Government Health Care: The Next Step On the Road to Tyranny and Slavery

[-Cp]

Democrats deceptively argue that health care is legal under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The commerce clause relates to business, not individuals, but the Democrats have skewed the original purpose and intent of the Constitution.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wHOdiTtupkA&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wHOdiTtupkA&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

When asked to point out where in the Constitution authority is granted to force an individual — ultimately at gunpoint — to buy government health care, Speaker of the House Pelosi said: “Are you serious?”

It is said Obama was a constitutional professor at the University of Chicago Law School (even this is a lie — he was in fact “a senior lecturer,” not a professor), so we should assume he has at least some knowledge of the principles of the Constitution. Obama likely knows that the Constitution does not mandate Americans be forced into a contractual agreement with a private party for health insurance.

“Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service,” explains the Heritage Foundation. No decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power.

Is it possible Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have not read Article I of the Constitution? It states that the government’s rights are limited. Article 1, Section 8 reads, “The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.” It does not say a word about health care. The federal government only has the power to regulate trade between itself, foreign governments, and the states. Period.

Apparently, like his predecessor, Obama regards the Constitution as little more than a goddamn piece of paper.

[cat slave]

Well, thats the truth!!!!

And to hell with going green....lets evict all of them.

[Kathianne]

and suddenly the MSM is noticing the problems, though of course too late:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/20/AR2009122002127.html


Passing health reform could be a nightmare for Obama
By Robert Samuelson
Monday, December 21, 2009; A19

Barack Obama's quest for historic health-care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership. We usually associate presidential leadership with the pursuit of goals that, though initially unpopular, serve America's long-term interests. Obama has reversed this. He's championing increasingly unpopular legislation that threatens the country's long-term interests. "This isn't about me," he likes to say, "I have great health insurance." But of course, it is about him: about the legacy he covets as the president who achieved "universal" health insurance. He'll be disappointed.

Even if Congress passes legislation -- a good bet -- the finished product will fall far short of Obama's extravagant promises. It will not cover everyone. It will not control costs. It will worsen the budget outlook. It will lead to higher taxes. It will disrupt how, or whether, companies provide insurance for their workers. As the real-life (as opposed to rhetorical) consequences unfold, they will rebut Obama's claim that he has "solved" the health-care problem. His reputation will suffer.

It already has. Despite Obama's eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his "handling of health care" and 29 percent disapproved, reports the Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise....

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/21/left-now-admitting-obamacare-full-of-budget-gimmicks/


Left Now Admitting Obamacare Full of Budget Gimmicks
Posted December 21st, 2009 at 1.27pm in Health Care.

President Barack Obama again asserted today that his health care plan would be deficit neutral chiding: “The argument that opponents are making against this bill does not hold water.”

But while the President’s most ardent supporters are trying to explain to each other why the benefits of the bill do not start until 2014, they are openly admitting that Obama’s deficit busting claims are complete fiction:

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “The delay is a budget trick, an attempt to lower the 10-year cost of the bill at the expense of the very people we’re trying to help.”

Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum: “I’m pretty sure the 2014 date is mostly due to budget finagling. This stuff can’t be done overnight, but I’ll bet most of it could be implemented within 12 months, and it could certainly be implemented within 24.”

Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall: “My impression is that some of the delays are there because it makes the budgetary accounting work better in terms of deficit neutrality. And I know the Dems would likely lose critical support without being able to show that the overall bill actually lowers the deficit. But if that’s the main reason, I suspect the legislative authors may be too clever by half since they may be slitting the bill’s and perhaps their own throats in the process.”...

[KarlMarx]

</EMBED>


Is it possible Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have not read Article I of the Constitution? It states that the government’s rights are limited. Article 1, Section 8 reads, “The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.” It does not say a word about health care.


The McCarran–Ferguson Act of 1945 exempts insurance companies from federal anti-trust legislation and allows states to regulate insurance companies without intervention from the federal government...

In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld that insurance was a form of interstate commerce.

Now... how about that... the *federal government* basically, in one pen stroke, exempted insurance companies from competitive pressure. They helped to bring about the medical insurance crisis that they are now trying to fix. If they really wanted to fix things, they would have repealed McCarran–Ferguson and allowed competition between insurance companies across state boundaries. That, plus tort reform, would help to bring down the cost of insurance premiums.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

The McCarran–Ferguson Act of 1945 exempts insurance companies from federal anti-trust legislation and allows states to regulate insurance companies without intervention from the federal government...

In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld that insurance was a form of interstate commerce.

Now... how about that... the *federal government* basically, in one pen stroke, exempted insurance companies from competitive pressure. They helped to bring about the medical insurance crisis that they are now trying to fix. If they really wanted to fix things, they would have repealed McCarran–Ferguson and allowed competition between insurance companies across state boundaries. That, plus tort reform, would help to bring down the cost of insurance premiums.

That would be the best case scenario, which explains why it isn't being entertained in congress. It would give them little to do. Big government needs big things to occupy itself with, so the small gestures required to right wrongs would not be time consuming enough. :coffee:

[Kathianne]

Well others are noticing:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/202662


...6. This health-care bill shouldn’t be seen in isolation. It’s part of a train of events that include the stimulus package, the omnibus spending bill (complete with some 8,500 earmarks), and a record-sized budget. In addition, as Jim Manzi points out in the new issue of National Affairs:


[Under Obama] the federal government has also intervened aggressively in both the financial and industrial sectors of the economy in order to produce specific desired outcomes for particular corporations. It has nationalized America’s largest auto company (General Motors) and intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings of the third-largest auto company (Chrysler), privileging labor unions at the expense of bondholders. It has, in effect, nationalized what was America’s largest insurance company (American International Group) and largest bank (Citigroup), and appears to have exerted extra-legal financial pressure on what was the second-largest bank (Bank of America) to get it to purchase the country’s largest securities company (Merrill Lynch). The implicit government guarantees provided to home-loan giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been called in, and the federal government is now the largest de facto lender in the residential real-estate market. The government has selected the CEOs and is setting compensation at major automotive and financial companies across the country. On top of these interventions in finance and commerce, the administration and congressional Democrats are also pursuing both a new climate and energy strategy and large-scale health-care reform. Their agenda would place the government at the center of these two huge sectors of the economy…

Together, these actions tell quite a tale. Mr. Obama has revived the worst impressions of the Democratic party – profligate and undisciplined, arrogant, lovers of big government, increasers of taxes. The issues and narrative for American politics in the foreseeable future has been set — limited government versus exploding government, capitalism versus European style socialism, responsible and measured policies versus reckless and radical ones.

Barack Obama is in the process of inflicting enormous damage to his presidency and his party. And there is more, much more to come....

[Joyful HoneyBee]

http://www.getliberty.org/content_images/Cartoon%20-%20Grinch%20Stole%20Healthcare%20(500).jpg

[sgtdmski]

Well Nancy Pelosi bragged about taking on the Insurance Industry and bringing them to bear. Now that the Senate has a Health Care bill we see what is the end result, Nancy took them on and lost. Every Insurance Company has had their stocks reach 52 week highs, thanks to the Senate's Bill.

Nancy, you put it out there, you took on the Insurance Industry and lost!!!!!!!!

I hope voter's remember this come November 2010 and show you the door!

Tell me how is that humble pie tasting right now!!!

dmk