Big Dogs House

We Will Still Pick Up The Tab For Obamacare

Aug 13, 2011 Political

When will the politicians in DC learn about the Constitution? The individual mandate of Obamacare has been shot down by several courts as unconstitutional but the regime is pressing on with implementation. It argues that some courts have found it Constitutional and that it will press on. All sides know this will make it to the Supreme Court. The regime wants that process to take as long as possible so it can claim that trillions of dollars have already been spent so why go back?

The law should have been stopped when it was ruled unconstitutional. There are disagreements among the courts so the law should be on hold until the SCOTUS reviews it and rules. The regime cannot have this because stopping now would take away its plan to have it implemented before a ruling takes place.

The government simply cannot force people to buy a product. The argument that people without insurance cost all of us because we pick up the tab for their health care is not a reason to force us to buy insurance. While it is true that we do end up paying it is because people decide not to pay their bills. People do not need insurance to get health care. They can go to the doctor and pay out of pocket. If they paid their bills we would not have an issue. But government has enslaved so many people and told them they have a right to something for nothing that we now have people who do not pay and who expect to get what they want for free.

Would it make sense for the government to require us all to buy and eat healthy food because those who do not make the rest of us pick up the tab for their unhealthy ways? If government can force healthy choices, then why does the government continue to allow the sale of tobacco? It impacts health care and the rest of us pay for the costs (even if we have insurance). Maybe it is because Obama needs his smokes…

The White House claims that the latest ruling from an appeals court will not stand because failure to have insurance impacts us all and therefore is authorized under the Commerce Clause.

The individual responsibility provision – the main part of the law at issue in these cases – is constitutional. Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce are incorrect. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us – when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab. White House

Notice how it is an individual responsibility provision instead of a mandate? The pinheads in DC should know that you cannot legislate responsibility. If someone forces you to do something that is not the definition of taking responsibility.

The bigger issue is that we end up picking up the tab regardless. If people without insurance get health care services and don’t pay then the cost is passed on to us. Under the government plan the government pays for people who can’t afford health insurance. While Democrats have a hard time understanding this, when government pays for something it is really the taxpayer who ends up paying for it. Therefore, we end up picking up the tab either way.

The Supreme Court will end up ruling on this and will decide that the individual mandate (not the nicely named responsibility provision) is unconstitutional. I expect the liberals on the court will decide that it is OK to force people to buy a product but their anti Constitutional views will go down in flames by those on the Court that follow the Constitution.

If they can force us to buy health insurance what will stop them from forcing us to buy a Chevy Volt. It is our responsibility to buy green energy using cars and everyone, at one time or another, will end up in a vehicle. Plus the taxpayer owns part of GM so it is our duty to buy from them to get our money back.

How would a liberal who believes it is OK to force people to purchase a product feel if a bill were introduced that required all Americans to buy a gun? Crime impacts everyone and when a person engages in crime it affects commerce. The cost of criminal activity is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices and more police officers so, since it affects everyone and it affects commerce, we all need to buy a gun.

The liberals, including those judges who have ruled in favor of Obamacare (and those on the SCOTUS who will) would go nuts and declare that the government cannot force people to buy a product.

The big difference is there is a Constitutional provision that allows all citizens to own and carry a firearm without permission of government (though government routinely violates that provision – see Maryland) and there is no provision to provide health care to everyone. I do not think that government can force people to buy guns any more than it can force them to buy health care but if the SCOTUS decides that government can force us to buy a product then it can force us to buy guns and the Constitution says we can carry them. You know how liberals would act, now don’t you?

This is going to be interesting.

The liberals are going to push us until they get push back they do not like.

Sources:
Politico
al-Reuters
Politico

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Tags: commerce clause, health care, lies, obamacare, scotus, us constitution

Obama Dresses Down SCOTUS With Lies

Jan 29, 2010 Political

Last night during the State of the Union Address Barack Obama did something one would be hard pressed to find an incident of in the history of such addresses. Obama dressed down the Supreme Court for its recent, and correct, decision on corporate money going to political campaigns or issues.

Barack Obama mischaracterized the ruling when he said:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems. White House.gov

The ruling by the court specifically rules out foreign donations as does federal law. That was not overturned. The issue at hand dealt with an organization that was not allowed to air a movie prior to an election. The court ruled it was a free speech issue which it is. Obama was absolutely incorrect and his lie resulted in Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words “not true” (it looked to me like he said “simply not true”).

Today the focus was on Alito, who did nothing wrong, and not on the huge error Obama made. The funny thing is that the focus on this took some of the attention off Obama’s SOTU and agenda.

Obama was wrong to use that forum to lash out at a coequal branch of government. He picked on people who show up and sit still the entire time. They do not stand or applaud for issues to maintain impartiality.

It is a bully tactic and was used to score points. Obama wants Congress to do something to correct this decision. It was Congressional action that led to the decision in the first place. This will come back to bite him in a number of ways. I think it is safe to say that any issue of his that hits the SCOTUS had better be in top order.

Linda Greenhouse of the NYT reports this about the decision:

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

The decision did not change that century old law and it dealt specifically with money from corporate treasuries and airing ads (or movies) in the period just before an election.

Obama got a few other facts wrong last night but one would expect a so called Constitutional law professor to know the facts of a case if he is going to address it.

Saul Alinksy would be proud of him. The only problem is that Alinsky never figured the population would rise in large numbers.

And neither did Obama. Perhaps that is because he is deaf to the increasing roar of the people.

I think in November he might actually begin to hear and understand.

Tags: alito, lies, not true, Obama, scotus

Pelosi Sides with Obama

Feb 15, 2008 Political

I wrote yesterday that the people who are elected to represent us should vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents. I realize that there are many issues that come up that do not require this or that a district is about evenly split so a politician needs to use good judgment (there is a contradiction in terms) but for the most part, they should follow the wishes of those who put them in office. Some people do not agree with this and there has been at least one who resorted to childish insults because of my position. Regardless, Nancy Pelosi thinks I am right.

Today, Pelosi said that the Super Delegates should vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Now I don’t necessarily agree that this should be so with the SDs because the rules allow them to vote however they want though many would be foolish to tick off the people who will vote for them (at least for the ones who hold elected office).

Don’t veto the people’s choice.

“I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said, adding quickly, “I don’t think that will happen.”

She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as super delegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party’s voters.

“I do think that they have a respect — it’s not just following the returns, it’s also having a respect for what has been said by the people,” Pelosi said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.” SFGate

I agree that this should be done. However, I also believe that Pelosi is being a hypocrite when she says this and I believe it is because she supports Obama in the race. She has not endorsed him but she is leaning that way and it is obvious by what she has said that she wants him to win. Perhaps she will feel threatened by Hillary as president. Here is why she is hypocritical; she keeps voting against the wishes of her constituents. She voted to keep funding the war and she has not voted to stop it.

I am in favor of staying until we achieve victory so I am happy about this but it runs contrary to what she is saying here. She voted for a minimum wage increase that people wanted (everyone wants more pay) but then she excluded the tuna company in her district so they could keep wages low. She has never taken a position against a colleague who voted for or against something contrary to the voters. As a matter of fact, when Republicans vote in accordance with the wishes (not nearly enough do this) of their constituents, Pelosi criticizes them. Let a congressman from a military district vote in favor of funding the troops and she says he is being obstructive despite the fact that military families want their troops funded. Nearly all voters in their right minds (and certainly a majority) want Congress to cut spending and stop using earmarks but none of them do that and Pelosi is not telling them to.

Though it might appear that she agrees with me I guess it only appears that way because she has had to change a position in order to help the candidate she wants to win. Of course, she is also probably worried that ticking off Democrats could put her back in the minority and she won’t be banging that gavel next year.

Reading the comments at the SFGate, the source of this story (linked above), people keep saying comments from Hillary supporters who think she should get the delegates and that Florida and Michigan should be seated. I need to know something from the Democrats. If Hillary and Obama go to the convention and neither has won outright with Obama leading by more than 100 votes (just leading is probably good enough) and the SDs award their votes to Hillary making her the winner will we be able to say Hillary was selected and not elected?

Gore sued George Bush and lost. The appeals went to the SCOTUS and they determined that the recounts had to stop (I actually think they could not recount in select areas) and George Bush won. Since that time Democrats have called him illegitimate and said he was selected, not elected. They claim the SCOTUS put Bush in office against the will of the people.

If the SDs do that with Hillary then their actions would be no different than those of the SCOTUS in Gore vs Bush (except that Bush won). I would just be interested in hearing how the liberals will rationalize this because no matter how you slice it, they are both the same thing. Actually, how liberals describe Florida in 2000 is closer to my hypothetical situation because in mine, Hillary really is behind.

Bush was only behind in the minds of the liberals.

Tags: dns, gore v bush, Pelosi, scotus, selected not elected, super delegates