundation, the Bilderbergs, the CFR's, the Committee of 300 and now the Committee of 100, the Opus Dei, the Club of Rome, the Illuminati, and all are one and the same EVIL - promoting the Luciferian agenda - the infamous NEW WORLD ORDER.

 

[The T]

The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: "n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.

These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.

The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly. In the most recent Commerce Clause case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005) , the court ruled that Congress can even regulate the cultivation of marijuana for personal use so long as there is a rational basis to believe that such "activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."

But there are important limits. In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court invalidated the Gun Free School Zones Act because that law made it a crime simply to possess a gun near a school. It did not "regulate any economic activity and did not contain any requirement that the possession of a gun have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity." Of course, a health-care mandate would not regulate any "activity," such as employment or growing pot in the bathroom, at all. Simply being an American would trigger it.

Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a "tax" rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus's (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an "excise tax" of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.

But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.

This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.

Yet if that imperative is insufficient to prompt reconsideration of the mandate (and the approach to reform it supports), then the inevitable judicial challenges should. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to invalidate "regulatory" taxes. However, a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress's constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress's power to regulate individual Americans. The Supreme Court has never accepted such a proposition, and it is unlikely to accept it now, even in an area as important as health care.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington D.C.-based attorneys, served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey: Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

I find the celebrations on this bill somewhat interesting and a little premature considering the many hurdles it has yet to overcome, one of which I named above. One other thing if all else fails, you can move to a state that will likely pass a law that will offset the mandates next year such as Arizona which has already placed a measure on it's 2010 ballot to do just that and has already passed the state house and senate. Another thing to consider and I will repeat it here is that vote as close as it was is not a good sign if your a supporter for this bill as it goes to the Senate.

Well written.

Thank you T, I mentioned something about whats going on here in Arizona, we had last year prop 101 which failed by 9000 votes which was similar to the new measure that passed the house and the senate. However the new measure is a little more narrow than prop 101 was and is much more likely to pass in large numbers here. I started a thread on it a little while back, but thought it might be worthy of discussion here.

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

Way to go Arizona for using the TENTH AMENDMENT to usurp the FEDS.

I think measures like this would be forthcoming, and soon from many States.

And if this is forced by the FED? I think we very well may have another Civil-War- like confrontation at hand?

 

[manu1959]

ahhhhhhhhhhhh.....i am sure this will turn out as well as social security.....

so lets see we have a failed retirement program giving people a false sense of security.....which is why we now have 401ks and iras.....

we will soon have a failed health insurance program giving people a false sense of security.....we will soon have the health insurance equivelent of 401ks and iras....

next up socialized education.....giving people a false sense of security ....then we will soon have the education equivellent of 401k's and iras.....

see a trend here.....at the end of the day the government programs need to be suplemented by the private industry using tax incentives as the catalist.....

silly really....we should start with the fix and not bother creating the problem in the first place.....

and lastly....all this will really become is a place for congress to rob for their pet pork items same way the rob social security.....

gets off soap box and goes back to playing mafia wars..........

 

[Polk]

Yeah, because clearly some regulations on the insurance industry and some subsidies is the destruction of freedom. Hyperbole much?

What in hell does forcing everyone to become a customer of these supposedly evil insurance companies, or a defacto ward of the federal gubmint, have to do with regulating insurers??

Because without an individual mandate, bans on pre-existing conditions would result in no one buying coverage until they were already sick.

 

[Modbert]

It's amusing and yet disgusting to watch people like Thomas to act so gleefully at the possibility for a civil war. Conclusion: It's like watching the Saw Series.

 

[Polk]

It's amusing and yet disgusting to watch people like Thomas to act so gleefully at the possibility for a civil war. Conclusion: It's like watching the Saw Series.

Tommy is all talk. Hand him a gun and the most likely outcome is he'll blow his own foot off.

 

[Modbert]

Tommy is all talk. Hand him a gun and the most likely outcome is he'll blow his own foot off.

It's like a mix of Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd.

 

[Navy1960]

Well written.

Thank you T, I mentioned something about whats going on here in Arizona, we had last year prop 101 which failed by 9000 votes which was similar to the new measure that passed the house and the senate. However the new measure is a little more narrow than prop 101 was and is much more likely to pass in large numbers here. I started a thread on it a little while back, but thought it might be worthy of discussion here.

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

Way to go Arizona for using the TENTH AMENDMENT to usurp the FEDS.

I think measures like this would be forthcoming, and soon from many States.

And if this is forced by the FED? I think we very well may have another Civil-War- like confrontation at hand?

I personally think that measures like this will just lead to a long protracted court battle that will eventually be settled in the SCOTUS. As for anything that is remotly like a civil-war frankly I doubt it, but you may see Americans get to the point where the 2 party system may lose its grip on power, which I think is a good thing for this nation. Further I think that states that do have measure such as these may become attractive havens for business and people and what you will end up with is a nation of states that are "haves" and "have-nots" It has always been my opinion that beyond regulating inter-state commerce in healthcare, the prvoviding of healthcare by a Govt. entity is a STATE matter and is the sole decision of the voters of the individual states.

 

[The T]

Thank you T, I mentioned something about whats going on here in Arizona, we had last year prop 101 which failed by 9000 votes which was similar to the new measure that passed the house and the senate. However the new measure is a little more narrow than prop 101 was and is much more likely to pass in large numbers here. I started a thread on it a little while back, but thought it might be worthy of discussion here.

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

Way to go Arizona for using the TENTH AMENDMENT to usurp the FEDS.

I think measures like this would be forthcoming, and soon from many States.

And if this is forced by the FED? I think we very well may have another Civil-War- like confrontation at hand?

I personally think that measures like this will just lead to a long protracted court battle that will eventually be settled in the SCOTUS. As for anything that is remotly like a civil-war frankly I doubt it, but you may see Americans get to the point where the 2 party system may lose its grip on power, which I think is a good thing for this nation. Further I think that states that do have measure such as these may become attractive havens for business and people and what you will end up with is a nation of states that are "haves" and "have-nots" It has always been my opinion that beyond regulating inter-state commerce in healthcare, the prvoviding of healthcare by a Govt. entity is a STATE matter and is the sole decision of the voters of the individual states.

The entire Crux of the matter, and my point. Well stated again.

 

[VodkaIce]

I concur that a Civil Revolution is soon to evolve, but this too is indicated.

Though with scalar weaponry, I don't think a WIN for patriots is a shoe in.

 

[VodkaIce]

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

This would be a WIN, but FEDERAL LAW should this bill become as such supercedes State Laws.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

This would be a WIN, but FEDERAL LAW should this bill become as such supercedes State Laws.

Only so long as that federal law is in pursuance of the Constitution, which this healthcare reform is not.

 

[The T]

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

This would be a WIN, but FEDERAL LAW should this bill become as such supercedes State Laws.

Federal Law cannot portend to force a State to backtrack on it's own law. And if they try it, the FED has a fight on their hands.

 

[The T]

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

This would be a WIN, but FEDERAL LAW should this bill become as such supercedes State Laws.

Only so long as that federal law is in pursuance of the Constitution, which this healthcare reform is not.

True. And that fight hasn't happened...YET.

 

[Liability]

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

This would be a WIN, but FEDERAL LAW should this bill become as such supercedes State Laws.

Only so long as that federal law is in pursuance of the Constitution, which this healthcare reform is not.

Well said. And, by the way, for those who doubt it:

Federalism is Constitutional!

 

[Navy1960]

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

This would be a WIN, but FEDERAL LAW should this bill become as such supercedes State Laws.

Real ID as the Blueprint?

While some constitutional experts are skeptical of the effect that such legislation could have, supporters can point to the successful campaign to oppose the Real ID Act.

In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional. Well-over a dozen more states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID.

Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation not once, but twice, and additional states got on board with legally-binding legislation refusing Real ID implementation.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration, recognizing the insurmountable task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, announced that it was looking to “repeal and replace” the controversial law.

There is a presedent in this and many other state acts. not to mention this is a 10th Amendment issue as well.

"Congress has vast power but not all power. When Congress legislates in matters affecting the states, it may not treat these sovereign entities as mere prefectures or corporations. Congress must accord the states the esteem due them as joint participants in a federal system, one beginning with the premise of sovereignty in both the central government and the separate states. Congress has ample means to ensure compliance with valid federal laws, but it must respect the sovereignty of the states" Justice Kennedy

The battle for medical marijuana usage in California took a turn for the people recently when a US District Judge ruled that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars the federal government from targeting the enforcement of federal laws to intentionally subvert state medical marijuana laws.

California's landmark 1996 medical marijuana law has been upheld by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, thus denying a Bush administration request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials and the Wo/Mens Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) ,against them.
Court tells feds they violated the 10th Amendment while harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorties


In Printz v United States (1997), the Court again found that Congress had unconstitutionally intruded upon state sovereignty. The law in question in Printz was a provision of the Brady Act requiring chief law enforcement officers of states to run background checks on prospective hand gun purchasers. The Court rejected the federal government's argument that it could enlist states in enforcing federal law, even though it might be unconstitutional to require states to make law--the problem identified in New York v U. S.


Your talking about the Article VI sec 2, well the Arizona law does not violate that, because it allows residents to participate in the Federal program if they so choose.

 

[VodkaIce]

Backtracking and point to the revisions made by Bush Jr. regarding habeous corpus (sp?);

Revisit ..."A CONSTITUTION FOR THE NEWSTATES OF AMERICA, from the book, THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION by Rexford G. Tugwell, published 1974 (Harper & Row: $20.00) illustrates with chilling clarity the final objective of regional governance conspirators. The goal is a corporate state concentrating economic, political and social powers in the hands of a ruling elite. "A Constitution for the Newstates of America", is the fortieth version of this revolutionary document prepared by a team of social experimenters at the CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, Fund for the Republic (Ford Foundation), Post Office Box 4068, Santa Barbara, California 93103." ...

url: possibly eradicated by the gestapo, but might still exist ... didn't notate it ...


Not to mention the illegalities of Patriot Act ONE, TWO, AND THREE;

Not to mention Bush Jr. cover ups in rewriting Federal Laws to hinder prosecution thereto International Laws regarding the Illegal engagement of War against Iraq;

Let's not forget the IMF Riots.