Senator Dick Durbin to hold hearing on constitutionality of Obamacare!

[johnwk]

.

SEE Health care law's constitutionality to be examined in Senate hearing Wednesday (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/health-care-hearing-set-for-we.html)

”Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will chair a hearing on the constitutionality of the national health care law on Wednesday morning, two days after a Florida judge struck down the entire overhaul.”

Well then, Senator Durbin, let us review some facts.

When determining what is and what is not constitutional, the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to enforce the prevailing documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution (each article, section, clause and amendment) was adopted. The rule is stated as follows:

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- Vol.16 Am. Jur. Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

The disputed part of our Constitution with respect to Obamacare is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which is alleged to be a power authorizing Obamacare and reads as follows:

The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

In conformity with another rule of constitutional law pertaining to the “Meaning of Language” we find: Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption. And this brings us to our first question concerning Obamacare and Congress‘ power. What is the meaning of “commerce” as our founding fathers used the word when framing and ratifying our Constitution?

In U.S. vs. Lopez, our Supreme Court took the time to methodically document the meaning of “commerce” as the word was used during the time period our Constitution was being framed and ratified. The Court summarized its meaning as follows: "Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles."

Indeed, “commerce“ as used by our founding fathers had nothing to do with the consumption of products available, the use of products in existence, the manufacturing or sale of consumer articles, but only referenced the actual trade or “traffic” of products which had been produced for sale and consumption!

Now that we understand the meaning of “commerce” as used within our Constitution, there remains the question as to the intentions for which our founding fathers granted the contended power to Congress. And why is it of importance to answer this question? That is summarized by the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858):

“The constitution is the act of the people speaking in their original character, and there can he no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power, contrary to the true intent and meaning of the constitution, is absolutely null and void.”

Well then, let us discover the intentions for which the power in question was granted.

A clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art.1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

From the written text of our original Constitution, we find a clear intention expressed regarding the power to “regulate commerce”, the intention being, to prohibit preferences being made by Regulations of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another, and to prevent Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

The founder's intentions for granting such power are also explicitly stated in Federalist Paper No. 42 by Madison:

“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

As documented in Federalist No. 42, the power to regulate commerce among the states was expressly intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in another but specifically identified area__ a State‘s inspection laws. And this is also found in the text of the Constitution:


“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

If there is any one thing which becomes crystal clear after reviewing the historical record to determine the intentions for which our Constitution was adopted, that would be the sheer insanity for Obama, Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosy, Barney Frank, Debbie Wasserman, or any member of Congress to suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution intended by the power in question, to be authorizing a power to Congress to enter the States to regulate the American People’s personal healthcare needs and the choices they make with regard to their personal health care needs. As a matter or fact, our founding fathers specifically adopted both the 9th and 10th amendments to our Constitution to keep the federal government‘s nose out of the internal affairs of the States and to give force and effect to what was clearly stated in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

And finally, let us not forget that is was less than twenty years after the ratification of our Constitution that our very own Supreme Court confirmed the limited powers granted to our federal government by the States:

"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Bottom line is, we had one tea party in America to deal with despots and tyrants. Let us not instigating a second.

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

[Missileman]

.

SEE Health care law's constitutionality to be examined in Senate hearing Wednesday (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/health-care-hearing-set-for-we.html)

”Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will chair a hearing on the constitutionality of the national health care law on Wednesday morning, two days after a Florida judge struck down the entire overhaul.”

Well then, Senator Durbin, let us review some facts.

When determining what is and what is not constitutional, the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to enforce the prevailing documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution (each article, section, clause and amendment) was adopted. The rule is stated as follows:

“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- Vol.16 Am. Jur. Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

The disputed part of our Constitution with respect to Obamacare is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which is alleged to be a power authorizing Obamacare and reads as follows:

The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

In conformity with another rule of constitutional law pertaining to the “Meaning of Language” we find: Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption. And this brings us to our first question concerning Obamacare and Congress‘ power. What is the meaning of “commerce” as our founding fathers used the word when framing and ratifying our Constitution?

In U.S. vs. Lopez, our Supreme Court took the time to methodically document the meaning of “commerce” as the word was used during the time period our Constitution was being framed and ratified. The Court summarized its meaning as follows: "Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles."

Indeed, “commerce“ as used by our founding fathers had nothing to do with the consumption of products available, the use of products in existence, the manufacturing or sale of consumer articles, but only referenced the actual trade or “traffic” of products which had been produced for sale and consumption!

Now that we understand the meaning of “commerce” as used within our Constitution, there remains the question as to the intentions for which our founding fathers granted the contended power to Congress. And why is it of importance to answer this question? That is summarized by the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858):

“The constitution is the act of the people speaking in their original character, and there can he no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power, contrary to the true intent and meaning of the constitution, is absolutely null and void.”

Well then, let us discover the intentions for which the power in question was granted.

A clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art.1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

From the written text of our original Constitution, we find a clear intention expressed regarding the power to “regulate commerce”, the intention being, to prohibit preferences being made by Regulations of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another, and to prevent Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

The founder's intentions for granting such power are also explicitly stated in Federalist Paper No. 42 by Madison:

“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

As documented in Federalist No. 42, the power to regulate commerce among the states was expressly intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in another but specifically identified area__ a State‘s inspection laws. And this is also found in the text of the Constitution:


“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

If there is any one thing which becomes crystal clear after reviewing the historical record to determine the intentions for which our Constitution was adopted, that would be the sheer insanity for Obama, Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosy, Barney Frank, Debbie Wasserman, or any member of Congress to suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution intended by the power in question, to be authorizing a power to Congress to enter the States to regulate the American People’s personal healthcare needs and the choices they make with regard to their personal health care needs. As a matter or fact, our founding fathers specifically adopted both the 9th and 10th amendments to our Constitution to keep the federal government‘s nose out of the internal affairs of the States and to give force and effect to what was clearly stated in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

And finally, let us not forget that is was less than twenty years after the ratification of our Constitution that our very own Supreme Court confirmed the limited powers granted to our federal government by the States:

"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Bottom line is, we had one tea party in America to deal with despots and tyrants. Let us not instigating a second.

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

It's not the Senate's job to make this determination...that's what the judiciary is for...although it might have been nice if they'd at least made the attempt to figure it out BEFORE they went to all the fuss to pass an unconstitutional law.

[Psychoblues]

The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act will ultimately be found constitutional merely by precedence such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Health and Safety Act, all kinds of labor legislation, housing standards, sanitary system standards, and on and on and on. In all of these instances the chicken littles ran around screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". This ain't any different. It'll pass muster.

Psychoblues

[Mr. P]

The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act will ultimately be found constitutional merely by precedence such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Health and Safety Act, all kinds of labor legislation, housing standards, sanitary system standards, and on and on and on. In all of these instances the chicken littles ran around screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". This ain't any different. It'll pass muster.

Psychoblues
If it does pass muster, which I doubt..I wanna see the house immediately pass a bill requiring everyone to buy a gun, using the "commerce clause" as justification. Then one for everything else the nanny state thinks is best for you. It won't take much before all our disposable income vanishes for Gov. mandated purchases. Supporters of this mandate need to pull their head out of their ass and look at whats about to run em over.

[Psychoblues]

If it does pass muster, which I doubt..I wanna see the house immediately pass a bill requiring everyone to buy a gun, using the "commerce clause" as justification. Then one for everything else the nanny state thinks is best for you. It won't take much before all our disposable income vanishes for Gov. mandated purchases. Supporters of this mandate need to pull their head out of their ass and look at whats about to run em over.

I've looked at it about every way it can be looked at, P, and I view it as a positive for the American population. The population has demanded this for over a century and it's finally here. It's not perfect but it is what it is and I will accept it.

Psychoblues

[logroller]

I've looked at it about every way it can be looked at, P, and I view it as a positive for the American population. The population has demanded this for over a century and it's finally here. It's not perfect but it is what it is and I will accept it.

Psychoblues

Every way, really? I agree that healthcare reform is beneficial but like adding a room onto a house by removing the load bearing provisions, we can't pillage the foundation without damaging the integrity of the entire structure.

[SassyLady]

The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act will ultimately be found constitutional merely by precedence such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Health and Safety Act, all kinds of labor legislation, housing standards, sanitary system standards, and on and on and on. In all of these instances the chicken littles ran around screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". This ain't any different. It'll pass muster.

Psychoblues

I think the citizens have had enough and this healthcare law was the last straw.

[fj1200]

The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act will ultimately be found constitutional merely by precedence such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Health and Safety Act, all kinds of labor legislation, housing standards, sanitary system standards, and on and on and on. In all of these instances the chicken littles ran around screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". This ain't any different. It'll pass muster.

A mandate to purchase insurance is not the same as above. All of those instances were a further advance of needless intervention which continues to add up.


I've looked at it about every way it can be looked at, P, and I view it as a positive for the American population. The population has demanded this for over a century and it's finally here. It's not perfect but it is what it is and I will accept it.

Methinks you confuse Progressives with "the population." Overall this is not positive.

[Psychoblues]

I think the citizens have had enough and this healthcare law was the last straw.

Maybe some very sick citizens are getting clinical about this, sassy, but a good majority, about 62%, of the people positively support the Patients Rights and Affordability Act. Even fauxnews has been reporting that poll.

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

Maybe some very sick citizens are getting clinical about this, sassy, but a good majority, about 62%, of the people positively support the Patients Rights and Affordability Act. Even fauxnews has been reporting that poll.

Psychoblues

You're full of shit or an outright liar.

[Psychoblues]

A mandate to purchase insurance is not the same as above. All of those instances were a further advance of needless intervention which continues to add up.

Whether it be a mandate to purchace or changed to a tax to include or whatever congress comes up with I just hope for the very best healthcare system in the world. As Americans I think we deserve it. Don't you?

You may call those laws needless intervention. I have to assume that you weren't around back then and really have no personal knowledge of what it was like before these things happened. Just for a test project, start removing Social Security or benefits of the much later program Medicare. I'm just saying, my friend. Give it a shot and get back with me on that.


Methinks you confuse Progressives with "the population." Overall this is not positive.

Yeah, kinda like Mitch McConnell does when he has to announce his displeasure with the passing of the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act by revealing and spitting out that his number one priority was to make President Barack Hussein Obama a one term President? Maybe in Kentucky he has a point to make but I don't think even there. The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act was polling fairly well then and is polling very well now. Mitch thought he was somehow representing the population. He called them the "people." Does that make him confused? If so, I'll wear the adjective proudly. It don't mean a damned thing!



Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Whether it be a mandate to purchace or changed to a tax to include or whatever congress comes up with I just hope for the very best healthcare system in the world. As Americans I think we deserve it. Don't you?

Let's see, one may be constitutional and one isn't; too bad they chose the wrong one. Oh, and I do hope for a continuation of the best which is why I call for deregulation now.


You may call those laws needless intervention. I have to assume that you weren't around back then and really have no personal knowledge of what it was like before these things happened. Just for a test project, start removing Social Security or benefits of the much later program Medicare. I'm just saying, my friend. Give it a shot and get back with me on that.

Are you going to stay out of the way while I make much needed changes? Or are you going to worry about your mom eating cat food like we need to hear about every time reform is considered? Were you sentient back in '37 to engage in debate about SS?


Yeah, kinda like Mitch McConnell does when he has to announce his displeasure with the passing of the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act by revealing and spitting out that his number one priority was to make President Barack Hussein Obama a one term President? Maybe in Kentucky he has a point to make but I don't think even there. The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act was polling fairly well then and is polling very well now. Mitch thought he was somehow representing the population. He called them the "people." Does that make him confused? If so, I'll wear the adjective proudly. It don't mean a damned thing!

What does McConnell have to do with this? I hope for one of his major priorities as a Republican is to make BO a one-termer.

[Psychoblues]

You're full of shit or an outright liar.

My. my, Mm, you're turning into such a fuckin' puke!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[MtnBiker]

Congress should deem that the population would be much better served if everyone ate salad 3 times a week and passed a law mandating everyone to do so.
That would be awesome. While they are at it they could mandate that everyone purchase a juicer so they can juice fruits and vegetables to consume, after all it would be good for the population. Then they could mandate that everybody buy a 3 bedroom house to end homelessness. Jesus the sky is the limit with these government mandates, imagine how healthly and better off the population will be once congress mandate everything that is good for us. I hope no reichwinger activist judges get in the way by using the Constitution.

[MtnBiker]

but a good majority, about 62%, of the people positively support the Patients Rights and Affordability Act. Even fauxnews has been reporting that poll.

Psychoblues


Wrong


CNN poll: Half favor repealing health care law


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-half-favor-repealing-health-care-law/

[NightTrain]

Or another poll!


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 47% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-eight percent (38%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

[Psychoblues]

Let's see, one may be constitutional and one isn't; too bad they chose the wrong one. Oh, and I do hope for a continuation of the best which is why I call for deregulation now.

You're pulling my finger, aren't you, fj? I remain pretty wide open on the subject of how it's done so long as everyone is covered , the system improves in efficiency and quality of care, and the costs to both the patients and the providers are significantly reduced. It's not the pipedream it might seem. Continuation of what? The best? The best what? What planet are you on?

Are you going to stay out of the way while I make much needed changes? Or are you going to worry about your mom eating cat food like we need to hear about every time reform is considered? Were you sentient back in '37 to engage in debate about SS?

Oh no. I'm not going to let you or anybody else make any changes at all until I'm satisfied that the changes are for MY benefit and not to line the pockets of the Wall Street barons that have been manipulating for decades to get their hands on that money. This is another one of those chicken little stories from the rightwingers. The Social Security System is good as is until 2037 with full benefits and all the bells and whistles. In 2037 it is estimated the system will be able to pay out only 80%, allowing for projected inflation, of what it pays now. It's not a bad lick, all things considered. The baby boomers and then the baby boom boomers will certainly take a huge toll on the system but barring any continued devastating robberies of the excesses by the politicos the system will be sound for as far as can be reasonably forecast at this time.

And leave my mom out of this. She passed away in 1984 and yes, she would have eaten cat food for herself to provide milk for her children. Just what kind of a dick are you, fj? Seriously, I thought better of you.

Nope, I was not around in '37 to engage in debate of the SS Act. But even in the early 50's I saw a lot of the aftermath of the depression, a lot of what it was like prior to Social Security by many of the old people that didn't know anything about it, weren't on it and were piling up in genuine poor houses and nursing facilities in such dire conditions and without families it was impossible to even properly identify many of them. No, no, fj. It really hasn't been that long ago and many millionaires would gladly take us right back to it if they could. Kinda that shitty, "What you gonna do, boy? Chittlin's ain't much but they ain't free either." And working ain't paying shit. Tuff choices. Life in the big city.


What does McConnell have to do with this? I hope for one of his major priorities as a Republican is to make BO a one-termer.


I have every confidence that President Barack Hussein Obama will be in the White House until about January 20, 2017. If he leaves in 2013 I am prepared for that as well. One thing about gwb. He made me a stronger and more capable husband, father, citizen and Democrat. As far as McConnell is concerned, other than being Senate minority leader, he is just Kentucky's problem.


Psychoblues

[fj1200]

You're pulling my finger, aren't you, fj? I remain pretty wide open on the subject of how it's done so long as everyone is covered , the system improves in efficiency and quality of care, and the costs to both the patients and the providers are significantly reduced. It's not the pipedream it might seem. Continuation of what? The best? The best what? What planet are you on?

Who's not covered? The number certainly isn't 40 million as claimed and those truly destitute are eligible for Medicaid right? The problem is that costs have gone up uncontrollably and regulation is a major cause; so like the Dem led deregulation of the late 70s we need some deregulation now.


Oh no. I'm not going to let you or anybody else make any changes at all until I'm satisfied that the changes are for MY benefit and not to line the pockets of the Wall Street barons that have been manipulating for decades to get their hands on that money. This is another one of those chicken little stories from the rightwingers. The Social Security System is good as is until 2037 with full benefits and all the bells and whistles. In 2037 it is estimated the system will be able to pay out only 80%, allowing for projected inflation, of what it pays now. It's not a bad lick, all things considered. The baby boomers and then the baby boom boomers will certainly take a huge toll on the system but barring any continued devastating robberies of the excesses by the politicos the system will be sound for as far as can be reasonably forecast at this time.

Well that would be the problem wouldn't it? Go ahead and change the entitlement but don't take it from me 'eh? You do understand that there really isn't any money in the SS trust fund and that SS revenues are falling short of SS payouts now? What are the unfunded liabilities? Let's put those trillions in our pipe and smoke it.


And leave my mom out of this. She passed away in 1984 and yes, she would have eaten cat food for herself to provide milk for her children. Just what kind of a dick are you, fj? Seriously, I thought better of you.

Bless her soul, I was referring to previous charges made by the Dems that Republicans wanted Grandma to eat cat food whenever SS reform was proposed. No offense intended.


Nope, I was not around in '37 to engage in debate of the SS Act. But even in the early 50's I saw a lot of the aftermath of the depression, a lot of what it was like prior to Social Security by many of the old people that didn't know anything about it, weren't on it and were piling up in genuine poor houses and nursing facilities in such dire conditions and without families it was impossible to even properly identify many of them. No, no, fj. It really hasn't been that long ago and many millionaires would gladly take us right back to it if they could. Kinda that shitty, "What you gonna do, boy? Chittlin's ain't much but they ain't free either." And working ain't paying shit. Tuff choices. Life in the big city.

Pretty pathetic strawman you keep throwing up there. Decades of opportunity to create a stable SS system were thrown aside and now we're left with the false promise of a trust fund. That'll be just great when it collapses under its own weight. Have you ever thought about how the SS system steals the first dollars of a person's greatest wealth creator (their income) and provides it to someone else? Have you ever considered how it prevents the lower classes from being able to build wealth and pass it on? They could pay into it for 40 years, die, and their heirs receive nothing but if a system were designed where even 50% of their contribution was invested and belonged to the individual they could pass on life changing wealth to the next generation. That would still leave 50% of the revenues to provide security for the truly needy not the entitled class of dependents.


I have every confidence that President Barack Hussein Obama will be in the White House until about January 20, 2017. If he leaves in 2013 I am prepared for that as well. One thing about gwb. He made me a stronger and more capable husband, father, citizen and Democrat. As far as McConnell is concerned, other than being Senate minority leader, he is just Kentucky's problem.

Not when he's the majority leader. The Senate math looks good for that.

[Psychoblues]

Who's not covered? The number certainly isn't 40 million as claimed and those truly destitute are eligible for Medicaid right? The problem is that costs have gone up uncontrollably and regulation is a major cause; so like the Dem led deregulation of the late 70s we need some deregulation now.



Well that would be the problem wouldn't it? Go ahead and change the entitlement but don't take it from me 'eh? You do understand that there really isn't any money in the SS trust fund and that SS revenues are falling short of SS payouts now? What are the unfunded liabilities? Let's put those trillions in our pipe and smoke it.



Bless her soul, I was referring to previous charges made by the Dems that Republicans wanted Grandma to eat cat food whenever SS reform was proposed. No offense intended.



Pretty pathetic strawman you keep throwing up there. Decades of opportunity to create a stable SS system were thrown aside and now we're left with the false promise of a trust fund. That'll be just great when it collapses under its own weight. Have you ever thought about how the SS system steals the first dollars of a person's greatest wealth creator (their income) and provides it to someone else? Have you ever considered how it prevents the lower classes from being able to build wealth and pass it on? They could pay into it for 40 years, die, and their heirs receive nothing but if a system were designed where even 50% of their contribution was invested and belonged to the individual they could pass on life changing wealth to the next generation. That would still leave 50% of the revenues to provide security for the truly needy not the entitled class of dependents.



Not when he's the majority leader. The Senate math looks good for that.

You're getting way too far off base to address any of that tonight, fj. In many cases there I answered your question before you asked it but that ain't possible, or is it? Hey, we think about our country and our countrymen differently. I think I have the more positive outlook and inclusive politics than anyone else on this board and regardless the dire circumstances in the world and nation right now I remain confident our President is far better prepared, able and willing to use his leadership than anything else I've seen since about January of 2001.

That was an inside joke, fj?

Psychoblues

[Mr. P]

Or another poll!


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 47% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-eight percent (38%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
That what I keep finding in poll after poll. And then the most reliable poll of all..the man on the street..I've never heard one yet say..ain't this obama care great? Nope not a one.

[Psychoblues]

That what I keep finding in poll after poll. And then the most reliable poll of all..the man on the street..I've never heard one yet say..ain't this obama care great? Nope not a one.

P, it's really not well known about on the streets as it's not well known about even in the health industry. Only a few of it's components have been placed into operation and the kinks haven't been worked out of any of that yet. Have you asked any 70 year olds what they think about Medicare? I'll bet they don't tell you to take it and jamm it. Neither my mother or father lived long enough to qualify for Medicare but I have several aunts and uncles that LOVE it. One aunt in particular says that she never knew that healthcare could be so easy, convenient, troublefree and mot of all caring genuinely about HER and HER health.

The Patients Rights and Cost Reduction Act will take some time to work in but it WILL work in and in less than 10 years, maybe just 5 years people will be willing to fight you for interfering with it. It's only been about a century. It ain't perfect, it just beats anything we've ever had before.

Now, talking about meeting that guy on the street saying "Ain't that Obamacare great!" Well, you've now met one and I can produce a few million more if you're really needing them that bad and are willing to cover the overhead for the survey. I'll donate my managerial skills and time to you.

Psychoblues

[johnwk]

One thing is certain! Congress has never sent an amendment to the States for ratification which declares:

Congress shall have power to provide for the personal health care needs of the people of the united States, and may regulate personal choices and decisions which the people make that affects their health care.

And it is only too obvious that with 26 States having officially stated their objection to Obamacare, the above amendment would not, at this time, receive the approval from the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof as required under Article V of our Constitution prior to Congress exercising powers not granted.

And so, every Democrat in the Senate who voted Wednesday against the repeal of Obamacare, has proved to be a domestic enemy of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. They do not support our system of government which requires consent of the governed, and each needs to be punished!

Here is the list of Barack Hussein Obama’s henchmen in the Senate who voted “Nay“ to supporting our Constitution and ignored the Court‘s ruling striking down Obamacare:



Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
.

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress! .

[BoogyMan]

It's not the Senate's job to make this determination...that's what the judiciary is for...although it might have been nice if they'd at least made the attempt to figure it out BEFORE they went to all the fuss to pass an unconstitutional law.

Since men like Schumer don't even know the 3 branches of government it really shouldn't surprise us much that men like Durbin don't understand that it is not their place to judge constitutionality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Jpu9geWY

[fj1200]

You're getting way too far off base to address any of that tonight, fj. In many cases there I answered your question before you asked it but that ain't possible, or is it? Hey, we think about our country and our countrymen differently. I think I have the more positive outlook and inclusive politics than anyone else on this board and regardless the dire circumstances in the world and nation right now I remain confident our President is far better prepared, able and willing to use his leadership than anything else I've seen since about January of 2001.

That was an inside joke, fj?

Psychoblues

It's all relevant against your "arguments" besides even if you had answered without bias then I wouldn't have asked it. ;) Let me know when you do want to address those issues, I eagerly await.

When you start to honestly assess BO's leadership... well that will be a fun day won't it?

[Psychoblues]

One thing is certain! Congress has never sent an amendment to the States for ratification which declares:

Congress shall have power to provide for the personal health care needs of the people of the united States, and may regulate personal choices and decisions which the people make that affects their health care.

And it is only too obvious that with 26 States having officially stated their objection to Obamacare, the above amendment would not, at this time, receive the approval from the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof as required under Article V of our Constitution prior to Congress exercising powers not granted.

And so, every Democrat in the Senate who voted Wednesday against the repeal of Obamacare, has proved to be a domestic enemy of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. They do not support our system of government which requires consent of the governed, and each needs to be punished!

Here is the list of Barack Hussein Obama’s henchmen in the Senate who voted “Nay“ to supporting our Constitution and ignored the Court‘s ruling striking down Obamacare:



Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
.

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress! .

Proclaim these Traitors and Let the hangings commence


Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

It's all relevant against your "arguments" besides even if you had answered without bias then I wouldn't have asked it. ;) Let me know when you do want to address those issues, I eagerly await.

When you start to honestly assess BO's leadership... well that will be a fun day won't it?

I didn't say it was irrelevant, did I? I think I just pointed out that circles are for children on blackboards and they don't take us anywhere or in so many words indicated that. And critical analyses of the leadership skills of President Barack Hussein Obama will be, in the words of gwb, for the historians to work out and we'll all be dead, But, my opinion of gwb is that he wouldn't have been able to keep any job, even as a french fry department manager at a local McDonalds, had he ever been compelled in any way to actually earn starting from scratch a living to support himself. I watched the bumbling fool for 8 years do his best to ruin everything I ever really loved about America and in the end even his own Party and best friends began to distance themselves, speak directly against him, condemn his inabilities, etc. And They're still popping up about every day. Good people. Very important and well qualified people. Conservative people think like I do. The man boy, gwb, doesn't have a leadership bone in his body.

Well, that's enough of my rant, fj. Isn't it a fun day?!?!?!?!??!

Psychoblues

[trobinett]

Wrong



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-half-favor-repealing-health-care-law/

Now you've done it MtnBiker, letting facts get in the way of the liberal interpretation of the media.:coffee:

[NightTrain]

Conservative people think like I do.

Psychoblues

Dispensing with the rest of the tripe, this one really jumped out at me.

Rest assured, no conservative person outside of a lockdown nuthouse thinks like you do.

I haven't even met another Moonbat that thinks like you do. You are...emmm... Unique.

[Psychoblues]

Dispensing with the rest of the tripe, this one really jumped out at me.

Rest assured, no conservative person outside of a lockdown nuthouse thinks like you do.

I haven't even met another Moonbat that thinks like you do. You are...emmm... Unique.

Does that kind of ignorance and propensity for selective hearing/reading run in your family?

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I didn't say it was irrelevant, did I? I think I just pointed out that circles are for children on blackboards and they don't take us anywhere or in so many words indicated that. And critical analyses of the leadership skills of President Barack Hussein Obama will be, in the words of gwb, for the historians to work out and we'll all be dead, But, my opinion of gwb is that he wouldn't have been able to keep any job, even as a french fry department manager at a local McDonalds, had he ever been compelled in any way to actually earn starting from scratch a living to support himself. I watched the bumbling fool for 8 years do his best to ruin everything I ever really loved about America and in the end even his own Party and best friends began to distance themselves, speak directly against him, condemn his inabilities, etc. And They're still popping up about every day. Good people. Very important and well qualified people. Conservative people think like I do. The man boy, gwb, doesn't have a leadership bone in his body.

Well, that's enough of my rant, fj. Isn't it a fun day?!?!?!?!??!

Psychoblues

That is some funny stuff I'll hand you that. I think Ma Richards, Kerry, and Gore may have a different opinion about all that. Nevertheless I do like to chuckle at your partisan "rants."

BTW, an excellent redirect from what we were actually talking about.

[Psychoblues]

That is some funny stuff I'll hand you that. I think Ma Richards, Kerry, and Gore may have a different opinion about all that. Nevertheless I do like to chuckle at your partisan "rants."

BTW, an excellent redirect from what we were actually talking about.

Why, thank you, fj. I'll still respect you in the morning.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

P, it's really not well known about on the streets as it's not well known about even in the health industry. Only a few of it's components have been placed into operation and the kinks haven't been worked out of any of that yet. Have you asked any 70 year olds what they think about Medicare? I'll bet they don't tell you to take it and jamm it. Neither my mother or father lived long enough to qualify for Medicare but I have several aunts and uncles that LOVE it. One aunt in particular says that she never knew that healthcare could be so easy, convenient, troublefree and mot of all caring genuinely about HER and HER health.

The Patients Rights and Cost Reduction Act will take some time to work in but it WILL work in and in less than 10 years, maybe just 5 years people will be willing to fight you for interfering with it. It's only been about a century. It ain't perfect, it just beats anything we've ever had before.

Now, talking about meeting that guy on the street saying "Ain't that Obamacare great!" Well, you've now met one and I can produce a few million more if you're really needing them that bad and are willing to cover the overhead for the survey. I'll donate my managerial skills and time to you.

Psychoblues

Translation: The common unwashed masses are to stupid to render a knowledgeable opinion on Obamacare

While the taxes to fund Obamacare have started now, the "benefits" will not start until after 2012 election as to try and protect pres Obama from the votes of those stupid racist voters

While the real goal of this bill was to put insurance companies out of business and permit the federal government to run and control health care in America there are those who still think the private sector can do a better job

These people should not be permitted to vote and gum up the works of the liberal agenda