The cat is out of the bag... under Pelosi-Care, American citizens who refuse to purchase an Obama-approved health insurance plan will face fines of up to 250,000 dollars and up to five years in jail.
When asked what gave Congress the right to institute such a tyrannical mandate, Democratic Senator Jack Reed actually had the nerve to tell CNS News that it was constitutionally justified.
Why? Because, according to Reed, it was no different than making people "sign up for the draft."
Got that?
As far as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama and Jack Reed and radical leftists in Congress are concerned, they have every right to force you to purchase a Pelosi-Obama-approved health care plan under penalty of law.
And apparently, like the draft, it's your solemn duty to purchase their so-called health care plan... or else.
If you cross them... if you are not covered by a health care plan that has the Obama-Pelosi Seal Of Approval, the IRS will assess a penalty of up to 2.5 percent of your income and if you resist paying this penalty, you can go to jail for up to five years and/or be fined up to 250,000 dollars.
Congressman Dave Camp, the Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, put it this way:
"This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing - buy what we tell you or go to jail."
Specifically, when asked for the justification, under the Constitution, for Congress to make the draconian requirement, Reed told CNS News:
"Let me see... I would have to check the specific sections, so I'll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don't think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]."
"Get back to you?" ... on the Constitution? ... Is this man actually a United States Senator? ... it should be obvious, Reed has no idea what's in the Constitution. And it should be equally obvious that leftists like Reed and Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama have little regard, if any, for the Constitution anyway.
And lastly, it should be painfully obvious exactly why Pelosi-Care (the spawn of ObamaCare) must be stopped.
Oh... one more thing just recently became obvious... it seems Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will try to ram Pelosi- Care down our throats before we even know what hit us after all.
Right after some Senior Democrats claimed last week that so-called "health care reform" would not be resolved in the Senate this year, Reid immediately (and quietly) moved to bring Pelosi-Care to the Senate floor.
Debate will start on Tuesday... even though Reid has not even finalized the Senate version of the legislation.
Whoa... just last week, Reid said, "They want us to do this the right way, not the fast way."
What a turnaround.... Why the rush Harry?
If we're going to stop Pelosi-Care, we must act today, because time is short.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Healthcare Reform Means Socialized Medicine!
Dear Patriots,
More government control is coming! Obamacare is rationed care!
If you think we've got problems with our healthcare system now, just wait until you see what your government has in store for you . . .
President Obama is pushing nationalized health insurance via the so-called public option, which is the first step toward socialized medicine.
All Republicans and at least a few Senate Democrats will vote against this now. But the compromise legislation will almost certainly include a "trigger" to adopt the public option in just a few years!
This is a sneaky backdoor way into socialized medicine.
This "trigger" will force the establishment of a government-run plan after the insurance companies fail to meet impossibly high standards for expanded coverage and reduced costs.
And that opens the door for the government takeover!
The loons behind this scheme actually believe a government takeover of healthcare will lower costs, even as it improves quality and expands coverage to all!
Of course that's impossible, and Medicare should be the obvious proof of that!
Medicare is Going Broke, Even as it Sucks up 20% of the U.S. Budget
In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid made up 1% of total government spending. Today, that figure is 20% and rising fast.
At this rate, Medicare will be broke by 2017, and any expansion of government-run healthcare will bring about the bankruptcy sooner. Unless of course . . .
· Taxes are raised much higher
· Healthcare is rationed
· Quality of healthcare is lowered
Get ready for all of the above. Because that's exactly what they have in Canada, Britain, France, and every other country with a government-run healthcare system.
You see, under Obamacare, the quality of care will decline because today's total resources will have to be stretched to include tens of millions more people . . .
The government will decide how much doctors and nurses will be paid, which treatments will be covered (far fewer than what's available now), and who will get what and when. But it's even worse than that . . .
The government will decide which medicines will be forced on you in the name of "disease prevention."
Yes, forced medications! And it's already happening . . .
Under nationalized healthcare, the government will want every adult on a polypill that combines aspirin, blood pressure medicine, and a cholesterol lowering drug.
This crackpot idea comes from Britain. And it's been proposed as policy here in the name of disease prevention. Why? To save money, of course, so that more people can get health coverage.
But there's another reason for it — Big Pharma PROFITS! And . . .
· It won't matter that such a pill is completely inappropriate for most people!
· It won't matter that cholesterol-lowering drugs DON'T prevent heart disease.
· It won't matter that such a pill actually will do bodily harm!
Big Pharma has bought off the biggest players in Washington, including President Obama, and once we see the government takeover of healthcare, they'll be calling the shots on which medicines you get and at what prices.
You see, former Congressman Billy Tauzin is the chief lobbyist for Big Pharma, and armed with tens of millions of dollars for greasing the palms of Washington pals, he's bought a heck of a lot of influence. That's not all . . .
He cut a secret deal with President Obama to ensure that drug prices won't be negotiated any lower.
Tauzin has been so effective that he now has government officials doing Big Pharma's bidding,
The government push is actually a scheme to fill drug company coffers with billions of dollars, including a boatload of taxpayer money.
Have you wondered why Big Pharma is backing Obama? Under Obamacare, the drug companies are going to sell a lot more drugs!
Long ago, the leaders of Britain and Canada set up socialized healthcare and then — BIG SURPRISE — found out they couldn't pay for what they had promised . . .
The British politicians relieved the country's financial burden in the traditional socialist way — they rationed care and specifically denied quality care to their nation's sickest citizens (mostly the elderly).
They justified this action by reasoning the sickest 5% would otherwise use up 50% of all healthcare dollars, which they said was "unfair."
The Canadians ran into the same problem and went to rationing, too. But at least some Canadians had a way out — they could get quality care in the United States. And that's how U.S. health insurance policies came to be the biggest sellers in Canada.
Now, these socialist steps could be taken in America . . .
· The new system will rely on severe progressive rationing . . .
· Many medical services will be denied, especially to the elderly . . .
· The elderly will be encouraged to die to save healthcare dollars . . .
· Doctors who provide too much care — or offer services not approved by the government — will be fined and even have their licenses revoked!
Shocking? Yes, but all of these steps have been taken in every socialist medical care system in the world. And that's been justified in the name of providing "universal healthcare."
Right now, we're short 16,000 primary-care physicians in this country, and if Obama extends coverage to nearly everybody, that shortfall will double overnight!
The only possible result is less care for you and your family.
Even if you have good coverage now, you will get less care in the future because of the coming "overload" on our system.
Obviously, we can't provide healthcare to everyone with the resources we have now. And even if we could throw unlimited funds at this problem, it would take 10 to 15 years to ramp up.
Please let your Senators know that we want no part of this reform or they will find themselves unemployed after the Mid-Term elections.
JohnnyD
More government control is coming! Obamacare is rationed care!
If you think we've got problems with our healthcare system now, just wait until you see what your government has in store for you . . .
President Obama is pushing nationalized health insurance via the so-called public option, which is the first step toward socialized medicine.
All Republicans and at least a few Senate Democrats will vote against this now. But the compromise legislation will almost certainly include a "trigger" to adopt the public option in just a few years!
This is a sneaky backdoor way into socialized medicine.
This "trigger" will force the establishment of a government-run plan after the insurance companies fail to meet impossibly high standards for expanded coverage and reduced costs.
And that opens the door for the government takeover!
The loons behind this scheme actually believe a government takeover of healthcare will lower costs, even as it improves quality and expands coverage to all!
Of course that's impossible, and Medicare should be the obvious proof of that!
Medicare is Going Broke, Even as it Sucks up 20% of the U.S. Budget
In 1966, Medicare and Medicaid made up 1% of total government spending. Today, that figure is 20% and rising fast.
At this rate, Medicare will be broke by 2017, and any expansion of government-run healthcare will bring about the bankruptcy sooner. Unless of course . . .
· Taxes are raised much higher
· Healthcare is rationed
· Quality of healthcare is lowered
Get ready for all of the above. Because that's exactly what they have in Canada, Britain, France, and every other country with a government-run healthcare system.
You see, under Obamacare, the quality of care will decline because today's total resources will have to be stretched to include tens of millions more people . . .
The government will decide how much doctors and nurses will be paid, which treatments will be covered (far fewer than what's available now), and who will get what and when. But it's even worse than that . . .
The government will decide which medicines will be forced on you in the name of "disease prevention."
Yes, forced medications! And it's already happening . . .
Under nationalized healthcare, the government will want every adult on a polypill that combines aspirin, blood pressure medicine, and a cholesterol lowering drug.
This crackpot idea comes from Britain. And it's been proposed as policy here in the name of disease prevention. Why? To save money, of course, so that more people can get health coverage.
But there's another reason for it — Big Pharma PROFITS! And . . .
· It won't matter that such a pill is completely inappropriate for most people!
· It won't matter that cholesterol-lowering drugs DON'T prevent heart disease.
· It won't matter that such a pill actually will do bodily harm!
Big Pharma has bought off the biggest players in Washington, including President Obama, and once we see the government takeover of healthcare, they'll be calling the shots on which medicines you get and at what prices.
You see, former Congressman Billy Tauzin is the chief lobbyist for Big Pharma, and armed with tens of millions of dollars for greasing the palms of Washington pals, he's bought a heck of a lot of influence. That's not all . . .
He cut a secret deal with President Obama to ensure that drug prices won't be negotiated any lower.
Tauzin has been so effective that he now has government officials doing Big Pharma's bidding,
The government push is actually a scheme to fill drug company coffers with billions of dollars, including a boatload of taxpayer money.
Have you wondered why Big Pharma is backing Obama? Under Obamacare, the drug companies are going to sell a lot more drugs!
Long ago, the leaders of Britain and Canada set up socialized healthcare and then — BIG SURPRISE — found out they couldn't pay for what they had promised . . .
The British politicians relieved the country's financial burden in the traditional socialist way — they rationed care and specifically denied quality care to their nation's sickest citizens (mostly the elderly).
They justified this action by reasoning the sickest 5% would otherwise use up 50% of all healthcare dollars, which they said was "unfair."
The Canadians ran into the same problem and went to rationing, too. But at least some Canadians had a way out — they could get quality care in the United States. And that's how U.S. health insurance policies came to be the biggest sellers in Canada.
Now, these socialist steps could be taken in America . . .
· The new system will rely on severe progressive rationing . . .
· Many medical services will be denied, especially to the elderly . . .
· The elderly will be encouraged to die to save healthcare dollars . . .
· Doctors who provide too much care — or offer services not approved by the government — will be fined and even have their licenses revoked!
Shocking? Yes, but all of these steps have been taken in every socialist medical care system in the world. And that's been justified in the name of providing "universal healthcare."
Right now, we're short 16,000 primary-care physicians in this country, and if Obama extends coverage to nearly everybody, that shortfall will double overnight!
The only possible result is less care for you and your family.
Even if you have good coverage now, you will get less care in the future because of the coming "overload" on our system.
Obviously, we can't provide healthcare to everyone with the resources we have now. And even if we could throw unlimited funds at this problem, it would take 10 to 15 years to ramp up.
Please let your Senators know that we want no part of this reform or they will find themselves unemployed after the Mid-Term elections.
JohnnyD
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Individual mandate insurance is unconstitutional
By KEN KLUKOWSKI
10/20/09 5:04 AM EDT
The Senate Finance Committee-passed health care bill includes an “individual mandate” that Americans must buy an insurance policy or pay a fine, an approach that tracks President Barack Obama’s health care proposals. But if enacted into law, this mandate would be glaringly unconstitutional.
That’s because those refusing to get insurance would be subject to a fine, and refusing to pay would be a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.
States wield what is called police power: the authority to make laws for the health, safety and morality of their people. The federal government, on the other hand, has limited jurisdiction. If the Constitution does not grant a specific power to the federal government, then the 10th Amendment reserves it to the states or the people.
Plenty of constitutional provisions grant powers to the federal government. For example, most that involve conditions on persons receiving federal money come from the Tax and Spending Clause. Many of the rest come from the Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
But, as other lawyers have correctly noted, there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate. People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can’t fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause.
It also cannot be a tax. The federal government can levy only certain kinds of taxes. Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax.
It can’t be an excise tax because that’s a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything. It can’t be a capitation (or “direct”) tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can’t be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions.
All that’s left is the Commerce Clause. And the people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there’s no interstate commerce. That, in fact, is the government’s problem with them: Those people refuse to take the money or play the game.
It’s true that the Commerce Clause (like some other constitutional provisions) has been construed over the years (since 1942) into something that would give the Founding Fathers fits. It’s been interpreted into a ridiculously broad catchall for federal intrusions into people’s lives.
But it’s not unlimited. The Commerce Clause still constrains federal action, even though in the past seven decades only two laws have been struck down on Commerce Clause grounds, in 1995 and 2000. We don’t see the courts use this provision often because even on its worst day, Congress usually doesn’t go on an insane, socialist spending spree. (Well, until lately.)
Then Obama came along, with his cadre of czars and his congressional comrades like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose far-left views represent only a small fraction of the American people.
Now they’re finally forcing things too far. If Obama wants a health care plan that compels every American to carry insurance, he will have to persuade the nation to adopt a constitutional amendment creating a right to health care. You might have better odds of getting struck by lightning.
For dozens of policy reasons, those who believe in free-market economics or understand why America has the greatest health care in the world are doing everything possible to stop Obamacare.
But if they fail in the legislative process, they must look to the U.S. Supreme Court to drop the hammer of the Constitution on Obamacare and strike its key mandate provision from the books.
This had better happen soon, though, before Obama has a chance to remake the Supreme Court in his image.
And perhaps that’s been his plan all along.
Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
10/20/09 5:04 AM EDT
The Senate Finance Committee-passed health care bill includes an “individual mandate” that Americans must buy an insurance policy or pay a fine, an approach that tracks President Barack Obama’s health care proposals. But if enacted into law, this mandate would be glaringly unconstitutional.
That’s because those refusing to get insurance would be subject to a fine, and refusing to pay would be a misdemeanor crime, punishable by another fine or even jail time.
States wield what is called police power: the authority to make laws for the health, safety and morality of their people. The federal government, on the other hand, has limited jurisdiction. If the Constitution does not grant a specific power to the federal government, then the 10th Amendment reserves it to the states or the people.
Plenty of constitutional provisions grant powers to the federal government. For example, most that involve conditions on persons receiving federal money come from the Tax and Spending Clause. Many of the rest come from the Commerce Clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
But, as other lawyers have correctly noted, there is no constitutional basis for the individual mandate. People who decline coverage are not receiving federal money, so that mandate can’t fall under the spending part of the Tax and Spending Clause.
It also cannot be a tax. The federal government can levy only certain kinds of taxes. Article I of the Constitution authorizes excise and capitation taxes, and the 16th Amendment created the income tax.
It can’t be an excise tax because that’s a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything. It can’t be a capitation (or “direct”) tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can’t be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions.
All that’s left is the Commerce Clause. And the people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there’s no interstate commerce. That, in fact, is the government’s problem with them: Those people refuse to take the money or play the game.
It’s true that the Commerce Clause (like some other constitutional provisions) has been construed over the years (since 1942) into something that would give the Founding Fathers fits. It’s been interpreted into a ridiculously broad catchall for federal intrusions into people’s lives.
But it’s not unlimited. The Commerce Clause still constrains federal action, even though in the past seven decades only two laws have been struck down on Commerce Clause grounds, in 1995 and 2000. We don’t see the courts use this provision often because even on its worst day, Congress usually doesn’t go on an insane, socialist spending spree. (Well, until lately.)
Then Obama came along, with his cadre of czars and his congressional comrades like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose far-left views represent only a small fraction of the American people.
Now they’re finally forcing things too far. If Obama wants a health care plan that compels every American to carry insurance, he will have to persuade the nation to adopt a constitutional amendment creating a right to health care. You might have better odds of getting struck by lightning.
For dozens of policy reasons, those who believe in free-market economics or understand why America has the greatest health care in the world are doing everything possible to stop Obamacare.
But if they fail in the legislative process, they must look to the U.S. Supreme Court to drop the hammer of the Constitution on Obamacare and strike its key mandate provision from the books.
This had better happen soon, though, before Obama has a chance to remake the Supreme Court in his image.
And perhaps that’s been his plan all along.
Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)