-
Holding AWOL Obama Accountable
May 23, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Sebelius’s Monkey Business
May 15, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Senators in Charge of Asylum
May 1, 2013 | 78 comments
-
Read the Fine Print, Senator
April 24, 2013 | 38 comments
-
Unhealthy Immigration Reform
April 17, 2013 | 45 comments
Another Perspective
Twisting the Truth About Healthcare
It’s simply a huge lie to claim that all Americans engage in healthcare commerce.
If the Supreme Court upholds the health law’s mandatory insurance, the ruling will likely turn on a lie rather than constitutional principle.
The Obama administration’s legal case doesn’t just stretch the meaning of the Commerce Clause. It also stretches the truth about healthcare consumption. Sadly, the oral arguments suggest that four, possibly five of the Justices, actually believe the administration’s hocus pocus claims about who consumes healthcare. .
During the oral argument on March 27th, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli told the packed courtroom that all Americans are engaged in healthcare commerce, so Congress can use its Commerce Power to compel them to pay with insurance. Verrilli boldly declared that “this is not a purchase mandate.” He argued that the law merely requires people to use insurance to pay for the healthcare they are already consuming or inevitably will consume.
The premise that all Americans inevitably consume health care is almost true for seniors, but they are not subject to the mandate.
For Americans younger than 65, the premise is false. According to yearly reports from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 50% of Americans are non-consumers or near non-consumers.
They account for 2.9% of the nation’s health expenditures. Their mean annual expenditure is a tiny $238 a year, indicating that many spend $0 on healthcare. Yet the individual mandate would compel them to sign up for an estimated $5,000 annual health plan.
Are these non-consumers and near non-consumers foregoing healthcare they need ? Generally no, because 95.3% consider themselves to be in excellent, very good or good health. Less than half a percent reported being in poor health. The same people who are non-consumers one year tend to be non-consumers the next, because they’re healthy.
It’s one thing to regulate commerce. But how can the Obama administration stretch the Commerce power so far that it reaches even people who don’t consume healthcare? Where is the connection with commerce? Justice Kennedy’s opening question to Verrilli pointed to the problem. “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it? “
Verrilli answered, “That’s not what’s going on here, Justice Kennedy, and we’re not seeking to defend the law on that basis.… what is being regulated is the method of financing health — the purchase of health care.”
Verrilli insisted that the individual mandate is nothing more than “regulation of existing commerce.” He told the Court the mandate “regulates the method of paying for a service that a class of people to whom it applies are either consuming — or inevitably will consume.”
“Inevitably”? The data show otherwise. Yet, astoundingly, at least four, maybe five justices seemed to go along with the argument.
Last August, the bipartisan panel of judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals were not bamboozled. The 11th Circuit was the only federal appeals court to challenge the fallacy that all Americans “inevitably” consume healthcare, and the only federal appeals court to strike down the mandate. The 11th Circuit judges warned that the mandate is “woefully overinclusive.” It conflates “those who presently consume healthcare with those who will not consume healthcare for many years into the future.” Compelling people to enter healthcare commerce is different from regulating them once they are consumers, ruled the 11th Circuit. Only the latter is constitutional.
During last month’s Supreme Court showdown, that critical distinction was glossed over. Justice Sotomayor said “virtually everyone will use healthcare, ” and Justices Kagan, and Breyer parroted the fallacy in so many words. Kagan called it key to the government’s case.
In truth, the mandate forces healthy people to buy expensive plans they won’t use. The money subsidizes insurance companies that in turn are forced to implement politically popular changes such as eliminating caps on benefits and waiting periods. A neat and tidy scheme, but hardly within Congress’s enumerated Commerce power.
Oral arguments can be misleading, and it may be that the Justices ultimately will see that the Commerce Clause rationale hinges on the false claim that everyone is a healthcare consumer. Otherwise, this epic constitutional struggle could be decided not on principle but on a mistake.
About the Author
Betsy McCaughey is a former Lt. Governor of New York and author of Beating Obamacare.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (98) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Betsy McCaughey
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/09/twisting-the-truth-about-healt
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Public Nuisances
- We Have Her Example
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
spike59| 4.9.12 @ 7:21AM
For Americans younger than 65, the premise is false. According to yearly reports from the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 50% of Americans are non-consumers or near non-consumers.
They account for 2.9% of the nation's health expenditures. Their mean annual expenditure is a tiny $238 a year, indicating that many spend $0 on healthcare. Yet the individual mandate would compel them to sign up for an estimated $5,000 annual health plan.
============================
thank you for simultaneously pointing out yet another LIE from the ObaMao administration and exposing the truth behind their desperate attempts to defend the mandate; namely, that it's the $5k/yr spent to cover $238 of care that finances the entire scheme
...some might call that 'theft'
Jack in Wi.| 4.9.12 @ 7:45AM
I would not bet a quarter on the Surpreme Court overturning Obamacare. Kennedy wil be blackmailed again like he was in the Casey Case. Romney and the Republicans want the law to stand anyhow. The insurance companies love the law and Romney pushed a similar law in Mass. Why would he do much to oppose it? He is a pawn of the banks and insurance companies.
Teaghan| 4.9.12 @ 8:10AM
Jack, please explain to me how Kennedy will be blackmailed, why the Repubs want the law to stand and why the hell the insurance companies love obamacare.
Jack in Wi.| 4.9.12 @ 8:42AM
The mandate makes everyone buy insurance. The insurance companies love it. Kennedy has some secrets that give him the possibility of blackmail. The Republicnas like Newt, and Santorum have pushed a mandate and of course we have have Romneycare. The Republicans will do their usual disappearing act when the time comes. At best there will be cosmetic changes.
DG in GA| 4.9.12 @ 3:48PM
Jack, as someone who has been in the health insurance business I can tell you that we HATE Obamacare. HATE IT!!! Obamacare will force us to provide insurance coverage to people who are actuarially unsound. It forces us to cover pre-existing conditions, no matter what. It forces us to operate on the equivalent of "I just had a car accident, better go buy me some insurance to cover the cost of repairs." It's NUTS and it will BANKRUPT the industry, which is the POINT as far as Obama and the libs are concerned.
On its face, Obamacare will require young, healthy people to purchase expensive health insurance policies to make the actuarially ridiculous requirements of the law a little less of a problem. This article is correct, that it makes no sense to require a young, healthy person to purchase health insurance if they would rather pay their own way, which is almost ALWAYS less expensive until they get to age 50 and up.
The other ugly little secret about health insurance in America today is that it is the only form of insurance that merely by purchasing it almost guarantees you will use it. Most people who buy homeowner's insurance don't do it INTENDING to burn their house down. Nor will they go out and burn their house down just because they have insurance. But insurance company records show that merely HAVING health insurance incents people who would otherwise not bother to go to the doc with a cold, to go to the doc with that cold. After all, they are already paying for the insurance, they might as well use it. Obamacare is crazy and must be stopped.
A. C. Santore| 4.9.12 @ 9:53AM
Also, please explain how Romney's insurance plan was "similar" to Obamacare.
And whether a state may enact a constitutionally-permitted law whereas the feds may not.
Mike Hawk| 4.9.12 @ 10:38AM
Never had instruction is basic Civics in school did you. Figures. It isn't taught any more. Romneycare is not an insurance plan and neither is Obamacare. They are similar because the Oborg said it was by vitue of them using Romneycare as their model. SHeeeshhh!! You libs are dense.
BlitheBunny| 4.9.12 @ 11:54AM
Jack,
This is the only time I've actually agreed with you. Being from Massachusetts I completely agree that there is no way that Romney is going to really go after opposing this law. What he did in this state was add to the State deficit by making everyone have insurance and lowering the standards for free State insurance, more people are getting free or very low cost insurance from the State. It's a horrible cycle and I'm trying to save up enough to get out of here and move to New Hampshire.
T.L.P.| 4.9.12 @ 10:20AM
I don't know. The next thing you'll tell us is that the One we've been waiting for, has been "Twisting the Truth" about other things. Things like "Shovel Ready Infrastructure Jobs, or Debt Reduction Commissions such as Bowles/Simpson. Maybe you think that he Twisted the Truth on taking Public Financing, in 2008? Or that his promise that all of the Health Care Debate would be covered by C Span, was a Twist of the Truth? Or, having all bills put up on the Internet for 72 Hours, before a Vote.
Was Closing Gitmo, ending Renditions, and getting rid of the Patriot Act, just Twists of the Truth? Was his looking in to the Camera and stating that his Stimulus Plan contained "No Earmarks", even though it had 3,000 of them, Twisting the Truth?
I suppose you think that having his Energy Secretary and his Interior Dept. Secretary FORGE DOCUMENTS, to get a Drilling Moratorium put in place, was a Twisting of the Truth.
I suppose his STONEWALLING of Documents to a House Committee, his Attorney General's LIES, and Non Recollections of Emails and Memos, regarding an Illegal Gun Running Program that funnelled over 1,000 High Powered Automatic Weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels, was "Twisting the Truth".
What about his attacking Libya because, as he told us, Khaddafi had killed 150 Civilians, while he does NOTHING when thousands are being Slaughtered by Assad, in Syria? Was he just "Twisting the Truth"?
What about the XL Pipeline? What about all of his Big Bundlers' Green Energy BOONDOGGLES? Is he "Twisting the Truth when he denies having any knowledge of their Companies impending Bankruptcies, even though they had been to the White House many times before they got their Cash?
What about the Unemployment Numbers? What about his INSISTANCE that nothing is his Fault? That "Presidents have no control over Gasoline Prices, even though he used the very same argument to BLUDGEON President Bush with?
Everything he says is a LIE.
Can we stop with the Gymnastics, when it comes to calling this Lying MFer what he is?
He's a LIAR.
Period.
Tommy Frisco| 4.9.12 @ 4:13PM
Yes, Timothy (?), "Twisting The Truth" is an understatement. Our current POTUS is a liar, a fraud, and should be prosecuted. It's clear our Repubs don't have the gonads to impeach, but I hope that Obama ends up in prison someday. I can't bear the thought of him getting richer and more powerful.
Purp| 4.9.12 @ 6:01PM
It is also true that many Medicare recipients use little if no Medicare - so what? If you have a body, we can presume you will need healthcare someday. That's what insurance is for - in case you need it. If we all used insurance all the time, the insurance companies would go broke.
How dense can the right-wing be?
Skippy| 4.9.12 @ 7:17PM
Not dense enough to buy your line of crap, but thanks for playing.
idalily| 4.9.12 @ 10:12PM
So can YOU answer the question asked by the SCOTUS? If the gov't can make you buy health insurance, what CAN'T they make you buy?
Liberals=locusts. I want some malathion.
Riff Raff| 4.10.12 @ 1:56AM
You clearly do not understand the problem. Centralized government programs are by design institutionalized corruption. This is why the US Constitution prohibits the US Government from doing such things. You should study a little history, like Roman history. All this garbage you leftists want to push on us has been done before, many times, and the results are always the same, corruption, high taxes, poor service, and a divided society, divided between government haves, and non-government have-nots. How many times must you boobs be proven wrong? How much more money must we pay? How many more lives will you ruin?
spike59| 4.10.12 @ 7:19AM
If you have a body, we can presume you will need healthcare someday.
=============================
i still fail to see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to FORCE a free citizen to enter into a contract with any private company; a contract entered into under duress is unenforceable and illegal on its face
Mike Hawk| 4.9.12 @ 7:42AM
Betsy McCaughey is one of the few who has read the entire Law. Can't say that for the Dimmicrats who rammed it down our throa...up our arse. She knows what she is taliking about.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.9.12 @ 9:20AM
I saw Betsy McCaughey give a presentation on ObamaCare with Dr. Moffit from Heritage. Dr. Moffit was outstanding in his understanding and explanation of the issues. But Betsy McCaughey was awesome in that she spoke for 30-45 minutes without notes quoting sections and contents of the Bill by number and verse.
They both contended that this is not about health care, but freedom.
Al Adab| 4.9.12 @ 2:38PM
Jr:
How did it come to be that healthcare is somehow a different animal than any other service we purchase? Legal services (non-criminal) , carpet cleaning and what not. All are things we purchase as we are able. Is there somehow a right to one of these services over others whereby the society must pay to provide it? If so are there services which are outside the need for provision by society? Maybe we are due anything and everything we want at others' expense. My new Chevy Volt perhaps.
edo| 4.9.12 @ 9:18PM
Exactly -- Why not also have the government mandate everyone buy a funeral policy? Everybody should also have life insurance policies payable to the government. The government should do a carbon-footprint audit of every living person and assign a tax. Also, anyone not driving a car with a government-approved mpg should pay a penalty tax. Families with more than the approved 1.5 children would pay a penalty tax as well. Utopia has a price: higher taxes! ;-)
Tommy Frisco| 4.9.12 @ 3:31PM
VMJ,
It's also about wealth re-distribution. The Gov't wants the healthy 20-40 yr. olds to contribute to ObamaCare so that the non-working takers in our society can be in the same health care plan as the rest of us. That's why the mandate is so important. ObamaCare would be far too expensive to even be considered, otherwise.
If I were running Kerry's campaign, I'd be making that very clear to the 20-40 yr. olds.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.9.12 @ 4:11PM
Social Security and Medicare are re-distribution from young to old; while at the same time, the older population owns their homes, have pensions and savings. State and federal pensions are paying people not to work, and being paid by those who do.
The whole purpose, my friend, is to buy enough votes with other people's money.
I have faith in the older people like myself to do the right thing. And in regards to the young people paying attention this time, I think they are paying attention BECAUSE they get it.
Tommy Frisco| 4.9.12 @ 4:23PM
I sure hope you're right, VMJ...and thank-you for being involved. We (conservative patriots) need to do what we can to make sure everyone knows what will happen if Obama is re-elected.
Purp| 4.9.12 @ 6:38PM
That's just stupid. It's a huge conspiracy isn't it? That bad old government worrying about elder healthcare and retirement. What are they thinking? We should trust our employers, yeah, that's it - oh that's wait, they couldn't give a d* about the people.
Skippy| 4.9.12 @ 7:21PM
Yeah, those tuxedo-clad cigar-chomping capitalist pigs want all their employees to die.
Here's a clue; pay for it yourself and get your stinking paws off my wallet, you damn dirty ape!
Purp| 4.9.12 @ 7:53PM
No ... if you're gonna live in this country, you will pay to this country for you and your fellow citizens - if you don't like it - tough. Or you can move to Somalia - I hear the government doesn't pay for a thing and you can have all your money to your greedy bastard self. Rotten Christian you are fer sure
Thom| 4.9.12 @ 8:54PM
When and where did Christ define being a Christian by saying that using a sword to force anyone to pay for someone else’s bills is righteous? By your standard we should just open up our prisons and let all the thieves go free....
idalily| 4.9.12 @ 10:14PM
Purp, where in the Constitution does it say I have to pay for my fellow citizens. I must have missed that passage in Civics class. Please direct me.
Mike Hawk| 4.9.12 @ 10:42PM
Purp doesn't care, she is a Utopian statist who believes in the government's supremecy over individual liberty.For Purp, Freedom is given and taken bu Goverment decree. In other words, no freedom.
Riff Raff| 4.10.12 @ 1:58AM
I will pay for this country according to the LAW, not according to your illegal, unconstitutional corruption. You are vile.
Taterblade| 4.11.12 @ 1:56PM
Did you mean "Romney's"?
Darin| 4.9.12 @ 7:56AM
Why is Justice Kagan permitted to be involved at all? She has such a blaring conflict of interest it's not even funny. She argued for the law BEFORE she joined the Supreme Court. If she is permitted to vote and the law is upheld, by definition it's a farce and legal ethics have ceased to exist in this country.
Gary B| 4.9.12 @ 8:08AM
"...legal ethics..." How's that for the mother of all oxymorons?
T.L.P.| 4.9.12 @ 9:52AM
I've got one: Legal Ethics from a Lawyer, appointed by the Marxist, Muslim, Liar King.
How's that?
Purp| 4.9.12 @ 6:39PM
Oh, it's so much better that Justices Thomas and Scalia hob nob with the people and industries they are judging? No conflict there, huh?
Skippy| 4.9.12 @ 7:22PM
Nope.
None at all.
Try again.
FOWFan| 4.9.12 @ 9:29PM
Just curious, do you really think that "hob nobbing" (which you did not prove, BTW) is the same thing as being in her previous role, as well as the e mail to Larry Tribe that said "we finally did it!" when the health care bill was passed? Do you?
Purp| 4.9.12 @ 10:13PM
I'm sure you didn't hear about the collusion of lobbyists and the Scalia-Thomas Axis of Evil...
spike59| 4.10.12 @ 7:21AM
...because it doesn't exist, except somewhere under your tinfoil hat, you dullard
idalily| 4.10.12 @ 10:16AM
No, do tell. And cite reliable sources, please.
Aces and Eights| 4.10.12 @ 2:06PM
You clearly see the face of evil every time you look in a mirror. For you to ascribe "evil" status to any other person on Earth is hubris. But then, hubris is a hallmark of evil people.
Mike Hawk| 4.9.12 @ 9:26AM
If Kagan doesn't recuse herself there is nothing anyone can do about it. It may be unethical and contrary to the decorum of the court, but for a Liberal it is an f/u moment from her to the process.
TrueBlue | 4.9.12 @ 3:07PM
Especially since even if they were to impeach her for not acting in good faith in her position the Senate would never find her guilty.
TrueBlue | 4.9.12 @ 3:08PM
Heck, she argued for the law DURING the hearing.
Gary B| 4.9.12 @ 8:06AM
"...the ruling will likely turn on a lie rather than constitutional principle."
One hundred percent of legislative and executive edicts that emanate from DC turns on a lie rather than constitutional principle. If it were not for deception, there would be no reason for the ruling elite to get out of bed in the morning.
Mimi| 4.9.12 @ 8:25AM
All the players and participents in the days of bringing this legistration to a law should be made to resign if they have thus far not been voted out of office....ALL of them!
Think back ...of the deals, tricks , buying of votes, The Slaughter attempt. No one able, or just refusing to even read the 2700 page monstrosity, the pro-life dealing...the Pelosi threats..display of POLITICS at it's worse!
This is the STUFF movies are made of ...."The Bringing Down of A Great NATION...The nuts and bolts of a take down"
Thanks again Betsy...one of the real GOOD GUYS!
Nothing to do now but wait on the BLACK ROBES to go over the details with a fine tooth comb.
Again I say...knowing America ....All 9 should vote NO and mark it with indelible INK !!!
Clint| 4.9.12 @ 8:46AM
" Michael Carvin, lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business, very briefly touched on this point, but let it go. The problem, he told Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, isn’t necessarily one of people without insurance – because some people without insurance, indeed most, will pay their bills – but of those who just won’t pay. “Those are people who default on their health-care payments,” he said. “That is an entirely different [and smaller] group of people, an entirely different activity than being uninsured.”
Obamacare's Mandate Is Bogus Crap.
Bill| 4.9.12 @ 9:08AM
Romney's VP list:
1. Pat Toomey
Pros: PA is a swing state, former Club for Growth leader.
2. Marco Rubio
Pros: FL is a swing state, the Latino votes.
3. Mitch Daniel
Pros: a great "fiscal conservative", helped passed the "Right-to-Work" law.
4. Kelly Ayotte
Pros: a Catholic, former AG, and the women votes.
5. Chris Christie
Pros: NJ will turn red, former litigator, a fiscal hawk governor.
6. Paul Ryan
Pros: WI will turn red,a fiscal hawk legislator.
7. Bob McDonald
Pros: a fiscal and social conservative, southern heritage.
8. Pam Bandi
Pros: "photogenic" AG of FL, the women and Italian-American votes, and chief litigator on the multi-state lawsuit against Obamacare.
Cons: 46, yet Single-lady
8. Ken Cuccinalli
Pros: southern heritage, another crusader against Obamacare
Cons: he's running for VA governor in 2013
9. Jeb Bush
Pros: FL will be red, the Latino votes
Cons: Bush clone
10. Ron Johnson
Pros: WI will turn red, a fiscal hawk, Tea Partier
Cons: Freshman senator
My pick: Gov. Chris Christie
Obama will be forced to campaign in a "safe" blue state, NJ, while Gov. Christie will be favorite to deliver NJ for GOP. Gov. Christie will help fix the economy and never surrender to the big-labors or bureaucrats. He vetoed the same-sex marriage bill. Recently, he traveled Israel and vowed to thwart Iran's fascist regime and its nuclear threat.
President: Mitt Romney
VP: Chris Christie
Nick| 4.9.12 @ 9:26AM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!
Bill| 4.9.12 @ 10:56AM
NICK is a moron and a racist, Bigot NICK.
GO AWAY!
Nick| 4.9.12 @ 11:29AM
You're a LYING bigot, Bill the Bigot.
I never use those words, because I'm not a racist!
I'm Catholic, so, I don't hate anyone. But people like you make it an effort, that's for sure.
Now, GO AWAY, BIGOT!
Bill| 4.9.12 @ 12:43PM
You're a LYING bigot, NICK the Bigot.
I never use those words, because I'm not a racist!
I'm Catholic, so, I don't hate anyone. But people like you make it an effort, that's for sure.
Now, GO AWAY, BIGOT NICK!
Nick| 4.9.12 @ 1:02PM
What are you, twelve?
Bill| 4.9.12 @ 1:23PM
What are you, eleven?
Nick| 4.9.12 @ 1:51PM
It doesn't matter, Billy the Bigot.
Because you are still a RACIST, and I am not.
Bill| 4.9.12 @ 2:26PM
It doesn't matter, NICK the Bigot.
Because you are still a RACIST, and I am not.
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.10.12 @ 10:31AM
Great comeback!
Mike Hawk| 4.9.12 @ 9:28AM
It likely will be none on your list. Toomey and Rubio are not interested in the least.
Bob Grant| 4.9.12 @ 1:34PM
Why are you spamming us your VP wish list in every article?
JAC| 4.9.12 @ 9:10AM
If the Feds really wanted to do something about those who cause healthcare costs to go up for the rest of us by using hospitals without having insurance, then they'd do something about illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. That has to account for a significant amount of the costs.
Kingofthenet| 4.9.12 @ 9:15AM
So who picks up the $238?
Mike Hawk| 4.9.12 @ 10:33AM
How about you??
TrueBlue | 4.9.12 @ 3:10PM
The person who went into the doctors office. A single visit to the ER costs more than $238 in most cases.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.9.12 @ 9:23AM
The argument that everyone eventually uses health care and therefore it can be mandates is like saying that every child will eventually pay a mortgage or rent, so he whall be charged $1,000 per month for living in America the day he turns eighteen.
Bob| 4.9.12 @ 11:46AM
Incidentally, that will satisfy another liberal wet dream and give "free" housing for all.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.9.12 @ 12:44PM
Check out Agenda21 YouTube "for dummies" and you will find out that you are completely correct. You will live in a 700 sq/ft 14 story government apartment complex in an Urban "Smart Growth" zone. You will receive a light rail pass and your assignment on the floor of a government factory. Perhaps Jeffrey Immelt will be your boss.
Of course the housing is free, but your paycheck is not yours to keep. It will pay for your health care and EBT card with "yummies" like Moochelle veggie burgers and pink slime.
Al Adab| 4.9.12 @ 1:32PM
Jr:
That plan sort of ignores those of us who live in rural, small towns with no rail, busses or nearby neighbors. Perhaps the real distinction is between the urban, cities and high population states and the rest of the country. Does freedom give way as population density increases or is it simply that government programs enable the non-productive to live off redistribution and handouts? I know, very un-PC of me.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.9.12 @ 2:01PM
Like me, if you live in a rural area, under Agenda21, you won't.
This is how the Chinese herd their masses and keep an eye on them. If you do not "comply," there is no where to run. And your neightbors know who you are, and they will turn you in to save their own EBT card.
Louis Jenkins| 4.9.12 @ 9:50AM
Surely the government attorney's would not twist health care law, would they? Regardless of whether the law is legal or not, we will continue to have the illegals and the destitute without health care. They'll still show up in the hospitals when they need to, give a false address, and when cured melt back into the population. Who will absorb the costs? You and me, because we're already on the list of payers. Obama and Romney want this plan, and we're screwed.
kwan| 4.9.12 @ 11:02AM
The 11th Circuit was the only federal appeals court to challenge the fallacy that all Americans "inevitably" consume healthcare, and the only federal appeals court to strike down the mandate....Sadly the highest court in the land (the Supreme Court) is contaminated with four leftist morons who despise the Constitution, and support the left's agenda to fundamentally transform our country into an Orwellian People's Republic. Thus we have the spectacle of a lower court supporting the Constitutional restrictions on the government regarding the Commerce Clause, while the highest court may somehow finds it Constitutional for the left to further subjugate the freedom of the American people.
Kingofthenet| 4.9.12 @ 11:27AM
There is NO limit to 'Commerce Clause' if there were obviously there would have to be language in the constitution limiting it, where/what is it?
Nick| 4.9.12 @ 11:33AM
"There is NO limit to 'Commerce Clause' [...]."
Yes, there is, dope.
It is limited to actual "interstate commerce," moron.
You stinking liberals have no business commenting on the U.S. Constitution. You don't know what it says or means, and you hate it because you are Useful Idiots.
Purp| 4.9.12 @ 10:11PM
No where does the Constitution say "Interstate". That is an interpretation.
What it says is " The power to regulate Commerce ... among the several states... "
idalily| 4.9.12 @ 10:15PM
Purp, our Constitutional expert. LOL.
Nick| 4.10.12 @ 12:56AM
"That is an interpretation."
Yeah, by SCOTUS. They mean the same thing, moron.
Nick| 4.10.12 @ 1:05AM
I should add, that nowhere does the Constitution say "separation of church and state."
Yet, you stupid liberals keep claiming that it does.
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.10.12 @ 10:32AM
"Commerce among the several states," uh, is, by definition, interstate commerce, don't you think?
Darin| 4.9.12 @ 12:09PM
Healthcare insurance is not interstate commerce because healthcare companies cannot sell across state lines. Liberals won't permit it. The commerce clause has zero bearing.
Al Adab| 4.9.12 @ 2:33PM
As an historical aside on Interstate Commerce, the interstate highway system was justified and built under the defense act not the interstate commerce clause. No one back then thought the commerce clause was indefinately extendable. It was there to create a national commerce without cross border taxes and duties, not to give the national government control over the total economy.
Skippy| 4.9.12 @ 7:46PM
In times of emergency, the Interstates are off limits to citizens.
They are designed to handle military traffic, and newer Mil. vehicles are designed to fit on them as well.
Bob| 4.9.12 @ 11:42AM
No surprise that Obama's sleeper agents, Sotomayor and the should-have-recused-herself Kagan would agree, but come on Justices, you can't seriously fall for their misdirection and misinformation.
Paul from SA| 4.9.12 @ 12:42PM
In the last 10 years, I've spent about $50,000 on health insurance, and received nothing in return.
I've spent about $200,000 in taxes and received nothing in return.
You're not welcome!
Kent Lyon| 4.9.12 @ 12:58PM
Thomas Jefferson said: Were we directed from Washington, when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. He was proven right in Wicard v Filburn. In the current context of the Obamacare debate, he likely would have observed that: Were we directed from Washington for our medical care (including financing and consumption), we should soon be sicker or dead. He will be proven right on that iteration in due course if Obamacare is not struck down in toto.
Aces and Eights| 4.9.12 @ 2:04PM
And under Bozo the Clown and his Obozo-Kare, we will be directed where to purchase health insureance and when to see the doctor, so we should soon be of ill health.
To all you brain-dead leftists out there: If you truly, honestly want nationalized, socialized health insurance/medicine, than why do you refuse to go about it legitimately? Since there is clearly a great dissent about the constitutionality of national health care, why do you not propose a Constitutional Amendment and send it to the States for ratification, and thus end all doubt as to Constitutionality?
Of course, this was asked in 1973 as well, that is why not propose a Constitutional Amendment to declare abortion a constitutionally protected right. Why do leftists rely on court fiats instead of the legitimate democratic legislative process?
To date, the only leftist response is to declare "but it is not necessary since the government already has that power." Um, no they don't, or at best, there is great disagreemnt as to whether they do. Instead of resorting to "legislation" from the courts, make your case to the People directly. Are you leftists afraid of the People? You leftists claim to be "For the People!" But in reality you disparage the People. Why is this?
Riff Raff| 4.10.12 @ 1:59AM
Hey Purp! Why no answer?
Keophus| 4.9.12 @ 1:15PM
And what percentage of people die suddenly, heart attack, car crash, etc.? These people certainly are not significant consumers of healthcare.
chris| 4.9.12 @ 4:39PM
Well Done betsy
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.9.12 @ 4:54PM
Verilli said the individual mandate "regulates the method of paying for a service that a class of people to whom it applies are either consuming -- or inevitably will consume."
What special quality is that gives the federal government the power to predict the future for every individual among the governed? Where does the government get that power?
Aces and Eights| 4.9.12 @ 5:59PM
The government arrogates and usurps such power unto itself. It does not derive such power by any legal means.
Not Special Ops Bill| 4.10.12 @ 10:33AM
So it's possible for them to know, eh?
Aces and Eights| 4.10.12 @ 2:04PM
They may predict (and they do!) but that does not mean they know what they are talking about.
I think I may have misread slightly your previous post. I was in a "mood" as they say.
Oldefarte| 4.9.12 @ 6:11PM
OF's SPLAINING of this WELFARECARE: It is governmental welfare [just like Affordable homes was housing welfare]. An indigent walks into a hospital emergency room and ends up running up $10000 of medical expense/costs. Who pays? Currently, the hospital transfers that $10000 to the health insurance bills of its patients that have health insurance policy-coverages. The government [ie Democrats] design universal health insurance [Obama/Welfare Care] so that everyone has insurance and therefore the indigent incurring the $10000 hospital bill now has insurance to pay for same. Problem is that the indigent has no money to pay the premium for same so therefore the TAXPAYERS pay his premium for the insurance. WHY?????? If you/me/whoever walk into a department store and walk out with $10000 worth of clothes etc w/o producing a credit card/check to pay for same, will the store eat the cost of same or transfer its costs to other credit card paying customers????? Hell no! So why is a hospital allowed to do thus with indigents receiving emergency medical care????? Why is not the hospital legally required to pay for [eat] said cost themsleves and not allowed to transfer same to other paitients that are able financially to pay?????? This country does not need universal Obama/Welfare Care, which again is pure WELFARE. What we need is legal rersponsibility and accountability. What we need is for the taxpayers of this country to combine in a class action type lawsuit and sue their government for malfeasence or corruption!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve| 4.10.12 @ 12:55AM
I agree with the article. In my younger days I went through a good 10 years when I didn't spend a penny on healthcare except maybe to purchase an occasional bottle of aspirin over the counter. Why should people be forced to spend money on a product they don't use?
Tommy Frisco| 4.10.12 @ 1:06PM
To support the collective (Dem voters), don't you know?
Seriously, spread the word. Everyone needs to understand that healthy 20-40 yr. olds who were able to decide they didn't need health care insurance will now be forced to buy it so others can have it that do want it (for free).
Kingofthenet| 4.10.12 @ 3:40PM
So you want a system that has low rates and the ONLY people in it are people who use it extensively? That isn't insurance.
Taterblade| 4.11.12 @ 2:38PM
You're right... And either is ObamaCare - It's welfare.
Rockerbabe| 4.11.12 @ 8:06PM
I do not know where you get your "facts", but they are well off the mark. From this healthcare
provider, younger and younger folks show up a the ER and MD office with great regularity. Often without insurance to pay for the services they receive.
Get into a car crash, boat crash or fall off a ladder and most folks sustain a injury serious enough to warrent a visit to the ER or MD. Get into a serious accident of any kind and all ER in this country have to accept you long enough to get you stabilized, even if you cannot pay.
85% of all women of child-bearing age have 2.3 kids in their lifetimes; not to mention miscarriages, 35% have abortions and 98% use some form of contraception. Most all of that requires an MD or hospital somewhere in the picture. Have kids? Most parents now days have the peditrician on speed-dail.
Lets not forget about workers who get injury on the job; some quite seriously; to the MD they go.
Prevention is the name of the game and heath insurance is often needed to pay for t he expensive spans and blood work needed. No insurance [negiotated discount on services] and one will pay the entire bill at 100% of listed services.
Then there is the folks, some 50+ million, who would like to get private medical insurance, but cannot for any number of reasons. They are essentially locked out of decent care because the cost of 100l% of listed prices is way too much for them to afford.
We need Obama Care or we will end up continuing to pay for all of this uninsured care in one for or another.