Varney & Co. - Fox Business
I am watching it on TV FBN Fox business news
Varney on fox business news is saying
Split Decision
Now they are upholding it as a tax???
Very Confusing
Printable View
Varney & Co. - Fox Business
I am watching it on TV FBN Fox business news
Varney on fox business news is saying
Split Decision
Now they are upholding it as a tax???
Very Confusing
I understand the entire law stands with the exception of the medicaid part. Looking at SCOTUS website now to clarify
Roberts voted with the progressives
Supreme Court to unveil ObamaCare decision
Published June 28, 2012
FoxNews.com
http://global.fncstatic.com/static/m...uperem_640.jpg
The Supreme Court is moments away from delivering an opinion that will determine whether "health care reform" is in need of more reform.
Sometime after 10 a.m. ET, the landmark ruling will be released to the public. The opinion is a secret even to President Obama, who will find out about the ruling just like everybody else.
"We all will await the decision and learn of it at the same time that you do," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Wednesday.
With the opinion poised to have just as much of an impact on Obama's legacy as it does on the American health care system and economy, staffers in Washington have been preparing behind the scenes for the roughly five scenarios that could play out by late morning Thursday.
They are:
The Supreme Court could uphold the entire law.
The court could strike down the entire law.
The court could strike down just the individual mandate -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance.
The court could strike down the mandate, and two provisions tied to it -- a provision that prohibits insurers from refusing coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and one that prohibits insurers from charging extra based on medical history.
The Supreme Court could punt, and not make any decision at all -- citing a law that bars court challenges over taxes that haven't yet been paid.
On a related track, the court also will be ruling on a challenge over the expansion of Medicaid to the states.
For now, the decision remains anyone's guess, but it is sure to have sweeping consequences.
During an election year and a period of shaky economic recovery, what the high court decrees will ripple through the political world and, more importantly, the sector that counts for one-sixth of the American economy.
Will Americans be guaranteed coverage regardless of medical condition? Will they be forced to buy insurance? Will businesses be able to hire without worrying whether they can afford the accompanying health care costs?
The White House, peppered with questions at Wednesday's briefing, was reticent to entertain the implications of the looming decision and what it could mean for Obama's signature domestic policy achievement and what it could mean for the millions of Americans it affects.
Carney said only that the Obama administration is "confident" the law is constitutional, and he defended what the provisions have done for health care in America to date. He said, for instance, that 3.1 million more young adults have coverage today because of a provision allowing them to stay on their parents' plans until age 26.
Republicans, though, say the myriad consumer protections come with a big cost, and they are vowing to keep up the fight to repeal the law should the court uphold all or part of it.
"If the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what's left of it," House Speaker John Boehner said Wednesday, claiming the law is driving up the cost of health care and making it tougher for small businesses to hire workers.
While Republicans' chief argument against the law is that it stifles economic growth with burdensome regulations, the chief legal argument in court is that the individual mandate requiring most Americans to get health insurance is unconstitutional.
Both parties have been teeing up their next step following the ruling.
Republicans have vowed to repeal whatever's left, and Democrats have vowed to protect what they can.
"We're prepared to build on the landmark health reform to make sure, more and more, we have affordable quality health care for all Americans," Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., told Fox News.
But if the mandate is struck down, it throws the entire economic formula for implementing the policy out of balance. Health insurance companies are expected to take on a significant amount of additional cost due to provisions that guarantee coverage and implement other consumer protections -- in exchange, the mandate ensured those companies would get millions more customers. Without the mandate, that trade-off disappears.
Democrats have acknowledged that eliminating the mandate would cause problems for implementing the rest of the regulations.
Meanwhile, the decision could have a significant impact on the 2012 presidential race. If the law stands, Obama wins some measure of vindication -- but can also be assured that Romney will continue to run on repealing the policy. If the law falls, Obama faces a major rebuke, but can take solace in the fact that Romney can no longer run on his repeal pledge.
Romney, though, signaled Tuesday he'll be hammering the president over the law no matter how the court rules.
If the law is overturned, Romney said, "then the first three-and-a-half years of this president's term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people."
"If it is deemed to stand," Romney continued, "then I'll tell you one thing. Then we'll have to have a president, and I'm that one, that's going to get rid of ObamaCare."
Read more: Supreme Court to unveil ObamaCare decision | Fox News
OBamacare is upheld.
BREAKING: ObamaCare Ruled Constitutional! Chief Justice Roberts joins left
Posted on June 28, 2012 by Conservative Byte
Print Friendly
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the individual mandate within the health care reform law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, can survive as a tax rather than a mandate. Chief Justice John Roberts has joined the Court’s liberal justices in affirming that the law will stand and authoring the majority decision.
The rest of the health care reform law, otherwise known as “Obamacare,” will remain intact. The provision to allow the federal government expand or limit state funds for Medicare remains in valid and was not struck down, but has been slightly limited from its original construction in the ACA.
Continue Reading on Mediaite.com | News & Opinion | Media: TV, Print, Online, Jobs, Ranking ...
Supreme Court Declares Obama’s Health Care Reform Law Constitutional | Mediaite
Supreme Court Declares Obama’s Health Care Reform Law Constitutional
by Noah Rothman | 10:17 am, June 28th, 2012
» 20 comments
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the individual mandate within the health care reform law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, can survive as a tax rather than a mandate. Chief Justice John Roberts has joined the Court’s liberal justices in affirming that the law will stand and authoring the majority decision.
The rest of the health care reform law, otherwise known as “Obamacare,” will remain intact. Roberts decision says that states cannot be penalized by the federal government by limiting the Medicare funds they receive if they opt not to expand their rolls. This provision was only slightly limited from its original construction in the ACA.
Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.
The individual mandate was upheld as a tax — they found that the federal government could not force individuals to purchase a product, but a penalty could be imposed if they opted not to purchase the product which is, in this case, private health insurance.
The tax provision survived in a 5-4 vote, with Roberts joining the Court’s liberal justices. The perennial swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, read the Court’s dissent along with the Court’s traditionally conservative justices.
After several months of contentious public debate and several Congressional votes, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010.
Despite passing Congress, albeit along party-line votes in the House and Senate, the law never became less controversial.
Polls of public opinion on the popularity of the law have shown that health care reform remained persistently polarizing even after its passage. Consistent pluralities or majorities, with rare exceptions, continued to tell pollsters that they favored the repeal of health care reform from 2010 even to today.
The action the Supreme Court has taken today is unlikely to settle arguments that surround the constitutionality of the reform of America’s health care system.
Varney & Co. - Fox Business
And in 09/20/2009 on ABC OB1 told Stepnonopolis that this is NOT a Tax increase! Just on FOX News.....
Thursday, June 28, 2012 Find Us on Facebook Follow US on Twitter
BREAKING: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
The Supreme Court just announced that it has ruled the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate provision constitutional, upholding the key provision of Obama administration's signature healthcare legislation.
The ruling is complicated, but SCOTUS blog pars it down:
The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.
Amy Howe, of SCOTUS blog, writes that the "court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate."
According to the blog, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the decisive votes, siding with the court's more liberal judges to vote in favor of the law's constitutionality.
Justice Kennedy, often considered the swing vote, sided with the minority.
Live blog of orders and opinions (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law)
Welcome to the liveblog. Thursday is the day. Here is our schedule, all times EDT. 8:45a – liveblog begins with introductory explanation. 9a-10a – answers to your questions. 10a-1045a (appx) – decision announcements. We expect the health care decision to be announced at roughly 10:15a. 1045a-1p – live coverage and analysis.
Thanks very much for coming, and once you enter the liveblog below please, please DO NOT refresh your browser; updates will appear automatically.
http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-l...DUAL%20MANDATE
Opinion link:
The opinion in the health care cases is here. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-393c3a2.pdf
David Martin, Executive Vice President
Media Research Center
June 28, 2012
kathye,
The Supreme Court has made a shocking ruling to uphold ObamaCare—one of the most expensive, intrusive, and liberty stifling pieces of legislation in American history.
As we told you before, the media played a role in deceiving Americans about the impact of this horrific law, regurgitating verbatim every lie told by the Obama Administration.Every promise the media and the Obama Administration made about ObamaCare—that it would make healthcare cheaper without increasing taxes or deficits, that you could keep your doctor, that businesses would not be hit with crippling regulations and taxes—has been broken.
Despite the media’s best efforts to mislead Americans and unapologetically carry water for the White House, Americans still overwhelmingly oppose socialized medicine. But the Supreme Court’s ruling will almost certainly re-energize the Obama Administration’s propaganda campaign, with their loyal sycophants in the liberal media leading the charge.
That is why it is so critical that we keep up pressure on the national “news” media to Tell The Truth about ObamaCare. Please help us spread the word and make sure to get your friends and family involved in the campaign to hold the media accountable for lying about ObamaCare.
Thank you.
David
MRC Action
Kevin Russell Contributor
Posted Thu, June 28th, 2012 11:16 am
Email Kevin
Bio & Post Archive »
Court holds that states have choice whether to join medicaid expansion
The Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is divided and complicated. The bottom line is that: (1) Congress acted constitutionally in offering states funds to expand coverage to millions of new individuals; (2) So states can agree to expand coverage in exchange for those new funds; (3) If the state accepts the expansion funds, it must obey by the new rules and expand coverage; (4) but a state can refuse to participate in the expansion without losing all of its Medicaid funds; instead the state will have the option of continue the its current, unexpanded plan as is.
The votes for this outcome are divided among several opinions. Three Justices – the Chief, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer – took the position that depriving a state of all of its Medicaid funding for refusing to agree to the new expansion would exceed Congress’s power under the Spending Clause. Although Congress may attach conditions to federal funds, they concluded, it may not coerce states into accepting those conditions. And in this case, taking away all the states’ funds for the entirety of its Medicaid program just because it disagreed with a piece of the program would be coercive. But the remedy for that constitutional violation is not to declare the expansion unconstitutional – such that even states that want to participate would not have the option. Instead, the plurality held that the provision of the statute that authorized the Government to cut off all funds for non-compliance with the expansion was unconstitutional. The result is that states can choose to participate in the expansion, must comply with the conditions attached to the new expansion funds if they take that new money, but states can also choose to continue to participate only in the unexpanded version of the program if they want.
Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have held the entire expansion program constitutional, even the provision threatening to cut off all funding unless states agreed to the expansion. Their votes created a majority for the proposition that the overall expansion was constitutional, and that states could choose to participate in the expansion and would have to comply with the expansion conditions if they did.
But there was still no majority about what to do about the states that do not want to participate in the expansion – the Chief Justice’s 3-Justice plurality voted to strike down the provision allowing the Government to withhold all funds from states that reject the expansion; Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted to uphold it.
The deadlock was broken by the dissenters. Justice Scalia – writing on behalf of himself, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito – agreed with the Chief’s plurality that the threat to withhold all funds was unconstitutionally coercive. But they would have held that the consequence is that the entire expansion program should be stricken. The result would have been that even states that wanted to participate in the program could not. The plurality’s approach of simply striking down the provision that allowed withholding all funds if the state refused the expansion was, in the dissenters’ view, tantamount to rewriting the statute.
At this point, that meant that there were 2 votes to uphold the expansion in its entirety, 4 votes to strike the entire expansion down, and 3 votes to strike down only the provision withholding all funds for non-compliance with the expansion mandate. So where does that leave things?
Fortunately (for the sake of clarity at least), Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor resolved the ambiguity by voting with the plurality on the remedy question. That is, these Justices voted that if the statute was unconstitutionally coercive, then the remedy would be only to strike down the all-or-nothing sanction.
The consequence was a bottom line of 7 Justices – the Chief, Breyer, Kagan and the four dissenters – finding the expansion unconstitutional. But a different majority – the Chief, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan – held that the remedy for the violation was to strike down only the provision allowing the federal government to withhold all Medicaid funds unless a state agrees to the expansion.
Posted in Health Care
Recommended Citation: Kevin Russell, Court holds that states have choice whether to join medicaid expansion, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 28, 2012, 11:16 AM), Court holds that states have choice whether to join medicaid expansion : SCOTUSblog
Court holds that states have choice whether to join medicaid expansion : SCOTUSblog
Also
Lyle Denniston Reporter
Posted Thu, June 28th, 2012 11:07 am
Email Lyle
Bio & Post Archive »
Don’t call it a mandate — it’s a tax
Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial – and most controversial — feature of the Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, however, the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t. That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.
Since President Obama signed the new law, it has been understood by almost everyone that the expansion of health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans without it could work — economically — only if the health insurance companies were guaranteed a large pool of customers. The mandate to buy health insurance by 2014 was the method Congress chose to supply that pool. It is not immediately clear whether the Court’s approach will produce as large a pool of new customers. The ACA’s key provision now amounts to an invitation to buy insurance, rather than an order to do so, with a not-very-big tax penalty for going without.
The decision to keep at least some foundation under the expanded coverage will lead almost certainly to renewed efforts by Republicans in Congress to repeal all or most of the new law. And, of course, the Court’s decision is guaranteed to become a very prominent fixture of debate in this year’s continuing presidential and congressional elections.
Posted in Nat'l Fed. of Ind. Business v. Sebelius, H.H.S. v. Fla., Fla. v. H.H.S., Analysis, Featured, Merits Cases
Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Don’t call it a mandate — it’s a tax, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 28, 2012, 11:07 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/do...ate-its-a-tax/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/do...ate-its-a-tax/
I just wonder if he'll try to move away from this issue as quickly as possible given the Supreme Court basically made his RomneyCare equal to ObamaCare now. We couldn't have gotten to worse candidate to run up against Obama... wow...
I didn't vote for him so I don't feel bad about it.
What the health care ruling means to you
By Josh Levs, CNN
updated 11:06 AM EDT, Thu June 28, 2012
Watch this video
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The Supreme Court's decision upholds the health care law
The requirement to have health insurance by 2014 remains in place
Insurance companies must cover people with pre-existing conditions
Small business owners and medical groups disagree over the impacts of the law
(CNN) -- The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act means that the predictions about how it will affect all Americans remain in place.
Read the court ruling (.PDF)
Here are some highlights:
The uninsured
The decision leaves in place the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement on Americans to have or buy health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a penalty -- although many are exempt from that provision.
In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
Ruling on individual mandate explained
Photos: Health care and the high court Photos: Health care and the high court
Health care exchanges, which are designed to offer cheaper health care plans, remain in place as well.
The insured
Because the requirement remains for people to have or buy insurance, the revenue stream designed to help pay for the law remains in place. So insured Americans may be avoiding a spike in premiums that could have resulted if the high court had tossed out the individual mandate but left other requirements on insurers in place.
Young adults
Millions of young adults up to age 26 who have gained health insurance due to the law will be able to keep it. The law requires insurers to cover the children of those they insure up to age 26. About 2.5 million young adults from age 19 to 25 obtained health coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Two of the nation's largest insurers, United Healthcare and Humana, recently announced they would voluntarily maintain some aspects of health care reform, including coverage of adult dependents up to age 26, even if the law was scrapped.
People with pre-existing conditions
Since the law remains in place, the requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing medical conditions remains active.
The law also established that children under the age of 19 could no longer have limited benefits or be denied benefits because they had a pre-existing condition.
Starting in 2014, the law makes it illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on coverage.
It also established national high-risk pools that people with such conditions could join sooner to get health insurance. As of April, a total of only about 67,000 people were enrolled in federally-funded pools established by the health care law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
More than 13 million American non-elderly adults have been denied insurance specifically because of their medical conditions, according to the Commonwealth Fund. The Kaiser Family Foundation says 21% of people who apply for health insurance on their own get turned down, are charged a higher price, or offered a plan that excludes coverage for their pre-existing condition.
All taxpayers
No matter what the Supreme Court had decided, it would have been a mixed bag for all Americans when it comes to federal spending. There is heated dispute over what impact the health care law will have on the country over the long term.
The federal government is set to spend more than $1 trillion over the next decade to subsidize coverage and expand eligibility for Medicaid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the law could reduce deficits modestly in the first 10 years and then much more significantly in the second decade.
The CBO said a repeal of the mandate could reduce deficits by $282 billion over 10 years, because the government would be subsidizing insurance for fewer people. But the nation faces costs in various ways for having people who are uninsured. The Urban Institute's Health Policy Center estimated that without a mandate, 40 million Americans would remain uninsured.
Meanwhile, the Flexible Spending Accounts that millions of Americans use to save money tax-free for medical expenses will be sliced under the law. FSAs often allow people to put aside up to $5,000 pre-tax; as of 2013, they were to face an annual limit of $2,500.
Small business owners
The rules and benefits small business owners face as a result of the health care law remain in place.
As CNN has chronicled, the law brought a mix of both. The director of the National Federation of Independent Business is one of the plaintiffs who pushed the court to strike down the law. Meanwhile, a group called Small Business Majority fought to protect the law, saying its loss could be a nightmare.
As of 2014, under the law, small firms with more than 50 full-time employees would have to provide coverage or face expensive fines.
All Americans, in lesser known ways
The massive health care law requires doctors to report goodies they get from medical supply companies; demands more breastfeeding rooms; requires all chain restaurants to list calories under every menu item, and includes numerous other provisions, which now remain in place.
Doctors and other health care providers
Health care providers have already begun making changes based on the 2010 law, and in preparation for what will go into effect in 2014. Those plans continue.
In the short term, doctors avoid "chaos" that may have resulted from the law suddenly being dropped or changed, according to Bob Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs at the American College of Physicians, who wrote a blog post on the website kevinmd.com this spring.
Medical groups have disagreed over the law.
How the Supreme Court Justices voted
What the health care ruling means to you - CNN.com
Historically this may make Romney's bid for the WH more difficult unless he flip-flops on repealing. If he maintains that stance, those who benefit will be out to vote for Obama in big numbers. Goldwater ran if I am correct, to oust Johnson's medicare plan. It is going to be an interesting election, again, we need a candid candidate in this election. However, Romney's side will now have most of health ins. agents, IMO, Muddy waters have just become muddier waters, as far as foreseeing the results of this election. The next three weeks will be very interesting watching public response.
Adam Winkler Guest
Posted Thu, June 28th, 2012 12:01 pm
Email Adam
Bio & Post Archive »
The Roberts Court is Born
Adam Winkler is a constitutional law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.
Today’s Supreme Court is often referred to as Anthony Kennedy’s Court. Although Kennedy is the swing justice who usually casts the deciding vote in close cases, the landmark ruling this week in the healthcare cases clearly mark the maturation of the “Roberts Court.”
Chief Justice John Roberts was the surprising swing vote in today’s Obamacare decision. Although he agreed with the four conservative justices, including Kennedy, that the individual mandate was not a regulation of interstate commerce, he voted with the Court’s moderates to hold that it was justified as a tax. Because people who don’t obtain insurance pay a tax to the IRS, the mandate was within Congress’s power to raise taxes for the general welfare. As a result, the Affordable Care Act was upheld.
With this deft ruling, Roberts avoided what was certain to be a cascade of criticism of the high court. No Supreme Court has struck down a president’s signature piece of legislation in over 75 years. Had Obamacare been voided, it would have inevitably led to charges of aggressive judicial activism. Roberts peered over the abyss and decided he didn’t want to go there.
Roberts’ decision was consistent with his confirmation hearings pledge to respect the co-equal branches of government, push for consensus, and reach narrow rulings designed to build broad coalitions on the Court. He promised to respect precedent. His jurisprudence, he said, would be marked by “modesty and humility” and protection of the precious institutional legitimacy of the Court.
Today, the institutional legitimacy of the Court was buttressed. President Obama wasn’t the only winner at the Supreme Court today. So was the Supreme Court itself.
Roberts’ humble move was a surprise only because his oft-stated concern for protecting the Court by avoiding bold rulings doesn’t always hold. Despite today’s decision, the Roberts Court is hardly conservative in the sense of cautious or avoiding bold rulings. In contrast to an older conservatism that emphasized judicial restraint, the Roberts Court is not hesitant to forcefully asserts its power.
Since John Roberts became Chief Justice in 2005, the Court has issued one landmark ruling after another. The Roberts Court gave us Citizens United, which struck down longstanding limits on corporate political spending. This Court also allowed new restrictions on women’s right to choose; became the first Supreme Court in American history to strike down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment; effectively outlawed voluntary efforts by public schools to racially integrate; and curtailed the reach of environmental protections.
In many of these decisions, the Roberts Court overturned or ignored precedent, including Rehnquist Court decisions less than a decade old. Prior to Citizens United, the Supreme Court had explicitly held in two cases that corporate political expenditures could be limited – the most recent of which was handed down in 2003. Six years before the Roberts Court upheld the federal ban on “partial birth” abortion, the Rehnquist Court, which wasn’t known for its liberal leanings, had overturned a nearly identical law.
Of course, the Roberts Court isn’t the first to overturn precedents and issue major rulings. Yet this Court has been uniquely willing to do so by sharply divided 5-4 majorities. The Warren Court’s Brown decision was famously 9-0. New York Times v. Sullivan, which freed up the media to discuss public figures, was decided by the same margin. Gideon v. Wainwright, on the constitutional right to counsel, and Loving v. Virginia, invaliding bans on interracial marriage, were also unanimous. Even Roe v. Wade was decided by an overwhelming 7-2 vote.
Perhaps as a result of the Roberts’ Court’s controversial 5-4 rulings, public opinion of the Court is at an historic low. Even after controversial rulings like Roe and Bush v. Gore, the Court still maintained high levels of public respect. But unlike the Warren Court, whose landmark rulings, though classified as “liberal,” didn’t match up with the platform of the Democratic Party – southern Democrats were the biggest opponents of Brown – its hard to ignore the consistent fit between the Roberts Court’s rulings and the Republican agenda.
Maybe that’s why recent polls show the Court’s public approval rating has dropped from over 80% in the 1990s to only 44% today. Three in four Americans now believe the justices’ votes are based on politics. Nothing could be worse for the Court’s institutional legitimacy.
Roberts may have voted to save healthcare because he wants to preserve the Court’s capital to take on other big issues heading toward the Court. Legal experts predict the Roberts Court will invalidate a key provision of one of the most important laws in American history, the Voting Rights Act, next term. And the Court is set to end affirmative action in public education. Both policies have been centerpieces of America’s commitment to civil rights for over forty years.
The Roberts Court has only just begun.
Posted in Post-decision Health Care Symposium
Recommended Citation: Adam Winkler, The Roberts Court is Born, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 28, 2012, 12:01 PM), The Roberts Court is Born : SCOTUSblog
The Roberts Court is Born : SCOTUSblog
Why will it make it harder for him? Didn't I recently read somewhere that 78% of the population is against Obama Care? Romney has said he will repeal Obama Care. Furthermore, Americans don't like the thought of having their taxes increased. Personally, I think this ruling will help Romney, not hurt him.
I’m Not Down on John Roberts
Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)
Thursday, June 28th at 11:35AM EDT
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.
Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.
60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now
I’m Not Down on John Roberts | RedState
I just got this email and I thought it was fitting....
There's a lady I've known forever. She's very sick. On top of that, she's being abused by those to whom she has given everything..... Lies about her abound, and seem to come from all sides. Just breaks my heart. Seems there's nothing I can do alone but maybe, if we join in and lift her up together, we can heal her. She's well over 230 years old, but way too young to die.
Her name is ' America '... And I love her and have always been proud of her.
Take time to say a prayer for her - even if it is a short, simple prayer like, Lord, please heal our land. Amen.. Thanks.
PLEASE KEEP THIS E-MAIL GOING.
Have a wonderful 4th of July Everyone!!!
Oh right. Wonder how that will go during the debates when Obama uses RomneyCare against him in front of the American public. Would have been real nice to have a different candidate up against him to show the contrast...
Also, why couldn't Romney come out like this when Obama made his illegal alien policy change or when the Court struck down three of the provisions in Arizona's law? Strong, firm, and decisive.
Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don't even want
Thursday, June 28, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
(NaturalNews) Regardless of whether you agree with the fundamentals of Obamacare, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled the federal government has the power to tax Americans into mandatory purchases of private industry products means an end to economic freedom in America. Why? Because it hands the federal government the power to force the American people to buy anything the government wants or face tax penalties for refusing to do so. It is the equivalent of announcing a federal monopoly over all private purchasing decisions.
"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."
Thus, the government can force Americans to buy anything it wants by simply characterizing the forced payment as a "tax."
Economic freedom crushed by Supreme Court
This article is not an argument so much about Obamacare itself, by the way; it's a red alert about a fundamental loss of economic freedom -- a shifting of private purchasing decisions to Washington D.C. Now, buoyed by the passage of Obamacare, the U.S. government can (and will) create new mandates that, for example, would force Americans to buy all the following:
• A new car each year from Detroit, in order to "boost the U.S. auto industry."
• War bonds to "support the war effort."
• A year's supply of vaccines.
• Life insurance from the government's "approved" sources.
• Lawn fertilizer (the "lawn health care mandate").
• Intellectual property such as patented human genes already in your body.
There is no limit to the reach of the Supreme Court's wild misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, it seems. So now, all Americans can expect to get ready for the federal government to start laying out a long list of products and services we will all be taxed into buying from the crony capitalist buddies of those in power.
Government hands economic monopoly to Big Pharma and the vaccine industry
Perhaps the worst side effect is that Obamacare isn't really about health care at all. It's about protecting a Big Pharma monopoly over medicine; forcing consumers to buy into a system that offers zero coverage for alternative medicine, nutritional therapies, natural remedies or the healing arts.
If Obamacare actually offered consumers a free market choice of where to get services, it would be a lot more balanced and effective. Instead, it forces consumers to buy into a system of monopoly medicine of drugs and surgery that would flat-out collapse if not for the monopolistic protections granted to the industry by the government itself.
If given a free choice, most consumers prefer complementary medicine than straight-up "drugs and surgery" medicine, but complementary medicine isn't covered under Obamacare. The law is really just another corrupt, criminal-minded handout to the drug industry. And now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can't even opt out!
Abuse of power by the federal government knows no bounds
That's the real kicker in all this: No more opting out of the private purchasing demands of the federal government! Americans are being pick-pocketed at an alarming rate, and it's only going to get worse now that this power has been unwisely handed to the federal government by a short-sighted Supreme Court.
Because long after Obama is gone, other Presidents -- from any political party -- will abuse this precedent to force Americans into buying any number of products, services, or even intellectual property that we don't want. There is now no limit to what the federal government can force you to buy by calling it a "tax."
Note, carefully, there is NO LIMIT to this "taxing" power. If you bring home a monthly paycheck of, for example, $3,000, the U.S. government can now mandate that you spend $2,999 of that on various products and services that it deems you must have "for your own protection." You no longer control your own take-home pay! The government can force you to spend it on things you don't want or even need!
America, it seems, is starting to sound a whole lot like England under King George. Soon, we'll be living under our own modern Stamp Act from 1765, which eventually led to the American Revolution. Learn your history! As Wikipedia explains: (Stamp Act 1765 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
The Stamp Act 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp. These printed materials were legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. Like previous taxes, the stamp tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in colonial paper money. The purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the Seven Years' War. The British government felt that the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of this military presence, and should pay at least a portion of the expense.
The Stamp Act met great resistance in the colonies. The colonies sent no representatives to Parliament, and therefore had no influence over what taxes were raised, how they were levied, or how they would be spent. Many colonists considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent -- consent that only the colonial legislatures could grant. Colonial assemblies sent petitions and protests. The Stamp Act Congress held in New York City, reflecting the first significant joint colonial response to any British measure, also petitioned Parliament and the King. Local protest groups, led by colonial merchants and landowners, established connections through correspondence that created a loose coalition that extended from New England to Georgia. Protests and demonstrations initiated by the Sons of Liberty often turned violent and destructive as the masses became involved. Very soon all stamp tax distributors were intimidated into resigning their commissions, and the tax was never effectively collected.
Opposition to the Stamp Act was not limited to the colonies. British merchants and manufacturers, whose exports to the colonies were threatened by colonial economic problems exacerbated by the tax, also pressured Parliament. The Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 as a matter of expedience, but Parliament affirmed its power to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever" by also passing the Declaratory Act. There followed a series of new taxes and regulations, likewise opposed by the colonists.
The episode played a major role in defining the grievances and enabling the organized colonial resistance that led to the American Revolution in 1775.
Stay informed! FREE subscription to the Health Ranger's email newsletter
Get breaking health news + a LIFETIME 7% discount on everything at the NaturalNews Store
Learn more: Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don't even want
Does the word re-peal sound about right??? Tax with no representation....
Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling
Ron Paul on today’s Supreme Court decision:
“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.
“Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.”
Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
SCOTUS & Eric Holder: Its political pimpin’ pimpin’, man!
June 28, 2012 by ppjg
Marti Oakley Copyright 2012- All Rights Reserved
Note: I wrote this article last night in anticipation of what I was sure would be the results of SCOTUS….unfortunatley I was absolutely correct in my predicition on the outcome of Citizens v Obamacare. The Court voted to uphold this unconstitional assault on America. Just one more reason this court needs to be rendered defunct.
__________________________________________________ __________________
For a portion of this afternoon, I flipped back and forth between the tedious and twisted up oral arguments in the Supreme Court for and against Obamacare and the political pimping going on, on MSNBC about the pending vote of [contempt of congress] against Eric Holder, the US Attorney General. MSNBC is of course the lefts’ counter to FAUX News on the right, and these days has about as much credibility.
Those magic black robes!
I doubt there are any of us out here who think or believe that Obamacare is even remotely constitutional. Yet the Supreme’s and the attorney’s talked endlessly about whether or not the penalty tax was really a tax or just a penalty while every one of them knew it was a penalty tax meant to raise revenue and to coerce unwilling individuals into a system they don’t want to be a part of. Simply put: It is legislative extortion meant to raise revenue or, involuntary forced compliance which will also raise revenue.
At one point, the argument from the bench was that Social Security was also a tax that everyone had to pay. Only that isn’t really true, and neither is it true in regards to Obamacare. I have no intentions of getting into this any further except to say that Obamacare is a direct assault on individual rights and is clearly unconstitutional from start to finish. Congress knew it when they passed it and the president knew it when he signed it into law. The Supreme’s also know this and I can hardly wait to hear the convoluted rationale to be given to explain why they did not declare the entire mess unconstitutional. But I have no doubt that they will uphold this unconstitutional assault on the public.
I consider this to be Citizens v Obamacare opinion which will rival the Citizens v United for position #1 on the greatest failures of this court to defend and protect the Constitution for the people of the United States.
About those talking heads at MSNBC….
Coinciding with tomorrow’s decision on the Obamacare assault, the House of Representatives will vote on holding Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, in contempt of congress. According to those at MSNBC, this is unheard of and should never happen. I disagree. I also take great issue with the false position that it is the result of a witch hunt, as MSNBC claims that Holder was in no way connected to, had any knowledge of and did not participate in the ATF’s Fast & Furious gun running scam.
My first question would of course be: And how do you know that when congress has not been able to find that out? How could the hosts on MSNBC have definitive proof that Holder was totally in the dark? The answer is: They ain’t got a clue! No one does!
The issue with Mr. Holder is NOT whether or not he was remotely involved, it is, his refusal to submit documents demanded by a government committee charged with investigating Fast & Furious so that a determination could be made. But according to those at MSNBC Holder ignored those document demands because the names of informants could be revealed or something really, really bad could happen if the committee members saw what really happened and who was involved. And whomever was involved caused the president to issue what is in effect, a get out of jail free card, to protect Holder from exposure.
It’s Pimpin’! Pimpin’, Man!
Through various evening programs, MSNBC vacillated between how awful, terrible, unheard of and catastrophic it would be for a government official to be held in contempt……….maybe really meaning held accountable and not allowed to be above the law? Again, I disagree.
The broadcasts got progressively more inflammatory, with the hosts each speaking about the NRA as if it was some black ops group that had infiltrated the government and had taken hostages. The liberal lacing of the phrase [conspiracy theory] was injected throughout the broadcasts. Yeah! that must be it! It’s just one of those darn conspiracy theories! oooohhh!
Then of course, Arizona was brought into the mix and the MSNBC crew repeatedly cited them for having the most lax gun laws in the states. Later they were showing a count of how many gun shops there were in Arizona, and ending with a claim that 85% of all guns used by the cartels come from the US. There were even alleged reports from ATF agents who were prohibited from making arrests of suspected criminals buying guns for running in Mexico, in Arizona. It was enough to bring you to tears once you wiped the vomit off your chin while it left you wondering…..
What the hell do gun laws in Arizona and the number of gun sellers in Arizona, have to do with the AG refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation???
But then Ed Schultz landed the coup d’ gras……..asking Rep. Cummings (D-MD) if it was race based.
Yup! Ed! That is probably all this is about. It couldn’t possibly be about the possible collusion of the AG with the ATF to buy up guns and [walk them into Mexico] to arm criminals and cartels in order to somehow trace them through Mexico and connect them to crimes along the border so that the statistics from that could be compiled. Anyway that was the first excuse given when they got outed.
It’s probably just that Eric Holder is a black man and Ed did everything he could to coax Rep. Cummings into taking the bait. Much to his credit, he did not.
This was all preceded by Chris Mathews earlier in the week repeatedly trying to invoke race as the cause of the contempt action to divert attention away from the actual issue of Holder refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation.
Here’s another question that keeps popping up:
If Holder was not involved, doesn’t know anything, had no knowledge of Fast & Furious, what documents could he possibly possess that he is now refusing to hand over to congress?
Tomorrow! Tomorrow! You’re only a day away!
So Thursday June 28th is a sort of milestone day for the country. The Supreme’s will most likely issue another opinion that will have nothing remotely constitutional contained in it. I guess it matters not. There will be few if any out here who will be able to make heads or tales of what will likely be one of the most convoluted, twisted up, ambiguous and unreadable opinions to come out of this court. And that’s saying something, considering what has passed as opinion historically.
The vote will be taken on Eric Holder’s contempt of congress. It won’t succeed and even if it did it is the Justice department that would decide whether or not to make a case out of it. That would be the same Justice Department that Holder heads up. What do you think the chances are of that happening? (Stop laughing!)
I think I’ll sleep late tomorrow.
SCOTUS & Eric Holder: Its political pimpin’ pimpin’, man! « The PPJ Gazette
[bAnd the assault on our way of life and freedoms go on, are we awake yet[/b]
The America people need a win, we're being abused by an out of control government, by CEO's who outsource and ship jobs to China and other countries who use children for slave labor, yes, America needs a win and it's long overdue, today IMO the "Court" spit in America's face giving more power to those out of control, but we must vote them out of office in Nov., if not then I'm not sure my country can be saved.http://www.alipac.us/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif
Obama basks in the glow of court victory
By Amie Parnes and Jonathan Easley - 06/28/12 12:43 PM ET
Basking in an enormous political triumph, President Obama on Thursday hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the healthcare law as “a victory for people all over this country.”
Declaring that the “highest court in the land has now spoken,” Obama said the 5-4 decision by the high court reaffirmed a fundamental principle that “no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.”
The stunning news provided a much-needed boost for the White House ahead of an election that many expect will go down to the wire. White House aides said the decision — brought with the help of the unlikely ally Chief Justice John Roberts — reaffirmed their long-held belief that the law was constitutional.
Speaking in the East Room a little more than two hours after the decision came down, Obama acknowledged talk about the decision will center on “who won and who lost,” but said that “completely misses the point."
While he conceded that the debate over the health law has been “divisive,” he reiterated once again that he didn’t pursue the law because it was “good politics.”
“I did it because I believed it was good for the country,” he said.
Obama strongly defended the mandate to have insurance, which the Supreme Court upheld under Congress' power to levy taxes, and jabbed at GOP rival Mitt Romney for signing a law as governor that included a similar requirement.
“People who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance,” Obama said, noting the mandate had previously enjoyed support from both parties, “including the current Republican nominee for president.”
A few minutes before Obama spoke, Romney vowed to act to repeal the law as president, calling it a “job killer.”
“What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States,” Romney said in Washington while standing against a backdrop of the Capitol dome. “What the court did today was say that ObamaCare does not violate the constitution. What they did not do was say that ObamaCare is good law or that it’s good policy.”
“ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today,” Romney added. “ObamaCare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.”
The Obama campaign returned fire, accusing Romney of attacking a law that he helped set the model for as governor of Massachusetts.
“Romney has run away from his accomplishment in Massachusetts, callously promising to repeal national reform and 'kill it dead,' " Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement. “He owes the American people a clear, non-parsed explanation of why he believes his decisions in Massachusetts are wrong for the country, and exactly what he would do to help the American people get the healthcare they need.”
White House aides were careful not to spike the football, though they expressed confidence it would help propel Obama to a second term.
“We said it was constitutional and we were right,” one White House aide said. “That’s all there is.”
One former senior administration official added that the decision — which many believed was unlikely to go in their favor — is exactly what the Obama campaign needed as the president gears up for the fall campaign.
“This is exactly the boost of confidence that the president needs,” the former senior administration official said.
The former official predicted that the high court’s decision would “change the polling” about the law.
“This has always been about getting the independents, and I think if you’ve got John Roberts saying this is constitutional, that will provide a huge sustained gust of wind in the sails of the campaign,” the former official said.
As the decision came down Thursday, some White House staffers gathered in press secretary Jay Carney's office with the door closed in what aides quipped was their "war room." The press office was virtually deserted as people awaited word on the Supreme Court’s decision.
Obama had been scheduled to be in the Oval Office when the decision came down. But a few White House reporters were temporarily held near Carney's office as Obama apparently made his way from the residence to the West Wing.
It was unclear how Obama received the news of the ruling.
During his remarks, Obama vowed to work together to improve upon the law. But, even as the House threatened to repeal the law on Thursday, he said the nation can’t afford to “refight the political battles” from two years ago.
Instead, he urged lawmakers to focus on the economy, which he called, the “most urgent challenge of our time”
"It's time for us to move forward,” he said. "Today, I'm as confident as ever, that when we look back 5 years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years now, we'll be better off."
— This story was last updated at 1:39 p.m.
Obama basks in the glow of court victory - TheHill.com
5 Unelected Judges Seal the Fate and Future of 310 Million Americans
posted on June 28, 2012 by Gary DeMar
If Congress does not repeal ObamaCare, America will never be the same.
While the court’s healthcare decision was unconstitutional, illogical, and borderline insane, it wasn’t surprising or unexpected given past decisions.
Like John Roberts who voted with the four liberal members of the court to uphold the individual mandate, it was Justice Owen Roberts (1875-1955) who sided with the liberals to uphold FDR’s social welfare programs. “This sudden switch by Justice [Owen] Roberts was forever after referred to as ‘the switch in time that saved nine.’” John Robert’s vote puts him in equally bad company.
The court ruled decades ago that employees and employers could be forced to pay into a new system of wealth confiscation called Social Security. Many employees do not know that employers are forced to pay half of what they pay — 6.14 percent. Your employer is forced to pay for your retirement. If it’s OK for the government to force him to pay for something, then how can we argue that it’s wrong for the government to force us to pay for something?
In 1973, in the infamous Roe v. Wade pro-abortion decision, seven justices ruled that women could kill their pre-born babies. That’s 50+ million pre-born babies in 39 years. If it’s OK to kill pre-born babies, what’s wrong with a tax to force people to pay for healthcare?
Then there was the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London (2005) decision. The court ruled that it was constitutionally permissible for local governments to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. This ruling violated the eminent domain provision embedded in the Constitution. If it’s OK for the government to take your property because it needs more tax revenue, then what’s the problem in forcing people to get healthcare or be fined?
With the upholding of the individual mandate based on convoluted constitutional logic, John Locke’s life, liberty, and property protections have been wiped out by judicial fiat by five unelected judges.
Thy name is tyranny!
Who gets elected in November becomes all-important. Many people don’t like Romney, but at this point in time he’s our only hope in getting freedom-denying ObamaCare repealed. So let’s double down and get busy changing the face of Congress and sending Obama packing.
Read more: 5 Unelected Judges Seal the Fate and Future of 310 Million Americans - Godfather Politics
GOP governors vow to ignore Obamacare
June 28, 2012
http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/ca...63d05deacd.jpg
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, head of the Republican Governors Association, said states should wait until the election before implementing Obamacare in hopes Mitt Romney will win and kill the reforms. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Paul Bedard
Washington Secrets
The Washington Examiner @SecretsBedard
Republican governors are planning to ignore the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold Obamacare hoping that the issue will drive voters to dump President Obama in favor of Mitt Romney who has vowed to kill the Affordable Care Act.
After the decision, the Republican Governors Association said that nothing should be done by the states until after the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House and Senate will kill the health care reform pushed through by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.
RGA Chairman Bob McDonnell said, "Today's ruling crystallizes all that's at stake in November's election. The only way to stop Barack Obama's budget-busting health care takeover is by electing a new president. Barack Obama's health care takeover encapsulates his presidency: Obamacare increases taxes, grows the size of government and puts bureaucrats over patients while doing nothing to improve the economy."
The Virginia governor, who is on Mitt Romney's list of potential vice presidential candidates, added, "By replacing Barack Obama with Mitt Romney, we will not only stop the federal government's healthcare takeover, but will also take a giant step towards a full economic recovery."
Other governors have urged a similar strategy. Scott Walker, the newly re-elected Wisconsin governor, said that he won't put into place any elements of Obamacare until after the election. Other governors are taking a similar position.
GOP governors vow to ignore Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
To the first part, yes they will I believe. To the second part, Ron Paul is a very astute man.Quote:
RON PAUL: Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.”
Yes he is but still no one is listening....They will opt out, and not pay the tax either, and some will go to jail. It will be a mess before it gets resolved. It is not what our country needs at this point and time, 2700 pages of rule, regulations and etc and it was still passed....How many of those judges read the whole thing, it is not constitutional !!!!!
This is a taste of things to come and guess who's name pops up again!!!!! 2700 pages of rules and regulations can you just imagine whats to come,WOW what a deal!!!!
Did ‘Frontline’ Attack on Dentistry Rely on Convicted Felon?
PBS, Soros-funded groups involved in dental documentary that pushes socialized medicine.
Published: 6/27/2012 3:52 PM ET
Subscribe to Mike Ciandella
By Mike Ciandella
Author Archive
For-profit dental care is awful, according to a new report by PBS’s “Frontline.” The piece pushed socialized medicine and attacked dentistry companies, especially the firm Kool Smiles. But the story relied on whistleblower comments from a former Kool Smiles employee who is not only suing the firm, she may well have a felony criminal record.
The employee, Christina Bowne, was a former office manager for the company, and is suing the firm for wrongful termination. However, according to a Virginia Criminal Record report, a Christina Summers Bowne, from the same area of Virginia, was convicted of “obtaining money by false pretenses.” That woman was given a five-year sentence, which was suspended. No one responded to attempts to either contact Bowne or PBS “Frontline” producer Jill Rosenbaum.
The hour-long documentary relied heavily on anti-industry interview subjects, such as Bowne, politicians and competitors to depict for-profit dentistry as bad. Reporter Miles O’Brien, formerly of CNN, was the on-screen personality. However, in a “Frontline” chat on June 27, O’Brien made it clear he liked the non-profit model over Kool Smiles.
“I think the Sarell Dental model in Alabama Sarrell Dental Center
is worthy of imitation. It is a non profit that focuses on poor kids. Dentists are paid a straight salary ... no matter how many kids they see or filling or crowns they do. When you remove the pressure to increase production, the nature of the care changes. In this case, Alabama leads the nation!”
The documentary also mentioned an audit by the state of Massachusetts into Kool Smiles. The context implied that this had to do with medical malpractice complaints. In actuality, the audit looked into discrepancies caused mainly by standard clerical and computer errors. Kool Smiles responded with a presentation that is currently posted on the "Frontline" website. As Kool Smiles pointed out in its response, in any medical practice, there are bound to be a few unhappy patients.
One of the examples that PBS used was of an 87-year-old woman who was “tricked” into taking out a credit card to pay for her dental work, and she had “charges accrue before she left the office.”
But those complaints reflected the ignorance of the show’s writers about how credit works. The point of a healthcare credit card is simple. It provides a way for people to pay back their dental bills in increments, rather than in one shot. Of course the bill accrued interest. The woman in question had already spent the money to pay it.
Then “Frontline” focused on a grandmother who brought her two grandchildren to the dentist and was shocked that, not only would the dentist not accept Medicaid, but there were no “discounts or rebates” for her, after she had been going to the dentist for 30 years. She described such treatment as “unreal,” and since that was the only reference at all to her story, it was obvious “Frontline” agreed with her. Many people probably are not aware that it is a common practice for dentists to give discounts to the family members of long time customers. Mainly because it isn’t.
The “Frontline” special was made in conjunction with the Center for Public Integrity, using the results of a Pew Research Center poll. Like-minded organizations tend to scratch each other’s backs. In this case the Pew Research Center, and CPI are both funded by Soros. Pew got $500,000 in Soros money in 2009 alone. The Center for Public Integrity got $2,416,000 in Soros funds from 2000-2003.
Did
Federal Health Care Nullification Act
The following is Tenth Amendment Center approved legislation to nullify federal overreach into the health care industry. Activists, we encourage you to send this to your state senators and representatives – and ask them to introduce this legislation in your state.
click here for additional talking points
CLICK HERE – to download the Tenth Amendment Center’s Nullification Talking Points brochure (.pdf)
An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.
SECTION 1. The legislature of the State of ____________ finds that:
1. The People of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more.
2. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.
3. The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” interferes with the right of the People of the State of _____________ to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”
SECTION 2. NEW LAW
A new section of law to be codified in the [STATE] Statutes as Section [NUMBER] of Title [NUMBER], unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. The Legislature of the State of _______________ declares that the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” within the limits of this State.
C. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or both.
D. Any public officer or employee of the State of ____________ that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding two (2) years or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment.
E. Any aggrieved party shall also have a private action against any person violating the provisions of subsections (C) or (D).
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Federal Health Care Nullification Act – Tenth Amendment Center
Oh isn't that special they were all for it before they were against it!!!! The American People were ignored and they rammed it down our throats against our wishes. even after they were told "you had to pass it to read it" by queen holy Polsie!!!!! Now how many of you know what a pig in a poke is???? Now tell me Miss Sarah weren't you part of that to begin with...all you politicians make me puke
SARAH PALIN: 'Obama Lies, Freedom Dies'
Brett LoGiurato | Jun. 28, 2012, 10:48 AM | 67,280 | 133
UPDATE (2:00 P.M. ET): Palin also reacted on her Facebook page, saying "Thank God" for the Supreme Court because it would rally conservatives around the election:
SCOTUS now rules this is a tax? Well, Congress has the ability to create taxes – and also has the ability to rescind them. Upon their return from the July recess, Congress should act immediately to repeal this terrible new tax on the American people, and indeed they must repeal all of Obamacare. This is the most brazen and sweeping new tax and government overreach imposed on us. We the People did not ask for this tax, we do not want this tax, and we can’t afford this tax. This is not an answer to America’s health care challenges.
Sarah Palin just tweeted her reaction to the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling.
Sarah Palin Obamacare
Twitter/@SarahPalinUSA
What she's referring to: In 2009, Barack Obama said the mandate was "not a tax." The Supreme Court just upheld the mandate as a tax.
On her Facebook page Monday, Palin wrote a post defending her claim that Obamacare creates a "death panel."
"If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down Obamacare entirely, then Congress must act to repeal IPAB and Obamacare before it is indeed 'too late,'" she wrote. "All of Obamacare must go one way or another."
Read more: Sarah Palin's Reaction To Obamacare Ruling: 'Obama Lies, Freedom Dies' - Business Insider
Sarah Palin's Reaction To Obamacare Ruling: 'Obama Lies, Freedom Dies' - Business Insider
Rush Limbaugh Completely Melted Down Over The Obamacare Decision
Brett LoGiurato | Jun. 28, 2012, 2:38 PM | 20,544 | 135
Rush Limbaugh, as you might imagine, was not pleased at the Supreme Court's decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act on Thursday.
He railed against the Supreme Court on his radio show Thursday, blasting John Roberts and saying that America had "been betrayed and deceived by the Supreme Court. He said it was the "largest tax increase in the history of the world."
"What has been upheld here is fraud, and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama's domestic army," Limbaugh said. "That is what we face now. We were deceived. Obamacare was a lie. It was a stealth tax on all Americans, and nobody knew it until today. Not officially. Obama told George Stephanopoulos it wasn't a tax. And Stephanopoulos was trouble-making for trying to suggest otherwise."
He summed it all up with a shot at the Supreme Court's week overall, in which the court upheld Obamacare and overturned three key provisions in Arizona's immigration law.
"Between the Arizona and Obamacare decisions, America is a very different concept than it was just a week ago," Limbaugh said. "In the United States of America, you either purchase what central authorities tell you to purchase or they will punish you with taxes. In America, states are not allowed to fully protect their citizens from the slow-motion invasion across their borders."
Listen below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=1IxJyR0Hwz0
Read more: Rush Limbaugh Melts Down At Obamacare Supreme Court Decision - Business Insider
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploa...hcareplans.jpg
Who your gonna vote for!! The socialist or the corporate fascist fun is coming to river city, flim flam, flim flam,,
I Am Down on John Roberts.
Posted by Thomas Crown (Diary)
Thursday, June 28th at 12:11PM EDT
213 Comments
[promoted from the diaries]
I’m taking time from reading the opinion (which itself represents taking time from billing clients), so this will be a quickie.
I’m not trying to gainsay Erick at length here (though concededly the title is a provocation), but I do want to get this out. We do not choose justices, on our side, because of policy results; we choose them for process, which we believe will usually, but not always, produce better results. Process matters in the law, because process is the law. When the law upon which the majority of our citizens through their representatives have agreed is followed, the result is axiomatically better either substantively or educationally, that is, because it shows us where our process is wrong.
This is even more important where the Constitution is involved, because the certainty of those processes is the bedrock on which our legal order is predicated. No certainty, no order; no order, no inferior laws.
While we should care about the Court’s result today, what should frighten us is the process used to achieve it.
What Roberts did today is to deflect mounting criticism of the court — including revived court packing schemes! — from the left. Roberts knows, from decades around conservatives, that we are no threat to the judiciary; not to put too fine a point on it, we’re like black voters with the Democrat Party. We’ll keep taking the abuse and coming back for more.
To preserve the Court’s institutional legacy, and to avoid an expansion of the Commerce Clause — a bete noire to the conservative movement for decades untold — he instead expanded the Taxation power. There is now literally no national policy that cannot be effected by placing in opposition to that policy a monstrously large tax, with the threat of fines, bankruptcy, and jail on the other side. None.
The idea that the mandate is a tax, and one allowed by the Taxation power, is facially ridiculous: You face a tax for existence, and can only escape it by paying for private insurance.
Taxation, as the Founders recognized, is an arrogation of power to the government. The power to tax is the power to control.
This is not to say we would have been better with Harriet Miers, or indeed, with anyone else. It’s to say that the Chief, who made the protection of the Court’s institutional image and entirely persuasive power his foremost goal, has gutted the limitation on enumerated powers to achieve that goal.
The result is awful. The process is worse.
I Am Down on John Roberts. | RedState
Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare Is Insane, by Devvy Kidd
06-28-2012 • rense.com
Not under the commerce clause, but under the taxing power of the Outlaw Congress.
Roberts sided with the socialists on the court. He was the swing vote on this case.
Many states have voted to reject Obamacare.
I have said all along: Look out. The forcing of an 'individual mandate' will be upheld by the IRS with a gun to your head and that's just what old Roberts said.
The states can reject Obamacare, but how are they going to protect their citizens from the IRS?
To say I'm shocked is putting it mildly.
The impostor president said over and over and over the bill was not a tax.
What Roberts and the rest of the !@!#! on the court said is the criminal syndicate (Congress) can force you and me to purchase anything they want to shove down our throats. The court said those gangsters can legislate have the "right" to legislate our behavior. It is truly insane.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Read Full Story
Reported by Donna Hancock
Supreme Court Ruling
On Obamacare Is Insane
By Devvy Kidd
6-28-12
Not under the commerce clause, but under the taxing power of the Outlaw Congress.
Roberts sided with the socialists on the court. He was the swing vote on this case.
Many states have voted to reject Obamacare.
I have said all along: Look out. The forcing of an 'individual mandate' will be upheld by the IRS with a gun to your head and that's just what old Roberts said.
The states can reject Obamacare, but how are they going to protect their citizens from the IRS?
To say I'm shocked is putting it mildly.
The impostor president said over and over and over the bill was not a tax.
What Roberts and the rest of the !@!#! on the court said is the criminal syndicate (Congress) can force you and me to purchase anything they want to shove down our throats. The court said those gangsters have the "right" to legislate our behavior. It is truly insane.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
Devvy
Devvy - Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare Is Insane
Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare Is Insane, by Devvy Kidd
Special Live Broadcast from the Cato Institute
View at Live from the Cato Institute
July 2, 2012 · 1:30 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.
The Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling:
What Does It All Mean?
In a complex decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the individual mandate component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is constitutional under Congress's taxing power. What is left of the idea that the Constitution creates a government of limited powers? What does this case-of-the-century mean for both the Constitution and our health care system? Two panels of experts will engage in an in-depth discussion of these issues, and more, in the immediate wake of the Supreme Court’s historic decision.
Schedule:
1:30 – 3:00 p.m. The Scope of Constitutional Powers
Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute
David Rivkin, Baker Hostetler LLP
Moderated by Roger Pilon, Cato Institute
3:15 – 4:45 p.m. The Future of Health Care
Michael F. Cannon, Cato Institute
Avik Roy, Manhattan Institute
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
Moderated by Michael Tanner, Cato Institute
Watch the event at Live from the Cato Institute
If you are unable to view the event live, watch the archived video at
Cato Institute: Event Archives - 2012
Videos are generally available 24 hours after the event.
Health care decision: House GOP to renew repeal effort
John Boehner is pictured. | Jay Westcott/POLITICO
'The president’s health care law is hurting our economy,' Boehner said. | Jay Westcott/POLITICO
By JAKE SHERMAN, MANU RAJU and SEUNG MIN KIM | 6/28/12 10:56 AM EDT Updated: 6/28/12 11:57 AM EDT
House Republicans said after the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law that they’ll vote to repeal it after Congress returns from its July Fourth recess.
The House will vote to repeal the health care law — again — on July 11, the office of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said. But it will most likely amount to little: Democrats didn’t want to repeal it when its constitutionality was still in question, and now they have the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval.
Continue Reading
Text Size
Latest on POLITICO
Altmire: 'No choice' in Holder vote
Terry's mom: Walkout is 'a disgrace'
Bill Miller joins Business Roundtable
Playbook: A bigger place in history
6 cleverest SCOTUS headlines
Palin: 'Optimistic' after ruling
(Also on POLITICO: Cantor: House will vote on repeal on July 11)
Indeed, Senate Democrats are ready to “move on” to other job creation legislation, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.
In the wake of the ruling upholding the law, Republicans don’t have to contend with trying to replace popular provisions but, rather, will try to hack away at the law they dubbed “Obamacare.”
“Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety,” Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform…”
Cantor was more blunt, called the ruling “a crushing blow to patients throughout the country.”
But Reid took the floor shortly after the decision and made it clear he has no intention of taking up legislation now.
Reid urged Republicans to stop fighting “yesterday’s battles” and dubbed the health care law the “greatest single step in generations toward ensuring access to affordable, quality health care for every person in America.”
(Also on POLITICO: GOP leaders rip law, not SCOTUS decision)
“No longer will Americans live in fear of losing their health insurance because they lose their job,” Reid said from the Senate floor. “No longer will tens of millions of Americans rely on emergency room care, or go without care entirely because they have no insurance at all. Soon virtually every man, woman and child in America will have access to health insurance they can afford and the vital care they need.”
His counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), responded that the ruling does nothing to change that the law is bad — and that Republicans should push forward in repealing it..
“Today’s decision does nothing to diminish the fact that Obamacare’s mandates, tax hikes and Medicare cuts should be repealed and replaced with common-sense reforms that lower costs and that the American people actually want,” McConnell said. “It is my hope that with new leadership in the White House and Senate, we can enact these step-by-step solutions and prevent further damage from this terrible law.”
Read more: Health care decision: House GOP to renew repeal effort - Jake Sherman and Manu Raju and Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com
Health care decision: House GOP to renew repeal effort - Jake Sherman and Manu Raju and Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com