We Will Still Pick Up The Tab For Obamacare

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.
Big Dog

Gunline

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Lower Taxes Attract More People

Some of the data for the last census has been released and the numbers are not good for Democrats. Red states picked up 6 Congressional seats and Blue States lost them. The interesting thing about the census is that states that have no income tax saw the largest increase in population:

This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade. Michael Barone – Washington Examiner

People do not want to be taxed to death so they are moving to states where taxes are low or income is not taxed at all. People will only stand for so much before they take action. In this case, people voted with their feet.

This should be a lesson to politicians but they will fail to learn anything.

Taxes are a necessary evil but for a long time we have been taxed to pay for things that are not required to run our government and are not spelled out in the Constitution. When politicians learn to stop using the American public as an ATM machine and scale back government and its out of control spending then we will be able to prosper as a nation.

The idea that government must do everything for all people has failed in every society in which it has been tried.

We are on our way to that death spiral.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Balanced Budget

I can so balance the budget, save America, and improve jobs exponentially. Just make me president:

Department of Agriculture? Gone.
Department of Commerce? Gone.
Department of Defense? Reduced by 75% (Bring all troops home and station them on the border).
Departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development? Gone.
Departments of Interior and Labor? Gone.
Department of State? Reduced by 75%.
Department of Transportation? Gone.
Departments of Treasury and Veterans Affairs? Reduced by 75%.

Man, that would be awesome. Yeah, I like to dream of freedom and an America that’s free to advance and increase. The number of jobs that would appear (not “created” by government) would be astronomical.

Gunline

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Burn a Flag, Get Extra Credit

A University of Maine student has dropped a course and filed a complaint because the professor offered extra credit for students who burned an American Flag or the US Constitution (a copy, of course). Rebekah McDade said she has a strong family background of military service and stated the Flag and Constitution are important symbols to her. She decided to drop the class and take it next semester with a different professor. The Professor, Paul Grosswiler, said that he never intended for students to actually burn anything and that hundreds of past students understood that this was designed to spark debate about free speech. This is like Al Sharpton threatening violence and then claiming he never actually meant for people to be violent when one of his supporters kills someone.

Noose

I would not have dropped the class because it would have been too much fun to harass this professor for the entire semester. Imagine how he would react to me referring to him as an idiot or as a liberal twit, all under the guise of free speech. Now I would never burn a Flag or the Constitution (though Congress figuratively burns the Constitution when it passes bills not authorized by the document) but I would participate in the extra credit exercise. I would get to class early and hang a noose up front. Then when the class and Grosswiler arrived and started the wheels of the hate crime machine turning I would say that the noose was mine and that I wanted my extra credit.

You see, Grosswiler has defended his position by claiming that refers to provocative examples to demonstrate the courage necessary to support free expression. He stated that “If they don’t tolerate thought that they hate, they don’t believe in the First Amendment.” I would be there to test the limits of how much he would tolerate. I might wear a swastika or Abortion is Murder shirt or perhaps one that reads “Their symbol is a Jackass, any questions?” just to see if he would be as accepting as he expects others to be.

A spokesman for the University said that Grosswiler’s classroom statements were not meant to be taken seriously and that no one would get extra credit for burning the items in question. So how much of the professor’s classroom comments are not to be taken seriously? Should they just ignore him or are they supposed to decipher when he is serious and when he is not?

All of this is pretty basic liberal double speak. The liberal professor gets taken to task for his words so he decides to say he never really meant it. That did not work for Imus nor has it worked for any conservative who has been accused of the wrong kind of free speech.

I just wonder why this professor felt it necessary to duck the issue. If he truly believes what he says why not exercise his free speech and say so?

Perhaps it is because he knows that words, protected or not, have consequences. Or maybe he lacks the spine to actually defend his position. In any event, this guy is what is wrong with the American educational system.

Source:
Bangor Daily News

Big Dog Salute to:
Liberty Pundit
Stop the ACLU

Big Dog