Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

No Honor Among Liberals

March 29, 2012 by  

No Honor Among Liberals
An anti-Obamacare demonstrator holds a copy of the Constitution during a protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.

Under different circumstances, I might feel bad for Solicitor General of the United States Donald Verrilli. Charged with the duty of defending the bureaucratic behemoth known as Obamacare — in front of the highest court in the land, no less — Verrilli became a mosquito with a law degree, slamming headlong into the windshield of superior Constitutional scholars.

As Verrilli stammered his way through an argument defending Obamacare’s crucial individual mandate, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out: “Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Given the fact that Verrilli’s boss, the President, has tried to describe the individual mandate as either a tax or a penalty depending on the audience, it comes as no surprise that Verrilli tried to describe it as both a tax and a penalty. He repeatedly referred to what he termed a “tax penalty.”  Unfortunately for Verrilli, Alito was paying attention and dropped the Constitutional hammer on him while Alito’s fellow Justices — and a few onlookers — enjoyed a hearty chuckle at Verrilli’s (not to mention Obama’s) expense.

That was Monday. By Tuesday, a visibly shaken Verrilli earned some halfhearted assistance from his predecessor in the Solicitor General’s digs, Justice Elena Kagan.  Although Kagan’s intimate involvement with Obama’s reanimation of Hillarycare’s corpse ought to have spurred her recusal, she did her duty as a Democrat, offering the completely irrelevant “the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized” as an addendum to Verrilli’s non sequitur about the need for telephones (which are decidedly not required by law — yet). Despite Kagan’s help, Chief Justice Roberts wobbled Verrilli with: “Can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?” And Justice Antonin Scalia dropped him — and Obamacare — with a solid right hook: “We’re not stupid.”

The legal arguments surrounding Obamacare are nothing new, and I suspect Obama and his accomplices considered that before they tried to force it down our gullets. Given Obama’s dim view of Constitutional standards (i.e., forcing religious organizations to pay for abortions), it should come as no surprise he sent his top lawyer into the Supreme Court without a coherent or consistent argument.  In fact, it wouldn’t stun me to learn that Obama didn’t think it would matter if they lost.

And maybe it should come as no surprise that Verrilli, who walked into court as Solicitor General, will likely be carried out on his shield. Following the justices’ smackdown of Verrilli on Tuesday, leading Democrat mouthpieces began lighting up the blogosphere. And considering the nature of their oddly coordinated message, Verrilli should probably start scouting bus stops and park benches for good 1-800-HURTNOW ad space.

Democrat sock puppet Ezra Klein of The Washington Post took to Twitter to explain why Obamacare is staggering: “Counterfactual time: Would solicitor general Elena Kagan have done a better job?” He also tweeted: “At least in public perception, this is a SCOTUS case where the quality of the oral arguments mattered hugely. And Obama’s SG lost big.”

Of course, it couldn’t have anything to do with Obama’s own duplicity in presenting a Federalization of one-sixth of the Nation’s economy. If only Obama had a better advocate than Verrilli, then nobody would notice that the arguments for Obamacare stink like an Occupy Wall Street squatters’ camp.

Meanwhile, liberal hate-speech impresario Markos Moulitsas tweeted: “… the mandate was… embraced by Romney. Ah, so it’s Romney’s fault. It’s worth noting that Moulitsas is essentially arguing that Obamacare was developed without any input from Obama while ignoring the fact that Obamacare’s defining idea — that the government can force you to do whatever they think is best for you — dates back to a time when Hillary Clinton was still the “co-President.”

At once-important CNN, Democrat super-strategist James Carville opened the hole in the middle of his head to say: “I think that this will be the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party because health care costs will escalate unbelievably.” Holy schadenfreude, Mary Matalin! Your husband just garroted himself with his own tongue!

They’ve given up, and they’re going to blame Verrilli. Verrilli chose friends like Obama and the Democrat elite; and now, close to what should be the pinnacle of his career, they’re going to nail him to the proverbial cross. The mere existence of Obamacare indicates the Democrats’ low regard for the Constitution. But if this is how they treat their friends, imagine how they’ll treat you.

–Ben Crystal


Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “No Honor Among Liberals”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Vicki

    I am not sure I understand why there is any constitutional argument about the individual mandate. If the government has to power to stop you from buying something then surely they have the power to require you to buy something.

    While I personally think the individual mandate is not constitutional I also think that the many laws forbidding us from making and or selling and or possessing things is not constitutional.

    Just 2 examples. Incandescent light bulbs. Guns with scary abilities/attachments.

    • Flashy

      The Individual mandate affects Interstate Commerce. When one has no insurance, and resorts to E Room care for health care, that is a cost to everyone. The issue is does Congress have the power.

      Those that are of the belief the Court will no doubt strike down the mandate (i.e. agree with the author0 are mistaken. Read “the Brethren’ by Woodward and “The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court” by Toobin

      Just because they asked difficult questions does not signal the way they are leaning to vote. It’s the inside debates that turn the issue, not the public questioning.

      6-3 decision either way. Roberts will swing his vote to make it more than a 5-4 decision.

      My guess is they will uphold it on the narrowest of grounds and make it clear the extent of the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause.

      if I were a TPer, i’d be hoping the mandate is upheld. The alternative is what should have been done in the first place…the Public Option. And THAT will be the result should the Court strike down the Mandate. The Court strikes it down as y’all are screaming it should…you will get what you ask for…lol

      • Ted G

        You can argue about this or that all day long Flashy, but this thing doesn’t even pass the smell test for anyone that truly believes in freedom and liberty.
        The mealy mouthed arguments of poor and obscure legal logic come across as really stretching credulity
        The whole law itself as well as the way they railroaded it through. Even the justification for it is wobbly because most of the problems related to health care in this country have been either ignored or made worse by our so called leaders over decades.
        All this law really does is push the problem onto the states and therefore off the federal governments balance sheets so they can continue to waste more of our tax dollars on things like the EPA and DOE(energy) and the DOE (education). Most of if not all of these and other agencies should not exist according tot he US Consitution.

      • Flashy

        Ted…I would agree about how the Reform Act was pushed through. Looking back at the way both sides played it out, and the lies that were spread by the Radical right, it’s a wonder anything was passed at all.

        I do wonder what would have come out of the process had there been at least an iota of willingness to sit and compromise and debate the merits pro and con without the attacks. For me, the ultimate was when the ‘death squad’ was hyped…how anyone could believe that is beyond my comprehension, but obviously there is an element in the radical right that will believe anything told to them without regard to reason or rational sanity.

        I do long for the days when statesmen like Scoop Jackson, Magnuson, Moore, Goldwater, etc would take up a political fight, yet find a way to hash out the differences and produce quality legislation.

        But today’s world of radicalism has taken the Right to such an extreme, it isn’t possible.

      • Brad


        “We have to pass this bill so we can find out what’s in it”, do you remember that infamus quote, then speaker of the house SanFran Nan Pelosi. You talk about bi-partisn politics, over 40 amendments were intoduced and not a single one was added to ACA before voting commenced. By the way which party said they would go it alone to get the ACA bill passed and signed into law. Two year’s down the road how many of the ACA provisions have failed, the death panels for one, another provision covering seniors has died, what else, we will find out what else in June.

      • Flashy

        Brad…that comment was accurate. With the disinformation campaign going on, you wouldn’t know the truth what was in the bill if you were slapped across the face with it. note your reference to ‘death panels”. Now fer chrissakes…get a grip on reality. Only a warped sick twisted mind would read anything close to that in the bill.

        Now the bill is passed..where are these death panels? There aren’t any BECAUSE THERE NEVER WERE ANY !

        Criminey…you guys could keep an army of therapists busy for a lifetime trying to figure out your underlying psychotic issues.

        it’s a good thing this site isn’t labeled “Common Sense’…the hosts would be sued for false advertising….

      • gfsomsel

        Flashy wrote: “The Individual mandate affects Interstate Commerce. When one has no insurance, and resorts to E Room care for health care, that is a cost to everyone.”

        In other words, you’re resorting to the old “For want of a nail the shoe was lost … the war was lost.” If you’ve ever watched any science fiction programs regarding time travel (which I don’t accept as possible), you’ll not that the recurrent theme is that attention must be paid to not changing even the most minute details of the situation lest the entire development be altered. In other words, you can make such an argument about anything and everything since all things are in some way connected. This doesn’t help Obama’s arguement.

      • speedle

        Flashy, man, what have you been smoking? The Grim Reaper is knocking on Obamacare’s door. This has now become a cause celebre with all this SCOTUS publicity. Obamacare is now being dissected publicly so that everyone is seeing all the rotten internal parts. At this point it doesn’t much matter whether the court slaps down part of the PPACA, all of it, or none of it. This mess is going to be an albatross around Ozona’s neck this November, and it will assure he is a one term president. The new president (along with a new senate) will see that this mess is has a final stake driven into its evil heart, and we can start some legitimate healthcare reform.

      • Jazzabelle

        Flashy wrote: “Now the bill is passed..where are these death panels? There aren’t any BECAUSE THERE NEVER WERE ANY ! ”

        There aren’t any because the law hasn’t gone into effect yet.

      • Flashy

        Jazza….hate to tell you this, but the law has gone into effect. There are several parts already implemented and several more scheduled for this summer. The mandate won’t be in effect until next year, with the tax issue hitting when the returns are filed in ’14.

        BTW…the “death panel’ lie was named as PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year”, one of FactCheck’s “whoppers”, and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society.

        yet…you take it as gospel

        Think about that

      • Ted Crawford

        They were in there Flashy, untill Mrs. Palin pointed them out! HR-3200 Section 1233, refered to as “End of Life Councils” ! They had allready made their trial run in Oregon beginning in 1994 with ORS 127.800-995!

      • JUKEBOX

        If your premium went up 453% under the Obamacare,I believe you would have a different opinion of this monster. That’s what happened to me for my Medicare Advantage premium. I would also like to know if you have read all 2700 pages of this law. If you have, you are part of about less than 1% of American citizens. I will guarantee you that none of the people who voted for it have read all of it either. Pelosi as much as admitted this when she said that they would have to pass it to find out what was in it.

      • speedle

        Flashy writes, “BTW…the “death panel’ lie was named as PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year”, one of FactCheck’s “whoppers”, and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society.”

        Flashy, I don’t think you (or apparently any of the “fact checkers”) understand subtleties of regulation. No, you can look all through the 2,700 pages of the law and never find the term “death panel”, or any other more politically accepted wording which means the same thing. What you are either mistakenly or purposely ignoring is the “connect the dots” process.

        If the government is responsible (and receives political pressure) for keeping the price of healthcare down, the only way to fix prices is to reduce benefits, right? Part of the reducing benefits package is reducing “access” to certain (particularly the more expensive procedures). This is called rationing. When the government “rations” benefits they determine what medical procedures will be provided to what beneficiary. Now if there are only so many of said procedures that are to be allowed (due to cost restraints) guess what? 85 year old Granny is going to get the Heisman in favor of a younger recipient (probably someone who has some political connection or has greased the right bureaucrat).

        These bureaucrats are the federally appointed healthcare czars authorized to make these decisions. Even though these cases are not going to be looked at individually as the example above suggests, the parameters will be laid out in advance of the profiles of acceptable beneficiaries and the ….well… let’s just call them the folks that have already lived long enough. This scenario qualifies in my book as a death panel. Make sense to you??

      • Alex Frazier

        Flashy, there aren’t any gray areas in the Constitution. It gives Congress the power to “regulate” the commerce among the several states, not “mandate” who should buy what.

        The greatest perversion of our era is the implied powers mentality of Congress and the president (speaking in general terms, not of a specific president). The tenth amendment is clear as day that powers not delegated to the United States (i.e. the federal government) by the Constitution, or that have been prohibited to the States by the Constitution, belong to the people.

        The worst case scenario is that the authority to mandate health care belongs to the States, since they are not specifically prohibited such authority over local commerce. However, the idea itself that even the State has the authority to tell you what you must buy is offensive.

        The best case scenario is that the ninth amendment takes precent, which says that just because certain rights of the people are not specifically listed, it doesn’t mean we don’t have them. We are a free society. Every man can pursue happiness as he sees fit. The purpose of government was, is, and always will be to protect the lives, freedoms, and property of its citizens.

        Where you err on this topic is that you are doing as at least one of the liberal Supreme Court Justices is doing. You are trying to rationalize why the bill is good or not good. But that’s not the role of the Supreme Court. The only thing that should be in question in these hearings is: Is this Act of law within the bounds of the delegated authority given to Congress by the Constitution? This should not be a question of whether or not Congress should have more power, whether some citizens might pay more in taxes due to people who go to the ER without insurance, whether it will provide better health care for the nation, etc., etc., etc. The decision is singular. Is the legislation Constitutional? And the answer is no.

        The Supreme Court should not be legislating from the bench. They don’t have that power or authority. And to give it that power or authority is dangerous.

        But overall, as a matter of principle, if you want your freedoms to remain intact, you have to fight unConstitutional power grabs when they occur, even when you agree with the legislation. Every invasion we permit sets the precedent for them to invade our rights further. The NDAA, for example, wouldn’t have been voted in if we had made Congress and the President pay for the passage of the Patriot Act.

      • Flashy

        Ted —> “They had allready made their trial run in Oregon beginning in 1994 with ORS 127.800-995″

        Ted..if you are referring to Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, note that it was sent to the Voter’s twice…and both times passed. It has a large amount of support in the state, and since it went into effect, the calamities the religious right predicted have never come close to fruition.

        it provides a terminally ill person the Right to Die with dignity. You’re against that?

    • 2bvictorius

      Is it just me, or do some of you believe as I , that Flashy is a “stoneheaded Leftist.”

      • rtringgo

        It is not just you. Your perception is accurate.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Yes he is and he also likes to manipulate the direction of the responses.

      • Ted Crawford

        Come on now ole Flashy is a company big wig! He told me so. He’s involved with the formulation and implementation of Company policy, including Financial policys!
        To believe that, of course, we must assume one of two facts: Either the Company is no older than 5 days or they are totally dependent on Government Contracts or Grants or both!

    • speedle

      Vicky, Your logic is pretty shaky. If you cannot rationalize the difference between the government prohibiting you from selling and or buying illegal controlled substances, and the government forcing you to buy insurance (a legal product), you need to take a think pill or something. You can argue whether or not certain products should be illegal. Maybe that is what you are really thinking.

      • RichE

        Where does Social Security fall?

      • Jazzabelle

        Social Security has nothing to do with the government.

      • Ted Crawford

        I think you’ll find that Social Security does have very much to do with the Government Jezzabelle, Thanks to Lyndon Johnson it is a major part of our General Fund!

      • Vicki

        speedle says:

        Vicky, Your logic is pretty shaky. If you cannot rationalize the difference between the government prohibiting you from selling and or buying illegal controlled substances, and the government forcing you to buy insurance (a legal product), you need to take a think pill or something. You can argue whether or not certain products should be illegal. Maybe that is what you are really thinking.

        Of course I am arguing that the government does not have the power to make certain products illegal. I even chose as my examples 2 recent cases of products (light bulbs and guns) rather than the 50+ year old war on (some) drugs to keep focused on the point.

        If YOU think that the Constitution delegates to government the power to control your buying and selling why do you think that SCOTUS will strike down a law that allows government to control your buying and selling? I do not see anything in the Constitution that limits control to just forbidding you from buying, therefore they must also have the power to force you to buy.

        I notice from the questions being asked by the court that they are thinking along the same lines.

      • Jazzabelle

        Ted, you’re right in a certain sense, Social Security is a big part of our General Fund, but the important word is “our.” Who exactly are you referring to when you say “our?”

        The original Social Security Act was passed in 1935, but our national government didn’t have anything to do with it. Rather, the Act was passed by the Congress (i.e., Board of Directors) of an entity called the United States Government, a privately owned corporation that had been created by our national Congress in the year 1871 (“District of Columbia Organic Act”). When someone pays taxes under the Social Security Act (as amended), those taxes don’t go to our national government. They go to the corporation that calls itself “the United States Government.” Yes, those taxes are a big part of the USG’s General Fund. But that isn’t “our” General Fund.

      • Allen Halverson

        If the government has the power to prohibit purchase of certain items. What will stop them prohibiting purchase of enough things until choices are so limited that in essence it is forcing you to purchase a certain item?

      • speedle

        RichE, Social Security is a tax. It is not the government forcing you to buy a commercial product.

      • speedle

        Vicki, you keep confusing the question. The light bulb thing is the government controlling the manufacture and distribution of a product. It is not FORCING you to buy light bulbs of any kind. The analogy to the light bulb thing would be the government forcing the auto manufacturers to produce cars that get certain MPG or have certain safety equipment.

        PPASA “forces” people to BUY A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT whether they want to or not. That is the constitutional question. It has nothing to do with light bulbs.

      • Vicki

        speedle says:

        Vicki, you keep confusing the question. The light bulb thing is the government controlling the manufacture and distribution of a product. It is not FORCING you to buy light bulbs of any kind.

        I am not in the least bit confused as I am the one asking the question. Since you have given the government the power to forbid the manufacture and distribution (and sale?) of a product I ask you yet again where is the limit to the government forcing you TO buy.

        Lets look at Allen Halverson’s comment.
        “If the government has the power to prohibit purchase of certain items. What will stop them prohibiting purchase of enough things until choices are so limited that in essence it is forcing you to purchase a certain item?”

        The analogy to the light bulb thing would be the government forcing the auto manufacturers to produce cars that get certain MPG or have certain safety equipment.

        Really good example actually. I don’t want to buy a car that has a certain MPG thus you have given the exact example that Allen suggests.

        PPASA “forces” people to BUY A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT whether they want to or not. That is the constitutional question.

        Since you insist let us directly face the question. Marijuana. It WAS a commercial product. Then the government forbid the manufacture (growing), distribution, sale and possession.

        So let me ask again. If YOU believe the Constitution gives the government the power to forbid the sale of a commercial product why do you believe that it does NOT have the power to force you to buy a commercial product.

      • Why

        It’s not that great of a stretch…who ever thought “habeas corpus” would be put aside so easily and without outcry. So the government just has to outlaw being sick and then they do not even need Obamacare and can force us to submit to whatever health facility they decide?

        The prior administration and the current administration have stomped all over the Constitution. Will there ever be a righting of the wrongs?

      • speedle

        Vicki writes, “So let me ask again. If YOU believe the Constitution gives the government the power to forbid the sale of a commercial product why do you believe that it does NOT have the power to force you to buy a commercial product.”

        That just doesn’t relate Vicki. You could just as easily say the constitution gives the government the power to prevent the sale of nuclear bombs why do you believe that it does not have the power to force you to buy guns.

        There is a huge difference in prohibiting the sale of something (like Prohibition) vs. forcing a citizen to spend his money on something. I really don’t understand your logic.

      • Vicki

        speedle says:

        That just doesn’t relate Vicki. You could just as easily say the constitution gives the government the power to prevent the sale of nuclear bombs why do you believe that it does not have the power to force you to buy guns.

        You raise a very good point. Where does the Constitution give the government the power to prevent the sale of nuclear bombs?

        There is a huge difference in prohibiting the sale of something (like Prohibition) vs. forcing a citizen to spend his money on something. I really don’t understand your logic.

        If you will recall Prohibition was an amendment to the Constitution. Obamacare is not.

        So back to my question that you seem to be trying really hard to avoid.

        IF in the Constitution the government has the power to force you to NOT buy a product where in the Constitution is there a limit that would prevent the government from forcing you TO BUY a product.

        It’s a simple question really. Also very logical. If the government has the power to force you to not buy then why does it not have the power to force you TO buy?

        • http://yahoo Maynard

          The people in charge want us to be divided. While we’re arguing they can rob us blind and take away our freedoms. The REAL threat now is NDAA 2012. Congress passed it overwhelmingly and Obama signed it. Going against their Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, they “gave” the government the power to use the military to arrest US citizens and hold us indefinitely w/o trial.
          It is time to unite to stop this POLICE STATE. When they can deal with dissent extra-legally, it will be too late.
          Do you think the threat is not real? They claim we can’t afford to help our sick and yet they just appropriated $63 BILLION dollars for domestic drones to spy on, intimidate and even kill usl
          Where is the OUTRAGE? Are you too unaware or scared to even PROTEST? Do you think you will feel secure when you hear that knock on your door in the middle of the night?
          All of the candidates, except Ron Paul, are running to be Dictator in Chief.
          WAKE UP AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • GALT

      Another fascinating discussion in the spirit of Seinfeld, ABOUT NOTHING.

      It is not possible to strike down a law ( statute ) which does NOT exist, and in this case
      the MANDATE, has no enforcement ( implementing ) regulation……and as such, is not a mandate. If this seems strange to you, you need only look at a program you are all familiar with…..Social Security.

      The statute 26 USC 3402 is long arduous and fairly nasty sounding and for all appearances looks mandatory…..and because most people BELIEVE ( and this includes lawyers ) that it is the statute which matters, this becomes the reality, when the truth is
      that it is a shared delusion, backed up by 20+ pages of irrelevant rhetoric.

      The implementing regulation for this statute is one page consisting of 4 paragraphs,
      26 CFR 31.3402 ( p ) and is titled Voluntary With holding Agreements, and begins:
      “An employer and an employee MAY enter into an agreement to with hold.” ( w-4 )

      All it has taken to make this program work ( as mandatory ) is the BELIEF that it is
      ( mandatory ) and the continued IGNORANCE of the FACT that it is NOT.

      So what you have witnessed is a marvelous smoke screen, regarding statutory language
      which only appears mandatory….and which if struck down, would subject all such programs to the same legal standard…..which would expose ( or threaten to ) what has been a carefully structured and protected illusion regarding the Constitution and the LAW
      which has been in place since 1939.

      As much as some members of the court would like to be able to strike it down, the prospect is too risky……which is the price to be paid for choosing “illusion” in the first
      place…… expose one, is to threaten all. Also, if a successful legal challenge could have been mounted…….the obvious candidate would have been the Massachusetts Health Care Law…..

      Clearly, we have more serious topics to discuss, like those 72 or um 42 virgins, or grapes or whatever…..ignorance is BLISS, for some.

      • RichE

        Thanks Galt.

        Geez! I’m not sure which side to be on.

    • Jazzabelle

      Vicki wrote: “I am not sure I understand why there is any constitutional argument about the individual mandate. If the government has to power to stop you from buying something then surely they have the power to require you to buy something.”

      You’re right. The government DOESN’T have the power to stop you from buying something OR to require you to buy something. The problem is that they try to do both, and people only sometimes try to stop them. We elect politicians to run the country, not to safeguard and uphold the Constitution. That’s our job. Politicians take an oath to the Constitution, but it’s still our job to enforce those oaths. That’s what people have forgotten.

    • vicki

      Flashy says:

      The Individual mandate affects Interstate Commerce. When one has no insurance, and resorts to E Room care for health care, that is a cost to everyone. The issue is does Congress have the power.

      When one resorts to an E Room for healthcare that cost is borne by the single e-room.
      I have yet to see an e-room or hospital that is built on a state line so that you have to cross a state line to get from one side to the other.

      Your interstate commerce nexus is not valid.

    • James

      Vicki, just because the federal government has prohiited Americans from shipping a machinegun in interstate commerce doesn’t mean they have the power to do that. It just means they got away with it. They used their interstate commerce power to bypass the Second Amendment.

  • Sirian

    It’s hard to say which way the justices will rule on this one. They could go as far as to kill the entire bill, very doubtful, or they could eliminate the mandate only. They have the power and ability to “pick and chose” what they want. We can speculate to our hearts desire one way or the other but until their decision is finally released, some time in June or so, all we can do actually is sit tight and pray for the best. Things appear to be leaning towards the good of the nation but again, until their decision is released we can do nothing more than speculate. But keep one thing in mind, if the Progressive Democrats lose on this one they will do nothing more than pull back, regroup and formulate another attack. They’ve been at it for over a hundred years. This war may fall into somewhat of a “cease-fire” but we will never see the end of it.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      To eliminate the mandate, and not strike down the entire bill will create panic in the medical insurance arena. If you haven’t thought about the consequences you are not thinking at all. When the funding vehicle disappears the insurance industry will be virtually bankrupt. The entire bill must be scrapped. Medicare and Medicaid need to be scrapped as well. Then you we can start over and get the Government out of Health Care completely. I don’t know why I bother with trying to explain this to idiots.

      • Flashy

        CB…on Charlie Rose last night there was a Roundtable discussion with several business and labor leaders at the table. No mandate would increase expected costs of health care for employees 3-5%. Striking down the entire law would increase the costs by 10-12%.

        Have a nice day

      • Sirian

        You don’t have to explain this, I’m fully aware of the ramifications but as I said, until we receive the courts decision there is nothing available to be sure of other than what we can speculate on. And speculation has no limitations for sure. I would very much prefer that the entire bill be scrapped – YES! Medicare/Medicaid – YES! Social Security – YES!! But as long as we have the Progressive/Communist/Socialist/Anarchist revolutionary movements running at full throttle – COWS – don’t expect that to happen any time soon. Gee, this poor idiot sure would like to get a gold star for the day – no, idiots don’t deserve gold stars. . . :/

      • Jazzabelle

        Flashy wrote: “CB…on Charlie Rose last night there was a Roundtable discussion with several business and labor leaders at the table. No mandate would increase expected costs of health care for employees 3-5%. Striking down the entire law would increase the costs by 10-12%.”

        And you believe those talking heads??

        You didn’t even tell us who they were….

      • Flashy

        Jeesh…OK next time i will take notes just for you.

        And wasn’t ‘talking heads’…as i stated, CEOs and leaders of ongoing existing business and labor. And it was Charlie Rose, not exactly known for being a “talking head’.

      • s c

        Capitalist, you are far too kind when you say utopians are idiots. 99% of all utopian responses on this website are better classified as contractually-scripted and retarded.
        Because a utopian is contractually obligated to be a Big Gubmint suck-up, they will never get where they can see Big Gubmint as THE main cause of any healthcare problem. Some private insurers create their own problems, but Big Gubmint’s favorite, #1 method is to BLAME SOMEONE ELSE first. Uncle Scam is at the heart of America’s healthcare disaster, and no utopian whining can make it go away.
        Uncle Scam dares not look into a mirror. Utopians dare not look into a mirror. Utopians dare not THINK. It amounts to a cabal that’s based on ‘do what I say or else.’ It’s put forth to the rest of us as this is a gift from our “God.”
        The hypocrisy is too much, and if it wasn’t for the continual programming involved, we might have a chance to get them to grow up and see crap for what it is and re-educate their noses so they can actually smell the many outhouse odors that make utopianism what it is, Capitalist. Parrots, sheep, lemmings and robots. What a class act.

    • eddie47d

      Should have been titled No Honor Among Conservatives/Republicans. What mandate in our Capitalistic system allowed the healthcare industry to double and triple those increases in costs just a few years ago? What mandate allowed Big Pharma to quadruple the cost of manufacturing drugs? Those who supported private industry gouging the public have no room to talk. I know some of you made a killing on the stock market. Investing in those same pharmaceutical companies and hospital systems You reaped the rewards of those manipulated price increases and maybe you are eagerly awaiting to return to those obscene profits. Condemn government plans all you want but remember it was the private industry that screwed the heck out of a cost effective healthcare system. Thanks to the private system our ranking among industrial nations went down and only a select few were allowed the good care but at one heck of a cost. I sure hope you enjoyed the ride!

      • Jazzabelle

        Eddie wrote: “Condemn government plans all you want but remember it was the private industry that screwed the heck out of a cost effective healthcare system.”

        That’s the problem with liberals: such short memories. Our health-care system hasn’t been cost-effective in two generations (maybe three, depending on how you count). And the system hasn’t been made cost-INeffective by private industry but by government regulations, e.g., the requirement that some employers offer health insurance, and the requirement that states fund Medicare and Medicaid. Creating false demand (allowing people to access a service without having to pay for it) leads directly to falsely inflated prices. THAT’S the problem with our health-care system today.

      • eddie47d

        What’s with this “false demand”. Are you saying a person who is ill is faking it just to get a little attention at the hospital. ??? That’s a good one!

        • http://Yahoo Maynard

          eddie47d Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations and for the Corporations shall not perish from the earth. The people will, however. But then who cares? We are like farm animals, raised for profit. When that’s extracted we’ve outlived our usefulness
          We are expendable, but not those profits. I should write a book. Maybe I’ll call it “People Farm.”

  • doctordoctor

    Another wonderful fun-filled piece of crystal blue persuasion. I know how liberals want to treat us lowly Conservatives which is why I have sixty round SureFire magazines for my AR-15. Opened a hole in his head: provides me with a mental image of a faceless anencephalic creature. Just hilarious.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Conservatives are usually pretty bad shots.

      • Flashy

        Unless you’re Dick Cheney hunting the dangerous quail flushed out at a game farm…oops…wait, he shot his companion. OK Doc…I cede the argument. Point well taken.

      • Brad

        Doc, ask that same question to one of our military/swat snipers and I bet you get a totaly opposit answer. By the way it’s a liberal/progressive who doesn’t know which end to use so we already know the answer to that question.

      • Andy

        I’m sure you are partially right just as there are some that are excellent shots and some just so-so–however, you, as a liberal, have nothing to compare it to since liberals won’t own guns (“you mean you could actually shoot somebody” is the usual response I get from your side. My response: “you damn straight I could”!)

      • Flashy

        Actually, I own two. My first..a nice little 20 gauge with a 22 overhead. Perfect for woodland grouse. And one I inherited from my father. I don’t have either loaded, no ammo in the house, and i don’t need to pack them around to prove my manhood nor give me a false sense of safety.

      • Andy

        Hey, Flashy, good luck with using your “manhood” for protection if you or your family are ever confronted with a dangerous individual threatening your livelihood, lives, or property. Should make for a good laugh anyway.

      • Flashy

        Andy…i don’t spend time worrying about odds that great. Snuffing home intruders is way down the list on why guns are used. Look it up.

      • RichE

        You said, “you damn straight I could”! But have you Andy can you push the button? Talk is cheap Andy. I suggest you and anyone else that thinks it easy to kill go to the dog pound and ‘pull the trigger’ on one of the animals that is scheduled for termination.

      • CZ52

        “Conservatives are usually pretty bad shots.”

        Doc I suggest you tell that to all the squirrels i have killed with a single shot to the head and all the deer I have killed with a single shot to the heart they will be suprised to learn how bad a shot I am.

        “I suggest you and anyone else that thinks it easy to kill go to the dog pound and ‘pull the trigger’ on one of the animals that is scheduled for termination.”

        RichE I have “pulled the trigger” on more than one dog and cat that were a lots closer to me than a pound animal and no it isn’t easy but if it needs to be done you do it.

  • Cherokee Lady

    Elena Kagan will vote in accordance with her leaders — Obama and the “Progressive” types.

    Why is she allowed to hear this case when she helped compose Obamacare?
    Oh, I fogot — all’s fair if one is onboard with Obama and his attempt to dictate every facet of our lives!

    • Christin

      Cherokee Lady,

      Progressives Kagan AND Sotomeyor are both obama appointees and WILL vote in favor of their master O’s plan to take down America, that is why they were appointed to be his useful-idiots to do his bidding.

      ‘The Apollo Alliance’ wrote the ‘Health [don't] Care’ bill… that already makes it UNconstitutional as ONLY Congress has the power to write legislation according to the Constitution… not that anybody is following it.

      • Vicki

        Worse than that, unelected bureaucrats actually write the “regulations” which are the teeth of any act. We need to get Congress to do it’s job and actually write the law. All of it.
        That would greatly reduce the mess of laws we have to deal with.

        Go here to write to your congressmen to ask them to introduce the “Write The Laws Act”.

  • radical rabbi

    When even a sitting justice who had her hand on this legislation couldn’t help her replacement, you know that this piece of junk legislation that should have been called “The Communization of America” Act is doomed. Thank God! However, along the way to getting this monstrosity passed, crimes were committed by this administration, primarily, bribery.
    In addition several aspects of this legislation have already been implemented; those things need to be stopped as well. In reality, none of this will be stopped until Mad King Barry the
    First is deposed.

    • Flashy

      I take it you have the same objections to Thomas hearing the case then as well since he has a more direct conflict ?

      • Ted G

        The argument against Thomas is weak and an attempt by the left to equate that which is not equal. Its just noise to distract. Kinda like you flashy.

        Potato potato
        You say liberal/progressive
        I say socialist/commie!

      • Brad

        Hey Flashy,

        Atleast Clearance Thomas knows how to keep his professional life away from his wife’s professional life and judge the merits of this case. Whereas Elana Kagan had direct influence as SG under Ohmama to direct a formal review of the law and provide direction for it’s legal defense. She should have recused herself and you know that, by the way she was one of the raw raw girls when verrilli started ascewing his argument.

      • Flashy

        Kagan is set on the bench for life and has no monetary interests at stake. The history of the SCOTUS is full of Justices appointed and not deciding the way a President had thought (see eg Marshall Court). Thomas has a direct monetary interest in the case through his wife’s income sources.

        Thomas’s conflict is direct and active. Kagan has no direct conflict and can decide without pressure.

        Now, if you believe that there is no danger/chance that Thomas won’t be influenced by the fact that there are potential millions in earnings at stake for his wife, you are a fool.


      • Brad


        By the way your arugement is week to say the least, why, your credability, you have none, where are your resources claiming Justice Thomas would gain financialy through his wife’s non-profit agency? Lets go little fella, let’s see your proof, if you can’t then shut the F’n up…

      • eddie47d

        No Brad a member of the Thomas family is already making money off of attacking AHCA. To say that doesn’t have influence on his decision is only wishful thinking. I think it would be more appropriate for you to prove that Kagan will be receiving financial gain. Money talks and BS walks!

      • Flashy

        How much does his wife earn? Who are her clients? What groups does she speak in front of? What positions does she advocate in front of those groups? And if you believe a “non profit’ makes no $$ for those who are involved in it…you are on the far side of sanity …

      • Ted Crawford

        Thomas had NO direct contact with this Law, unlike Kagen!

      • eddie47d

        That could mean that Kagan would understand the law much better than the rest and Thomas “could” be in it for the financial gain from his wife.

      • Opal the Gem

        “How much does his wife earn? Who are her clients? What groups does she speak in front of? What positions does she advocate in front of those groups?”

        I don’t know flushy but since you know all there is to know about it I am sure you will enlighten us with your encyclopedic knowledge.

  • Cynthia

    The entire monstrosity is a liberty killer. This isn’t about health care. This is about controlling the population. If they can make you buy health insurance as a requirement for existing in the United States, they can try and control every aspect of our lives, from buying cars and houses, to cookies and candy from the grocery store. There will be no limit to what the government can do to us or try and make us do. I think it will be ruled unconstitutional by the justices. Unfortunately, I think it will be a 5-4 split, which is too close. It should be 9-0 that it’s unconstitutional!

    • Christin

      Right On!

    • http://Yahoo Maynard

      Sorry to dissilusion you Cynthia, but who do you think pays for the uninsured when their health conditions become an emergency although preventive medicine would have been much less expensive?
      You conservatives never saw a military expenditure you didn’t like but when it comes to helping people you scream to high heaven: “UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”
      What’s unconstitutional is all the wars since 1963. (Congress is supposed to declare them.)
      Those trillions could have paid for a lot more than health care, but you saw commies behind every bush, and now terrorists in your back yard. (Look into the strings that the CIA pulled in Riyaad, Saudia Arabia so they could get the hijacker/scapegoats over here). It’s time to wake up and realze those wars are actually for WAR PROFITEERING and to MONOPOLIZE OIL in order to MAXIMIZE PROFITS.
      A lot of people ARE waking up, so they passed, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the NDAA 2012 that will allow the president of whatever political stripe to arrest, incarcerate indefinitily WITHOUT trial, whomever HE/SHE/IT wishes. Do you honestly think this is for those MUSLIM MARAUDERS? Then there’s the $63 billion just appropriated for domestic drones to spy on, intimidate, even assassinate secretly, here in the good old freedom loving USA.
      Whether you’re liberal or conservative, there’s no certainty they won’t be coming AFTER YOU!
      Don’t you think it’s time to stop bickering over everything else until we can secure our Constitutional rights? Then we can go back to fighting each other with words.
      This is why Ron Paul would resolve it all.

  • DH

    Here is a guy who has taken over the position that Kagan held, designing and arguing before the supreme court this health care law. How could there ever be better justification for a supreme court judge to step down from being involved in deciding this case, let along simply sitting in on the decision. For Kagan, unfortunately, ugly is more than just skin deep.

    • Flashy

      the better case to recuse for conflict would be Thomas. Do you have the same objections to his being involved in deciding the case?

      • s c

        F, did you buy your integrity at WalMart? The ONLY reason any utopian berates Clarence Thomas is because he dares to claim the RGHT to be a black man who’s also a conservative. That, comrade, means you and your pals have all the integrity and character of back alley whores.
        YOU are PREJUDICED! You are so twisted that your ‘religion of government’ has neutered you in more ways than one.
        The way you sorry pukes ‘reason,’ if MLK was alive today, HE’D be in the same position as Thomas, and you’d go after MLK because he wouldn’t suck up to or endure your W H ‘God.’ If there’s a word that’s way past hypocrite, that’s YOU, you miserable, morals of a dog in heat, ho bag.

      • eddie47d

        I thought Conservatives don’t bring up the race card but SC loudly did a spanking good job of it. We’ll have to icon your statement in case some here have short memories.

      • Flashy

        Actually SC..the only reason Thomas sits on the Court is because he was the token choice selected by Bush I to fill Marshall’s seat. Ever wonder why Thomas hasn’t asked a question for going on seven years or written anything other than fluff opinions since sitting on the Court?

        Has nothing to do with the color of his skin or his so-called conservative views. You don’t read anything from me searing Scalia do you (very conservative opinions)? I would think it very telling to you that neither Rheinquist when he sat nor Roberts assigns Thomas any important cases to write.

        Get off the high horse and think once in awhile. you may find it refreshing…

  • Warrior


    World’s Shortest Books


    By Tiger Woods

    THINGS I LOVE ABOUT MY COUNTRY By Jane Fonda & Cindy Sheehan Illustrated by Michael Moore

    Foreword by George Soros


    & HOW I HELPED AFTER KATRINA By Rev Jesse Jackson & Rev Al Sharpton _____________________________________

    THINGS I LOVE ABOUT BILL By Hillary Clinton _________________

    Sequel: THINGS I LOVE ABOUT HILLARY By Bill Clinton _________________

    THINGS I CANNOT AFFORD By Bill Gates ____________________________________

    THINGS I WOULD NOT DO FOR MONEY By Dennis Rodman _________________________________

    THINGS WE KNOW TO BE TRUE By Al Gore & John Kerry _____________________________________


    By Amelia Earhart

    HOW TO LIVE LIFE TO THE FULLEST By Dr. Jack Kevorkian __________________________________

    TO ALL THE MEN WE HAVE LOVED BEFORE By Ellen de Generes & Rosie O’Donnell

    GUIDE TO DATING ETIQUETTE By Mike Tyson __________________________________



    MY PLAN TO FIND THE REAL KILLERS By O. J. Simpson _________________________________________


    MY BOOK OF MORALS By Bill Clinton With introduction by

    The Rev. Jesse Jackson

    and foreward by

    Tiger Woods with John Edwards




    My Complete Knowledge of Military Strategy

    By Nancy Pelosi

    And the shortest book of them all………………….


    by Barack Obama

    • Doc Sarvis

      NO book is too short for a Conservative.

      • richard C Davis

        Hey Doc,
        Two observations;
        Re: Short Books — Brevity is the soul of wit
        Re: Bad Shots form Conservatives — But they do know which end is active.

    • Christin


      They would indeed be short books.

      Thanks for the morning chuckle… good stuff.

    • Bert Cundle Sr.

      Warrior: That should be in every Liberary & Civics Class ( If there are still Civics Classes),in the Country!

  • Darold Boucher

    Poor guy. Some days you’re the hammer, some days, you’re the nail. Just being a member of the ruling inteligencia elite just ain’t what it used to be.

  • alexa

    Probably doesn’t matter which way it goes down, There will be an executive order to resolve it.


    Obama care, is crazy and scary. The US Government only provides third rate services and large amounts of fraud. Our health is the one issue our government cares zero about. If there was any concern about our health, then the Obamacare law would have suggested something about doctors, quality care and rewarding healthy lifestyles, but it does not and Obamacare would have been a huge disappointment to all involved.

    • Christin


      Unfortunately, ‘obamacare’ is NOT about ‘healthcare’ or even about ‘health insurance’….

      It is about Taking over Control of everyone’s life, Overriding (killing) the Constitution, Removing everyone’s Freedom to make their own decisions , and Stealing everyone’s money from their pocket [to line theirs] through a corrupt unconstitutional law…

      What health insurance would penalize you with a monetary fee for NOT participating and put the you in JAIL for not paying… nothing to do with health care?????

      That sounds like a Police State and Total control of a Dictator… that’s not for me or America. (period)

  • RichE

    Affordable Health Care: I wish the focus would return. Collectively, as a nation, as a society do we want health care?

    • Jazzabelle

      I think the better question is: “As an individual, do *I* want health care?”

  • Armyblue

    Will integrity of protecting the Constitution win the day amonst the Justices, or have they been brainwashed?

    • Andy

      Has anyone else wondered why, after 3 days of deliberating the legality, etc. of this abomination, they need until June to make a ruling? Seems this leaves plenty of time for persuasive measures to be enacted (you know…the usual D.C. methods of blackmail, coercion, threats, bribery–you get the drift).

      • Christin

        Yes, Andy, I was wondering the exact same thing.

        They say the SC Justices will have two days of deliberation to write up their decision… so then just spit it out and let’s be done with it… Find it Unconstitutional and Kill it (before it kills us and continues to take more of our money)… why wait?

      • Flashy

        apparently neither of you ever wrote anything more than a high school paper…

      • Jazzabelle

        Andy & Christin,

        It’s par for the course. They take that long to write their decision. That’s just how it happens.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        They have to be careful how the ruling is worded, with so many words that they string together they must obfuscate the fact that they will not make a rightous judgement.

      • Vicki

        And they have to spend time studying case history. It is not an easy process.

      • Ted Crawford

        With such a monumental issue, involving generational ramifications, swift justice must be kept a relative issue!

  • uvuvuv

    this is a big subject. the trouble with socialized medicine is people can overeat and watch oprah for exercise and then the government pays for any consequences. in norway etc people are more careful, living frugally and exercising. and their doctors are happy to live in apartments or modest homes, just as the case was here in the 50 and into the 60s. the trouble with enforced health insurance is the stifling effect on business. if the cut-off is 50 employees, you will see business growth stop because no one would want to break that barrier. if a HEAC dealer is retiring his business will disappear, because a competitor would not want to buy him out and then break the 50 employee barrier. for low income workers they would be excused from paying for this insurance, but the way this would happen is the waitress would have to take out a $6000 loan to pay her premiums, and then at tax time she would have the principal refunded. but meanwhile she is making $500 plus payments on a minimum wage income. if she doesn’t go along, is prison in her future? it might seem preferable. another problem, with everyone forced to buy insurance, the insurance companies would not be staffed to handle the hugely increased volume. where i worked we got in 25,000 claims a day, and we barely kept up. if this was to jump into the low 30s there is just no way. there would be warehouses full of claims waiting to be processed. people and clinincs awaiting their reimbursements would have to just sit there. also yet another point, all claims entry operators would have to be coached on the 2500 pages of this health law. seminars would have to be set up to get everyone up to speed. we had these from time to time with things the way they were. as the learning curve is negotiated claims processing would slow to a crawl, especially with cases where the diagnoses and procedures don’t match (measles:arm set with cast).

  • Dens

    Obamacare will be judged constitutional by the Supreme Court because all these politically appointed kabuki actors prefer to “interpret” the Constitution instead of “uphold” it as they are sworn to do. They will make a big show of this case because they love the attention it gives them.

    Breyer has made it clear he thinks the government can force the American people to do anything it wants. Ginsberg has said the Constitution doesn’t work. The rest of them are lifelong lawyers who were hatched into this world without eyelids and can be expected to make some very cold decisions regarding normal humans.

  • Andrew Reilley

    Brilliant recap. Thanks Ben

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    Government has CHANGED!!!
    Government in a large part… was to protect the CITIZENS!
    Government has become, a Controling All Things Boss!
    The Constitution Has been nulified by Amendments… & Obscure interpetitions…
    If: The Government were to Protect the Citizans, we would have More Civil Rights Inforcement!
    I tried to fight State Control, of Auto. Ins. Inforcement! & Helmet Requirement on Motorcycles ~ For “CHOICE”…( STATE is a Control FREAK TOO!)

    • Bert Cundle Sr.

      GOVERNMENT 101:
      Government makes Felonies out of OFFENSES on us! // Yet They get away with Murder & Maham!

  • http://Aol CommonSense4America

    There is nothing in the Constitution about a RIGHT to health care. ObamaCare should be ruled unconstitutional. Then, a surefire way to reduce healthcare cost….EVERYBODY drop their insurance companies. No insurance companies = no guaranteed payments to Drs or hospitals = negotiated payments will then be in effect. Costs will drop like a rock!

    Of course I realize that this would never occure, but,,,It would work.

    • JKinIL

      Here’s a thought, CommonSense4America: When you get to the emergency ward or the cancer treatment ward, start to negotiate your fees.

      How much would you be willing to pay for an xray, or a unit of blood, or a surgeon? How long would you be willing to negotiate for that last $10,000 of savings?

      And who has the leverage in that negotiation-you (who only has your life to worry about) or the doctors/hospitals (who only have to worry about removing your corpse and cleaning the carpet afterwards?)

      Don’t answer now…wait til you really need medical care.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        What has health insurance to do with government regulating health insurance. It is nothing more than third party meddling and power grab.

    • Why

      It worked until the insurance companies became involved.

      • Bert Cundle Sr.

        Big Bussiness Government … merged with: Big Bussiness Corps… ( See what O’Bomba did?) ( CHANGE…)

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    The Government is now overtaken the Witch Doctor Role… & The Fofillment of Schripturies Roll. (A Saveyor..) & Acting for a King… [ We Civilians are DOOMED!]

  • JKinIL

    If the issue were so cut and dried that they thought they could address it in two days, they probably would have overturned one or the other district appeals court decisions.

    This is more complicated than either the left or the right would have you believe.

    SCOTUS’ record when under political pressure leaves a lot to be desired (remember Dred Scott?). Seventy five percent of the population thinks this will go 5-4 along party lines. There is a real problem with that…and the justices know it.

    If Obamacare goes down, and the vote is 5-4, the liberals will believe that freedom has been wrested from the country through SCOTUS becoming “politicians” while pretending to be “judges”. The Justices are acutely aware of (in fact, they refer to it repeatedly in their oral arguments) of the Supreme Court’s Lochner era, where the politicization of the Court ended in serious damage to the institution’s reputation.

    They are concerned that the legacy of their Court in history will be tied to the Lochner era, and that it will be judged harshly.

    This court knows how this law was made, and that Presidents since FDR have tried to get it passed and failed. If Obamacare goes down, they also know that it’s highly unlikely that another president will take it on, and that another Congress will want to wrestle with it.

    If indeed the healthcare system collapses, or if it causes the economy to collapse under its weight over the next decade or so, then ONE MAN will have made the decision on this deeply divided and divisive issue–and every American will second guess him.

    There’s been a lot of erosion in the public confidence in government over the last thirty years. The Executive Branch has seen Watergate, Irancontra, Lewinsky, and the demonization of Bush and Obama, among other events.

    The Legislative Branch is similarly held in horrifically low esteem.

    If 3 of 3 branches of government are no longer respected or admired, the effect on the country cannot be good.

  • Jack

    At least there are a few people who know something more about “obamacare” other than
    “conservative” talking points.

    The individual mandate that most of you hate so much was a “conservative” idea. The Heritage
    Foundation came up with it as a response to Clinton’s health care proposal. That’s like 1993. The Republicans made it the center piece of the bills they introduced as their alternative to Clinton’s proposed health care reforms.

    The Republicans didn’t oppose the idea until Obama adopted it as part of his proposal (the normal practice – how about cap and trade, a Republican idea until Obama supported it). Once that happened the “conservatives” launched their campaign of misinformation, misrepresentations, and outright lies in an effort to beat Obama at any cost.

    Ted Crawford talked about the “Death Panels”. He even gave you a citiation where you could go
    look for yourselves if what he said was true. How many of you actually checked it out. I seriously
    doubt any of you did. If you would have (HR 3200, section 1233 – 111th Congress) you would have
    seen that all Mr. Crawford did is pass on a talking point without verifying if it was true – that’s what the “conservatives” depend upon, is for you people just accept what they say and never verify what they said.

    Section 1233 is titled “Advance Care Planning Consultation”. For those who don’t know what this is, it is end of life medical care decisions that vertually every doctor and attorney advises that everyone do so that each person’s wishes about how they want to be taken care of at the end of their life ( i.e. living wills, durable medical powers of attorney, medical care directivies, etc.). This
    provision changed the law to allow Medicare to pay a person’s own doctor for discussing these
    matters with them so each person could make their own decisions whatever that might be – do everything to keep me alive even if I am brain dead or in a perminent vegatative state or just pull
    the plug and let me die.

    By the way this provision was taken from legislation that was introduced by a Republican.

    JukeBox said his Medicare Advantage Insurance premiums went up 453%. For those that don’t
    know, Medicare Advantage Insurance policies are issued by private insurance companies. There
    are a number of them. If JukeBox’s premiums jumped that much it has nothing to do with “Obamacare” because none of the many people I know that have such plans have had such
    increases. JukeBox, if your premiums went up like you say did you lose your government
    subsidy. Either way shop around for a better deal.

    Speedle, your paranoia is showing. Who is in charge of the bureaucrats? In case you don’t know, its the people who we elect as president, senators and representatives. If they don’t like what govenment employees are doing they change the law, change the regulation or change the
    bureaucrat. Everyday Insurance companies make the same decisions that you are worried that
    a bureaucrat might make. The bureaucrat gets paid a set amount no matter what decision is made.
    On the other hand the more an insurance denies coverage the more the compay’s executives make because the company makes more money. How much control do you have over what an
    insurance company does – none. If you trust the insurance company to look out for your best interests more than government employees and elected officials, then you are living in a “conservative” Ayn Rand fantasy world.

    • Vicki

      Lets take a quick look at a possible truth of death panels

      Now lets consider reality. IF there is rationing then there will be death panels because there is a choice that is made as to who gets the ration and who dies.

    • Jazzabelle

      Jack, just because a Republican introduced an idea doesn’t make it a “conservative” idea. The individual mandate was a bad idea when the Heritage Foundation came up with it, and it’s still a bad idea. Ditto for your other examples.

      Wise people, Jack, don’t trust the government OR the insurance companies. They trust themselves. That’s why they want to make their OWN decisions regarding their OWN healthcare, as far as they are able to do so. Having private insurance through a private company that’s selected by the individual gives that individual far more autonomy than letting the government control things. Changing the laws and the bureaucracy is a collective process–it takes power away from individuals, and that’s why the Founders strictly limited the authority of the government. The individual with a private healthcare plan, on the other hand, can change plans to penalize any company that doesn’t do as he wishes–and the companies that give people what they want DESERVE to make more money, as do their executives. Also, the market provides other, non-insurance solutions to individuals who have the creativity to follow those routes.

      • vicki

        well said

  • chuckb

    jack, no matter how you want to describe the healthcare legislation it is bad medicine for all concerned. we didn’t need this kind of bill to start with, medicare should be left alone and changes made like tort reform. just because parts of barrycare were instituted by republicans doesn’t mean anything, it’s the fact this legislation is bad, it is un-readable
    and i doubt the people who construed it can understand their own writing .

    i understand barry’s interest in this, it looks like he’s giving the sheep something for
    nothing and it’s obvious he hasn’t a clue what it says, he couldn’t understand it anyway.

    the death panel does exist in barrycare, the panel will determine how you will be medicaided in your final days, sarah palin was right.

  • Don

    I’m not counting chickens just yet… but I certainly hope for a finding against the Messiah.

  • http://Yahoo Maynard

    On the matter of death panels: That is an improvement on NDAA 2012 where we can be arrested, incarcerated indefinitely without trial, and even secretly assassinated according to Obama. You don’t even get a panel.

  • Liberterian

    As a liberterian I have little like for government intervention on anything and stick by it. However the facts are the facts and history recounts them so very often. Who founded the idea of the individual government mandate of health insurance. Umm it is the Heritage Foundation the most pronounced of conservitive think tanks. Stuart M. Butler, originated the mandate in 1989 where it was introduced in the Heritage Foundation. Households would be mandated to purchase insurance, not employers.
    In 1993 Republicans twice introduced health care bills containing an individual insurance mandate, supported by many prominent republicans of the time including but not limited to Orin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Robert Bennett and Chistopher Bond.
    In 2007, Democrats and Republicans tried to pass a bipartisan bill containing the mandate. It seems that President Obama was a late proponant of the individual mandate even after he was against it. Oh and brother Romney, the once I did, now I don’t believe in it. I’d say that both republicans and democrats, and conservatives and liberals share the blame.

    A good source:…/howaconservativethinktankinvented-theindividualmandate

    • Jazzabelle

      Hmm. Most “Libertarians” don’t consider the Heritage Foundation a “conservative” think-tank. They are more like mainstream Republican/neo-con.

      If you remember, Libertarian, there was a significant backlash against the individual mandate idea from within the Republican Party when the Heritage Foundation introduced its plan and when Republicans in Congress introduced it in in legislation in the Clinton era.

      Don’t confuse a Republican-introduced idea with a good idea.

      • libertarian

        Sorry, but no confusion on whether a Republican introduced idea is a good idea. Only stating that everyone is to blame so the finger pointing in this article should include all involved.

      • Jazzabelle

        Libertarian wrote: “Sorry, but no confusion on whether a Republican introduced idea is a good idea. Only stating that everyone is to blame so the finger pointing in this article should include all involved.”

        I’m not sure that’s legitimate, Libertarian. Congressional Republicans introduced some bad ideas as counter-proposals to Hillarycare. They didn’t go anywhere, and that may have been the point. If there’s one thing the Republican Party does really well, it’s playing the part of the opposition party. They’ve spent most of the last 50 years honing those skills. On the other hand, Congressional Democrats actually PASSED Obamacare and rammed an individual mandate down the nation’s throat. I see a big difference in culpability between floating the idea of, say, stealing someone’s money, and actually doing it.

        Not that I’m trying to defend the Republican Party. It’s an extremely corrupt institution, but on the healthcare issue, any finger-pointing needs to be directed at the parties that are actually to blame. Even if you think that the Clinton-era Republicans really WANTED an individual mandate, there’s still a huge difference between having tried to do something 15 years ago, and actually doing it. The blame lies with the parties who actually did it.

  • S Brennan

    The Elephant in the room on this whole Healthcare issue is this:
    This overloaded the system, skyrocketed all costs and created this entire debacle. And don’t think for a minute that it wasn’t done on purpose. The Bill Ayers/Obummers of the world have been pushing their Socialist/Communist theories for years. The Trojan Horse in the White House has been fabricated and put to task to bankrupt us now — and take away ALL freedom. And if you don’t believe in DEATH PANELS, then you’re just naive and ignorant. Do some REAL homework on health decisions in England and Canada. THEY DECIDE WHO LIVES OR DIES! I have personal knowledge of this from relatives who come here from those countries for life-saving measures their countries deny. The irony will be when many of those who support ObamaCare will die because of it – and they’ll deserve it.

    • chuckb

      s brennan, “a trojan horse in the white house” good definition, couldn’t be described better.

  • Susana Wright

    I believe God cause his brain to sputter and his mind to stutter. It was a spiritual battle and it will be even worse when they try more things on abortion which is not choice but murdering of innocent babies.

  • 4me2777

    It amazes me that no one here mentioned the fact that congress exempted themselves from this ‘wonderful’ law, if it is going to be so wonderful and an answer to all health care problems why would they do that? No one mentions that waivers or exemptions were given to the unions and other strong lobby organizations or companies, if it was so wonderful why were there any exemptions in the first place?

    Yes, there are rationing of care included in the law, what makes you think this will be limited to old people and new born children? Even the most far left supporter will one day be old, and possibly either have a child or maybe even a grandchild.

    It is certainly a way for the NWO agenda 21 type folks who want to do to reduce the population and eliminate what they call the useless eaters, or the breathers to accomplish their agenda, simply ration them out. Such rationing could be used to eliminate all of those on the welfare rolls, and government assistance after a dictatorship type world government is implemented. Wait that would greatly reduce the liberal population who vote for spreading the wealth to themselves, but they wouldn’t be needed for their votes anymore. If they aren’t working or able to work they would no longer be useful citizens and as someone posted a few days ago- let them die so that others may live, of course until that person is the one who has to die so that others may live, then it’s not such a great idea after all is it?

    Each step that takes us away from individual freedoms, takes us one step closer to the elites agenda, they are not even attempting to hide their plans anymore and speak of these things openly using the UN to further promote their plans.

    It is my hope that this abomination of a health “care” law is destroyed in it’s entirety and that a reasonable alternative to make affordable healthcare available to working people who WANT to buy into it is made available. If they go for another national socialized medicine approach then whatever they do come up with they should be required to be included in it and no waivers for political favors, period. With these requirements, somehow I don’t think they will find it such a good idea after all, do you?

    • James

      Congress also has a more wonderful plan for their retirement than Social Security offers.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.