Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care      Home login  
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 636 the trick of bailout money Page 42 of 46    (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
Must see interview. Spitzer is an a typical liberal trying to vilify some one who wants to get the countries sh!t together.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 637
view profile
History the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/13/2010 10:21:58 PM
^^^^I haven't read any of the states' briefs on this, but I think the 10th Am. figures in some of them. Unfortunately, O'Connor (a pretty mediocre justice) may have been the one who was the most interested in it. She sort of revived it in the early '90's.

The government's arguing that forcing people to buy government-approved health insurance, on penalty of a tax or even prison time, falls within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

But if Congress has the power to make people buy certain goods and services, it also must have the power to make someone provide those goods and services--how else could those things be available to buy?

And if Congress can specify who buys and who produces one good or service, then it can do the same for others. In fact, it can then do that for all goods and services in the whole economy.

To authorize that though, would be nothing short of using the Commerce Clause to authorize a planned, centralized, Soviet-style economy. And if that isn't fundamentally unconstitutional, what the he!! was the Cold War about? And what the he!! would *any* limits in the Constitution mean any longer?
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 638 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/15/2010 8:39:44 AM
111 Obamacare Waivers And Counting – Can The Rest Of Us Get Waivers From Having To Comply With Obamacare Please?

The Economic Collapse
Nov 15, 2010

In a stunning admission of just how job-killing and business-crushing the new health care law really is, the Obama administration has issued a staggering total of 111 Obamacare waivers (and counting) so far. The list of the dozens of companies and organizations that have been approved for a waiver is very, very deeply buried on the website of the Department of Health & Human Services. In fact, it takes six separate clicks to get to the list. Some of the companies that have been granted waivers include McDonald’s, Darden Restaurants (owners of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurant chains), Aetna, the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund in New York, and Dish Network. These Obamacare waivers cover a total of 1.2 million Americans. However, as news of these waivers spreads, it is inevitable that thousands more companies will want to apply. In the end, tens of millions of Americans may be covered by health plans that have been exempted from Obamacare. So can the rest of us get in on this action or is the Obama administration going to play favorites with these waivers?

So far, the Obamacare waivers have primarily been granted to companies that offer very limited health plans. The Obama administration has apparently been afraid of the public relations nightmare that would result if dozens of companies suddenly started dropping health coverage for their employees. The following is how the New York Times recently described what is going on with these waivers….

Last month, federal officials granted dozens of one-year waivers that were aimed at sparing certain employers, including McDonald’s, insurers and unions who offer plans that sharply limit the coverage they provide. These limited-benefit plans, also known as “minimeds,” fail to comply with new rules phasing out limits on how much policies will provide in medical care each year.

So do you want to get an Obamacare waiver for your own company? Well, just over a week ago the Department of Health & Human Services published a set of new guidelines for those seeking to apply for a waiver. As news of these waivers starts to spread they will likely get absolutely swamped with applications, so you better get yours in early. In fact, it is being reported that the number of approved applications has tripled in just the last month alone.

But these waivers raise some very important questions.

-If Obamacare is such a great law, shouldn’t it apply equally to everybody?

-If Obamacare is going to cause firms to drop their “mini-med” health plans, shouldn’t all firms with “mini-med” plans be given a blanket exemption?

-Are all firms that apply for an Obamacare exemption going to be given one or will the Obama administration be playing favorites?

-Won’t firms that are granted these Obamacare waivers be given a very substantial competitive advantage over other firms in the same industry that do not have an exemption?

-What does it say about an administration when they grant dozens upon dozens of exemptions from a law that they spent months upon months selling to the American people as the ultimate solution to our health care problems?

The truth is that the U.S. health care system was deeply broken before Obamacare, and after the new health care law the U.S. health care system is still deeply broken.

Before Obamacare, the U.S. health care system was all about making as much money as possible for health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. After Obamacare, the U.S. health care system is still about making as much money as possible for health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry, only now we all have to deal with more suffocating layers of government bureaucracy and much higher health insurance premiums.

The entire health care system in the United States should be dismantled and built again from scratch. It was a complete and total nightmare before Obamacare and it is still a complete and total nightmare.

But perhaps you disagree. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and if you have a different perspective feel free to express it
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 639
view profile
History the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/15/2010 10:31:26 AM
^^^^I expect that law will either be repealed by Congress in 2013, or struck down by the Court. I don't know how any part of it can work, unless we all can be forced to buy government-approved medical insurance.

And that mandate, which is right at the heart of this law, relies completely on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The federal judge who authorized the state suits against this law said the government can't claim that Congress can't impose a tax penalty for not complying with the mandate under its constitutional authority to tax.

The Court has said the Commerce Clause gives Congress power to engage in three general types of regulation (i.e. by passing federal laws):
1. It can regulate the channels of interstate commerce {e.g. a highway that crosses state lines);
2. it can regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce (e.g. semi trucks, telephones), and persons and things in that commerce (e.g. passengers, freight); and
3. it can regulate activities that *substantially affect* interstate commerce.

It's this third area that's involved here. The Court held in 1942 that a federal law regulating agricultural prices could prevent a farmer from keeping part of his wheat crop for his own use. Why? Because even though that farmer's action was local, and not commerce, it was part of a "class of economic activities" which had a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

The Court said that when it was reasonable for Congress to decide that the "total incidence" of that kind of individual practice threatened a national market, it could regulate the entire class. Congress could control what one farmer did locally, because if many of them did the same kind of thing, it would affect interstate commerce in wheat.

In 2005, in another Commerce Clause case, the Court applied almost the same reasoning to hold that federal law could reach and prohibit even local, individual cultivation of marijuana for medical use.

There's interstate commerce in medical insurance policies, just as there is in wheat or marijuana. But the same reasoning wouldn't fit here. In those cases, it was the thing the people themselves were doing which--if everybody did it--could affect interstate commerce.

What the health care law prohibits, though, is NOT buying insurance. It's not that you'd be growing something to consume yourself, so that if many people did that, it would have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce in the thing you were growing. The persons engaging in the commercial activity would be the insurance companies selling policies, and the people buying them.

And yet the law would not penalize those companies or those buyers, but the people who *failed* to buy their policies. They'd be penalized with a tax or even jail time for doing absolutely nothing. If that doesn't unconstitutionally deprive people of property or liberty without due process of law, I don't know what ever could.

I can't see the Court upholding that mandate. That would be going way beyond even its most radical Commerce Clause decisions, like the two I mentioned. It would literally be authorizing a Soviet-style planned economy, which would make a lot--if not most--of the Constitution meaningless.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 640
view profile
History the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/15/2010 4:01:53 PM
^^^^^It wouldn't surprise me if they managed to dodge it until Congress can repeal it. When it's jumped in to do what Congress was about to do anyway, it's usually been to add its voice to the chorus. For example, the Court held in the early 1960's, on 13th Amendment grounds, that renters and sellers of housing couldn't discriminate against blacks--when it knew Congress was about to do the same thing by passing the Civil Rights Act.

Once we had a Republican president, so a veto was no longer a concern, you'd only need to get a few Democrats for a majority vote in the Senate. The House vote will already be a lock. The law is such a labyrinth that almost no one knows exactly what all 2,800 pages of it say. So I think the best thing might be a simple repealer act:

A. "The _________(Health Care) Act of 2009 is repealed in its entirety.

B. No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear any challenge to section A. of this article."

If money had already been allocated for parts of it, other short laws could require whatever had not been spent to be returned to the Treasury. Other laws might dissolve whatever agencies and positions had been created to administer this program, or the funds to run them could just be cut off.

The idea behind the second part would be to prevent all sorts of suits designed to keep the thing alive. Congress probably couldn't remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over this, but it could certainly remove it from all the lower federal courts. And the Supreme Court would no more want to contest Congress's power to repeal such an unpopular law, than it wants to decide that law before Congress can repeal it.
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 641 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/15/2010 7:02:43 PM
You guys hate black people. Haters. I mean why would you want a waiver, especially after Krugman called for death panels as a means of solving our national deficit on This Week with Christine Ammanpour. Birthers!!!

Now ask yourself who had it more correctly, the Tea Party, or the Leftards? Clearly any sapient human could see a law we had to pass to know what was in it was probably a bad idea.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 642 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/30/2010 11:00:44 AM
Obamacare waivers given to 117 businesses, but few know where to apply for it
• November 15th, 2010 9:41 am ET
Do you like this story?
The Obama administration has given waivers for the new Healthcare program to 117 corporations and entities so far, but few know where the application is to apply for it. On the Health and Human Services (HHS) website, it takes clicking through six pages of information and misdirection to find the waiver application, and also to see a list of approved businesses who have opted out.
Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of November 1, 2010. (Click on the link to go to the page with waiver applications and approved lists)

Unfortunately, to receive a waiver it appears you must have political capital with the administration to be accepted. For most small businesses, you will be incurring the new taxes, fees, and programs that will add thousands to your bottom line, and in more than a few cases, might cause a small business to close their doors.
In March, AT&T reported from an internal study that the new Healthcare program will cost their company over $1 Billion in new and additional costs. We do not know at this time if they have applied for a waiver from HHS, but they are not on the approved list as of November 1st.
Looking at the list, you will notice that unions are one of the largest entities given a waiver, and speaks to the political gifts given by the Administration to them. The Obama Presidency has proven their partnership with unions since 2008 to the detriment of small business.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 643 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 11/30/2010 3:06:01 PM
From Congressman Wally Herger
House Republicans Show Support for ObamaCare Lawsuit
In the ongoing efforts to repeal and replace ObamaCare, I wanted to let you know that I recently joined more than 60 other members of the House of Representatives in filing an amicus brief in the case of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the most prominent of several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care overhaul. Amicus or “friend of the court” briefs offer an opportunity for third parties to present their perspective on a case before the court issues a ruling. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 5424, the main legislation in the House to repeal Obama Care and replace it with solutions that will bring down costs, increase competition, and keep Washington out of your doctor’s office. The bill offers a definitive course of action to those who believe that government health care will hurt our nation. However, we must pursue any and all options to eliminate this devastating law before it irreparably harms the American economy and way of life.
I believe that one of the most significant problems with ObamaCare is that imposing a mandate requiring all Americans to purchase government approved health insurance is unconstitutional. This brief argues this very point and states that this mandate is so central to the structure of the health care law that the entire law must be struck down because of the mandates’ unconstitutional nature. Additionally, 33 members of the U.S. Senate, led by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, filed a similar brief. I believe Florida v. HHS represents a rare opportunity to begin restoring our nation’s founding principles of federalism and a national government with limited powers, and I hope the courts will carefully consider these arguments.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 644 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 12/8/2010 8:07:40 AM
Click here to see the full list.

Obama Administration Quietly Grants More Health Care Waivers

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

The Obama Administration has quietly granted even more waivers to one provision of the new federal health reform law, doubling the number in just the last three weeks to a new total of 222.

One of the more recognizable business names included on the newly-expanded list of waivers issued by the feds is that of Waffle House, which received a waiver on November 23 for health coverage that covers 3,947 enrollees.

Another familiar name was that of Universal Orlando, which runs a variety of very popular resorts in the Orlando, Florida area. Universal was given a waiver for plans that cover 668 workers.

These waivers deal with limited health benefit plans, sometimes referred to as “mini-med” policies, which companies as large as McDonald’s use for some its employees.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 645
view profile
History the trick of bailout money
Posted: 12/13/2010 1:03:50 PM
^^^^^I'm going to try to read the decision today. But there are a couple good things about all this. First, it goes to the 4th Circuit next, which is generally about the most conservative of all the appeals court circuits and has some very impressive conservative justices. Second, Justice Kennedy, who's the swing vote, has shown strong signs in several decisions that he now leans toward the four conservatives. His vote, with theirs, would be enough to strike down the health care law. That makes it less important whether Ms. Kagan recuses herself, as she should, but probably won't. She proved in her confirmation hearings how little character she has--she's Obama's trusty rubber stamp.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 646
view profile
History the trick of bailout money
Posted: 12/13/2010 5:50:12 PM
In March, a number of states challenged the health care law. She was Solicitor General at the time. She may not have directly worked on this matter, in the sense of drafting a brief, etc. But it's awfully hard to imagine that she wasn't closely involved in giving the administration legal advice on handling the challenge, or didn't express her opinion on its merits.

Maybe it's just that after watching her weasel and fib her way through the charade the Senate confirmation process has become, and knowing the trendy way she fawned over shariah when she was Dean of Yale Law School, I don't have much respect for her. I'd like her to convince me I'm wrong by showing, just once, that she has the character of, oh, say, Robert Bork--whose legal and personal qualifications to sit on the Court made hers look puny. She is Obama's lapdog.

BTW, I should clear up a point. It's possible the 4th Circuit won't hear the appeal from this. The Supreme Court could decide to take the case directly.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 647 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 12/14/2010 7:57:45 AM
Interesting new take on what doctors are saying about this law.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 648 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 12/17/2010 7:34:43 AM
Omnibus Bill’s defeat is a big blow to ObamaCare … here’s why.
By kenhoma

Obama and Reid almost got away with it.

At the last minute – in the lamest of lame duck session – Reid tried to push through a $1.1 trillion Federal budget.

The public uproar centered on the process (more backroom dealing), the magnitude (another $1 trillion), and the earmarks (over 6,000 and more than $8 billion).

Yep, it was a stick in the eyes of voters … I think Reid liked that.

But, Reid had to pull the bill last nite … accepting that he didn’t have the votes to pass it.

Interesting, because most of the uproar was just a distraction.

Bottom line, the budget that finally gets passed next year will be right around $1 trillion … you can make bank on that.

And, it’ll contain tons of wasteful spending … it’ll just be harder to find since it won’t be tagged “earmarks”.

So what’s the big deal ?

In my opinion, the omnibus bill was just a Trojan Horse.

Inside it was more than $1 billion funding for ObamaCare … to continue building the enforcement infrastructure.

There’s no way that the newbies arriving in DC will build that into the budget. Many have declared that “defunding” ObamaCare is one of their top priorities.

That’s why Obama didn’t step forward and tell Reid to stop the foolishness re: spending and earmarks.

He couldn’t … he was getting the biggest earmark of them all.

Losing that, coupled with the states’ legal fight over the constitutionality of ObamaCare … 2011 will be a challenging year for ObamaCare as it’s supporters fight for $$$ and try to convince the courts that’ it’s legal.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 649 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 1/24/2011 10:11:40 PM
Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement
Monday, January 24, 2011
By Fred Lucas

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) rests her arm on an autographed copy of the health care law legislation. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

( – Three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received temporary waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.

The three SEIU chapters include the Local 25 in Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

The waivers allow health insurance plans to limit how much they will spend on a policy holder’s medical coverage for a given year. Under the new health care law, however, such annual limits are phased out by the year 2014. (Under HHS regulations, annual limits can be no less than $750,000 for 2011, no less than $1.25 million in 2012 and no less than $2 million in 2013.)

The SEIU, with more than 2 million members nationally, includes health care workers, janitors, security guards, and state and local government workers.

The three SEIU locals, covering a total of 36,064 enrollees, are covered by the federal waivers, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS gave a waiver to Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees on Oct. 1, 2010; to Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees on Oct. 10, 2010; and to the SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees on Nov. 15, 2010.

So far, the Obama administration has issued waivers to 222 entities, including businesses, unions and charitable organizations. Of that total, 45 were labor organizations.

A total of 1,507,418 enrollees are now included in the waivers. More than one-third -- 512,315 – of the enrollees affected were insured by union health plans.

SEIU Local 1199’s health plan put a $50,000 cap on medical expenses for its New Jersey nursing home workers, according to 1199 SEIU spokeswoman Leah Gonzalez. That’s $700,000 under the 2011 limit stipulated by HHS regulations.

In September, HHS announced it would grant waivers to employers to prevent some workers from losing their benefits if the insurer could not meet new health care law’s requirements on annual limits. The waivers are granted by HHS if the department determines “compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums,” according to a Sept. 3 memo by Steve L. Larson, director of the HHS Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.

Local 1199, SEIU's Greater New York Benefit Fund, requested the waiver specifically with respect to its separate plan for New Jersey members, according to Gonzalez. This waiver primarily affects low-wage New Jersey nursing home workers whose health care plan provides medical, hospital, prescription, dental and vision benefits.

The New Jersey members now have an annual maximum health care benefit of $50,000. Gonzalez said fewer than 1 percent of members have ever reached that cap, and that those members who did received additional help.

“The members’ health benefits are paid for by the employer and are negotiated through collective bargaining,” Gonzalez said in a written statement to “Several years ago, facing limited dollars from the employers for this small group, the members themselves chose how to shape their health plan to get the most out of their coverage.”

Gonzalez added that prescriptions are excluded from the cap. “For example, if a member maxes out from a hospital stay, she/he can continue to get their life-saving medications throughout the year while accessing alternative coverage at low-cost community clinics.”

Neither SEIU Local 25 nor Local 1, nor the national organization responded to’s request for comment.

The SEIU's Committee on Political Education made $27,829,845.91 in independent expenditures on Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. SEIU-affiliated groups in Illinois have long supported Obama’s campaigns and endorsed him for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in 2004. In 2008, the national union backed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 650 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 1/31/2011 3:21:00 PM
A Federal District Court judge today apparently landed a body blow to Obamacare. It will be interesting to see whether the constitution is the law of the land or this tin-pot Manchurian candidate, grifter and that pack of leftist mediocrities can undo a great nation. Aside from that one should be able to see the signs of faulty law by who receives waivers. Our friends at Powerline are ahead of the curve once again....

In this post, I described Obamacare as a uniquely vicious form of corruption. Harsh words? Definitely, but I think justified:

[T]he vicious strategy at the heart of Obamacare [is to] pass terrible legislation, and then collect a toll by exempting your friends--those who pay you lots of money--from that legislation, while your enemies have to live with it.

Dr. Milton Wolf expands on this idea in the Washington Times:

If you would like to know what the White House really thinks of Obamacare, there's an easy way. Look past its press releases. Ignore its promises. Forget its talking points. Instead, simply witness for yourself the outrageous way the White House protects its best friends from Obamacare.

Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.

[N]one of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama's campaign efforts. That's what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. ...

Backroom deals and cover-ups may be business as usual for Washington, but understanding why the Obama administration protects its friends from Obamacare offers special insight into what the purveyors of the mandate themselves think about their own law. This is key: The waivers aren't meant to protect victims from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. ...

In short, the administration has decided that you will face increased health insurance premiums, but special friends in the unions will not. Look closely, and you'll see not only the White House's duplicity but also what the Obama administration really thinks of its crown jewel, Obamacare.

Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 651 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 1/31/2011 7:15:55 PM
I LOVE IT--------------
In ruling against the health care law, the judge used President Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him:

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that DID NOT include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Using President Obama’s own words in the ruling that finds the ruling unconstitutional-----PRICELESS…………..
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 652
view profile
History the trick of bailout money
Posted: 1/31/2011 8:39:26 PM
^^^^^Agreed, and thanks, Judge Vinson. From what I can find out, the two Commerce Clause cases the government is citing as authority are Wickard v. Filburn, from 1942, and Raich v. Gonzalez, the 2005 marijuana case.

A couple big differences, though. In Wickard, the Court said the farmer couldn't keep part of his wheat crop for his livestock, because if everyone could do that the *cumulative* effect on interstate commerce in wheat (and therefore prices) would be substantial. So Congress had authority to prohibit that.

But the farmer was *already growing wheat.* It's one thing to uphold a New Deal agricultural law which made him put his whole crop on the market, instead of just part of it. But it's something else again to require people who *do NOT already have health insurance* to buy policies--especially when a lot of them would rather not.

Raich says that Congress can regulate any activity (here, growing six marijuana plants for local use) which has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, and is an essential part of a larger scheme of regulating economic activity.

The Court said that even though the plants never travelled interstate, using them locally had a substantial effect on interstate commerce in marijuana. And it was that commerce, that multi-billion dollar economic activity, which Congress meant to control with the Controlled Substances Act--the "larger regulatory scheme" in this case.

Justice Thomas, dissenting, noted that the majority defined "economic activity" as the "production, distribution, and consumption of commodities." He said this was so broad it must mean that Congress:

"may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance . . . that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 653 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 2/6/2011 8:38:21 AM
South Dakota looks to pass law to mandate gun ownership to prove a point

* February 1st, 2011 2:44 pm ET

When five lawmakers in the state of South Dakota introduced legislation recently to mandate anyone over the age of 21 must purchase a firearm, the point wasn't about guns.

It was about the hypocrisy of forcing someone to purchase anything they did not want to.

In an article yesterday by the Argus Leader, a bill on gun buying that is circulating around the South Dakota legislature was created to counter forced healthcare, and show the hypocrisy of mandating forced purchases under the commerce clause.

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

This is an interesting way actually, for states and legislatures to counter government involvement in commerce outside their Constitutional jurisdiction. By having this law either pass or fail, and then if it does pass become negated by legal ruling, it sets a precedence in court on current or future mandates on citizens of the US.

Contrary to propaganda, the Constitution and the government do not owe citizens anything. They are to ensure to the best of their ability the opportunity to achieve something, or in this case buy something. But forced purchasing of a product or service is unlawful by every stretch of our Constitution.

People have choices, and they make choices everyday. They can choose to work, or they can choose not to. They can choose to get married, and they can choose to divorce. They can also choose to buy that 52'' big screen television, or they can choose instead to buy health insurance. There are always consequences to our choices, but in a free society, at least they have a choice.

Imagine if a state like South Dakota was able to force anti-gun believing citizens to have to purchase a firearm? Now imagine what a large part of America feels about being forced to pay taxes for a healthcare system they don't want either.

Continue reading on South Dakota looks to pass law to mandate gun ownership to prove a point - National Finance Examiner |
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 654 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 2/17/2011 8:09:10 AM
IRS to spend $93 million to ‘promote compliance’ with ObamaCare

Pajamas Media/The Tatler
Feb 16, 2011

The Tatler has learned that Obamacare government auditing of American society has begun at the Internal Revenue Service.

New details about the IRS budget were released this afternoon by Senator John Barrasso (who also is an MD). Quoting from the IRS budget document, he reveals that for the IRS, ObamaCare “represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years, with more than 40 provisions that amend the tax laws.”

More than $93 million has been budgeted by the IRS to assure that the public complies with the new tax rules. Among other new IRS activities, the agency will spend $11.5 million to promote compliance by tanning salon owners who will be asked to impose a new 10% excise tax on their customers. Originally the tax was supposed to be on those who offered cosmetic surgery, but their upscale customers defeated the tax and shifted it to those who own storefront tanning beds.

The IRS will not only audit Americans, they intend to be helpful too. They are requesting more than $34 million for something called “information reporting,” $15 million for a call center to help confused citizens to deal with the new Obamacare tax laws, and $22 million to “assist taxpayers in understanding new provisions.”

In a Tatler interview with Senator Barrasso, he called the IRS budget “irresponsible” and that it “empowers the IRS to begin to audit Americans’ health care.”

He also told the Tatler, “Adding hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars to the IRS isn’t going to make care better or more available for anyone. I will continue to fight to repeal and replace Obamacare with patient centered reforms that help the private sector – not the IRS – create more jobs.”
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 655 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 2/17/2011 11:55:14 PM
I have a novel idea, how about the feds cut 300 billion out of the budget. There wouldn't be a shortfall if they stop spending money we don't have. Oh what the hell let get another 5100 IRS agents, the debt is already out of control, why not finish it off so we can bring on the collapse and restart this ****.

hope you're stocking up on canned foods
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 656
view profile
History the trick of bailout money
Posted: 2/20/2011 1:31:32 AM
There is no future here, only a long drying out of the facts.

The USA (feds) are buried in red ink, and inflation is now showing in food, gas and other commidities. But the states and cities are in debt up to there A**. The USA as a whole is being held capative by public unions, and corrupt politicians.

Things are not changing with government workers retiring with 80 to 120% of full pay with less than 30 years service. But wait this includes full medical and dental.

My father was blue collar and stood on lines to defend the rights of workers, but would be ashmed of what they are asking for by todays standards. In fact I would not want to be associated with the government workers of today. They are self serving greedy and don't put in a good days work.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 657 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 2/22/2011 10:15:54 PM

Would have been a great idea if you would have thought of it 10 years ago while the Republicans were on a spending binge.

I was pissed at them also, prescription drug bill(pandering), defense contractors(pandering) Dems and Repubs are different sides of the same coin. Choose a program from either side and both of them will find the money for it, no matter if we can afford it or if it works or not.

They are all incompetent at best, but that would give them to much credit. They are in the business of selling out all of the Americans people for their next vote and power, that is where their expertise is and the masses buy it hook line and sinker. I have yet to find one government program that actually benefits the people, but gives no power to the government over our lives.

Let just go ahead and bankrupt the whole thing and then you can have the IMF and the UN come in a straighten it out, ROTFLMAO.
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 658 the trick of bailout money
Posted: 2/25/2011 1:56:22 PM
Kinda veered off the health care thing here a bit.
But if you don't see the writing on the wall?

Thinking my earlier post about letting it all go down had nothing to do with either repubs or dems. They are both taking a long drive off a short pier and we are the ones stuck in the trunk.
As for my earlier statement:
Let just go ahead and bankrupt the whole thing and then you can have the IMF and the UN come in a straighten it out.
This was not a joke, just ask Greece, Ireland and all of the countries that have had their monetary policy taken over by the IMF.
The fight you are talking about won't be the same kind of fight I am talking about when it happens.

The IMF has been screaming for a couple years now to remove the dollar as the world reserve currency.

Thursday 10 February 2011
IMF boss calls for global currency

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, thinks a new world currency would calm economic instability and curb the dollar's power

IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn thinks the fund's Special Drawing Rights could be used as a global currency. Photograph: Larry Downing/REUTERS

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has called for a new world currency that would challenge the dominance of the dollar and help curb future financial instability.

In a speech in Washington, Strauss-Kahn argued that the reserves that member countries held with the fund could be used, instead of the dollar, to price international trade. These so-called special drawing rights (SDRs) could also act as an alternative to the dollar in central banks' foreign currency reserves.

"Using the SDR to price global trade and denominate financial assets would provide a buffer from exchange rate volatility," he said, while "issuing SDR-denominated bonds could create a potentially new class of reserve assets".

The IMF published a policy paper backing Strauss-Kahn's views as it gathered top-level economists for discussions on the future of the international monetary system.

Friday, February 25, 2011

The banksters are making it known. You’re going to be a pauper. The mega-bank Citigroup has trotted out its prime economist to send the message.

“China should overtake the US to become the largest economy in the world by 2020, then be overtaken by India by 2050,” said Willem Buiter, chief economist. He also sat on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.

In order to accomplish this, the banksters will whipsaw the global economy. “Expect booms and busts. Occasionally, there will be growth disasters, driven by poor policy, conflicts, or natural disasters,” warned the economist.

It has little to do with the weather. Central banksters create monetary inflation and credit expansion and thus engineer artificial booms and inevitably busts that work like a sledgehammer on humanity.

“Just as the boom builds outward from banks to the rest of the economy, with banks benefitting the most, the bust collapses inward to banks from the rest of the economy, with banks suffering the most,” writes Jeffrey M. Herbener. “Now the balance sheets of fractional-reserve banks, swollen with loans and checkable deposits during the boom, suddenly collapse. Or rather, the value of their loans collapses initially, as the projects they lent to turn out to be unprofitable, leaving them with negative net worth…. The monetary inflation and credit expansion of the boom are now reversed in the bust.”

Buiter and Citigroup have created a neat little index to explain all of this. It’s called the “3G index” to measure economic progress – or progress as gauged by banksters. “Using that index the nations to watch over the coming years are Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Mongolia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam,” reports CNBC.

“They are our 3G countries,” Buiter boasted.

It is no mistake they are third world hellholes ruled by authoritarian dictatorships.

Banks and transnational corporations love place like Vietnam where slave laborers work seven days a week for six cents an hour. In Bangladesh, factory workers earn about $38 US per month. Indonesia factory workers make about $2 per day. In the Philippines, sweatshop workers earn less than half of the cost of living. In China’s electronics factories, run like military dictatorships, the suicide rate among workers is staggering. Drones work 15-hour days for $50 per month.

Egypt just underwent a revolution, in large part precipitated by high unemployment and poverty. It was shamelessly exploited by AT&T, Google, Facebook, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and MTV. Google exec Wael Ghonim was designated as an impromptu leader of the revolt by the corporate media.

The third world slave labor hellhole model is what the banksters and their soulless corporations have in mind for the entire planet. Revolutions and rebellions in response to intolerable conditions – half the world, over 3 billion people, live on less than $2.50 a day – will henceforth be micromanaged by financial elitists and turned into harmless (for the elite) televised entertainment super events that do nothing to address the needs of billions of people.

China and India overtaking the United States as the economic dynamos of the future is no mistake. It has nothing to do with hurricanes or mudslides.

Globalism demands a prison planet ruled over ruthlessly by a small hereditary elite. In a few short years, the American people will suffer like the factory workers of China’s sprawling electronics factories and Vietnam’s garment shops run by Nike and Adidas.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 659
view profile
History the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 4:57:37 PM
^^^^I think our government SHOULD MAKE people do what's good for them. So many Americans--especially in flyover country--are so ignorant! They just don't have a clue. And forget about all that constitution stuff those dumb, Faux News-watching Palinites are always spouting off about. I mean, hellooo?--this is 2011! We can't afford to let an old outmoded piece of paper written by some dead white male slave owners stand in the way, when we already know what's good and right and fair. Go Barry and Michelle--just do it!!
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 660
view profile
History the trick of bailout money
Posted: 5/11/2011 10:37:59 PM
^^^^^As I understand it, the government is using two Commerce Clause cases as authority for the idea it can force people to buy health insurance: Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzalez v. Raich (2005). I won't lay out the arguments for and against here, but I don't think the reasoning in Wickard would cut much ice here. But Raich sort of bothers me, if this goes to the Supreme Court.

Raich was the case where a disabled California woman had six marijuana plants. A friend tended to them, and she made various potions out of the pot. This was OK under California law. The issue was whether Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce was adequate authority for applying a federal law, the Controlled Substances Act, to prohibit what Raich was doing.

None of the marijuana involved ever moved out of California. But activities within a state, even if they're not economic, come within the reach of the Commerce Clause if they have a substantial indirect effect on interstate commerce.

The Court watchers were really anxious to see how this turned out, because it raised an interesting question. Would the conservatives on the Court side with California out of support for federalism and a desire to limit the reach of the Commerce Clause; or would they favor federal control of marijuana out of concern for discouraging drug use?

What surprised a lot of them was how unwilling Justice Scalia seemed to limit the reach of the Commerce Clause. He voted with the majority, which found that growing and using medicinal marijuana had a substantial indirect effect on the huge interstate traffic in marijuana.

And because of that, Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce was a valid reason to apply the CSA , trumping the California law that allowed Raich to grow and use the marijuana as medicine. IA lot of conservatives don't like the fact that Commerce Clause has been used since the late 1930's to extend federal control so far, at the expense of the states' independence. And Justice Thomas made that argument in his dissent in Raich.

Scalia seemed to say (although I should re-read it, because it's not easy to understand) that it's up to the people--and not the Court--to determine how far Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce extends. If that's right--and I think it is, from what I've heard other commenters say--could he take that same broad view toward the health care mandate?

No one knows, but I think the government likes what he said in Raich--and hopes he'd feel forcing people to buy health insurance is a legitimate use of the Commerce Clause. But somehow I can't see him doing that.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Health care