Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Obamacare’s Paper Tiger

December 16, 2010 by  

Obamacare’s Paper Tiger

Thanks to a well-reasoned argument by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and a thoughtful decision by Judge Henry Hudson, Obamacare may soon be joining “Carter for President 1980″ and “Keith Olbermann on Sunday Night Football” on the ash-heap of monumentally bad ideas.

In Hudson’s landmark ruling of earlier this week, he called the fundamental tenet of the misleadingly-monikered Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) — specifically, the fine for non-compliance — exactly what it is: A grotesque grab for power by the same Democrats who have been lying about Obamacare’s effects all along.

Thankfully, there are Federal judges who have not only read the Constitution, but understand it. You may count Judge Henry Hudson among them. In striking down Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the part that requires you to buy comprehensive coverage or face a fine), Hudson wrote:

“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

Put simply: the Federal government does has not have the prerogative to force people to buy health insurance; and “policy raids by The Doctor Police” is just plain Big Brother-creepy. Democrats hoping to utilize the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to force citizens to buy into a government-run system felt the back of Hudson’s hand; he noted that section 1501 of the PPACA “exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article 1.”

And how! In addition to levying a financial penalty on citizens who choose to eschew the government’s healthcare boondoggle, Obamacare actually penalizes younger, healthier citizens who DO participate, by forcing insurance companies to cease the practice of offering lower rates to the fittest among us based on academic projections.

Fortunately, Hudson saw through the veneer of Democrat duplicity. It should be noted that the Democrats were perfectly willing to acknowledge that Section 1501 mandated a non-participation penalty right up until the Obama Administration found itself defending the bill in Federal Court, at which point the “penalty” became a “tax.” Not so fast, said Hudson:

“Having concluded that Section 1501(b)(1) is… a penalty as opposed to a tax (author’s emphasis)… Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause… to compel an individual to involuntarily engage in a private commercial transaction… The absence of a constitutionally viable exercise of this enumerated power is fatal to the accompanying sanction for non-compliance.”

Notice Hudson said “sanction” and not “tax.” Through the Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) provision, the Democrats were planning to institute the first tax in U.S. history paid by people for NOT buying something.

While Hudson’s decision DID sever Section 1501 from the PPACA as opposed to simply gunning down the whole bureaucratic monstrosity which is Obamacare, the bill can be regarded as surviving on legislative life support. More Federal cases are in the pipeline, notably in Florida, where 16 states’ Attorneys General are leading the charge to stuff Obamacare back in the Democrats’ pieholes.

Judge Roger Vinson has already ruled that the case can go forward. Vinson’s ruling is déjà vu for the Democrats; Hudson issued a similar ruling in Virginia back in August. There are also religious exemptions which are begging for a 1st Amendment challenge, the obvious 10th Amendment issues, and a privacy case regarding the PPACA’s data-mining intrusions and more — it’s a cornucopia of constitutional contentions — and just in time for Christmas!

Most importantly, without Section 1501′s penalty for failure to buy insurance at Big Barry’s, the PPACA is a legislative paper tiger. The bulk of the Obamacare power grab rested on the threat of enforcement. The Democrats wanted control of the nation’s healthcare apparatus and violated the Constitution to facilitate their greed. Now, the PPACA is little more than a 2,700-page suggestion that people purchase insurance in the manner proscribed.

The uninsured will continue to make their choices. Indigent care, Medicare and the host of other taxpayer-subsidized healthcare services will still require funding. Only now, with the PPACA and attendant layers of bureaucracy, make-work jobs and functionary excess which ALWAYS ride shotgun on overarching Federal legislation, more money will still be required. When the loss of the MEC enforcement provision is factored in — the taxpayers are going to have foot the bill anyway.

The proper response here is not: “Why not just pass it?” The proper response IS: “How about we dump the whole bill like we dumped the Democrat House majority?”

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 “Obamacare’s Paper Tiger”

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 newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Kim

    What is taking so long? Why aren’t more judges, Attorney’s General, etc. getting into the fray on this ridiculous UNCONSTITUTIONAL act? Can’t wait to see which of the newly elected step up to the plate. Or maybe DON’T! We’ll be watching…

    • hflashman

      Well now, Crystal is, as usual, acerbic, off point, gives bad tainted analysis, and shows he should be suing the diploma mill for false advertising as it’s obvious he can’t represent himself as educated.

      Reading the “Learned’ judge’s opinion, it reads like a brief written by an atty for argument. Which, in effect, the judge had to draft as the premises it is based on are not well grounded in law.

      The judge was “shopped” by the plaintiffs, even then he stretched to find one provision which he could rule against. The Right is calling his decision ‘monumnetal’ and “well reasoned’ and a landmark decision. Egads…to what level of ridiculous can one stretch it? It has years…years mind you …before anything will be decided. Even then, is it what the Right desires…or is it the trap springing on those who oppose giving affordable health care to our citizens?

      Debating the merits is not a bad thing. Writing the trash that Crystal has done is worthless. Elevating Crystal to a level above that of a hack pulp fiction writer is a travesty approaching criminal misrepresentation.

      • Teresa

        flash, even you amaze me at times by your complete denial of the truth of the Constitution. Is it no different than Obama selecting his leftist Judges to serve for the mere fact to pass bills he knows are unconstitutional? It is a mere version of their interpretation and the lefts interpretation is nothing more than lies of the facts of the Constitution plain and simple.

        • Kate8

          Teresa – You’re right. It’s not easy to find judges who aren’t bought off by the administration. The Progressives know how they will rule before they ever hear the case. In fact, they aren’t listening when they do.

          I’m sure the Left will “shop” for a Progressive judge on appeal.

          • hflashman

            Since Nixon, Republican Presidents have appointed 211 Judges to the Circuit Courts. Democrats have appointed 122. Again, since Nixon, Republican Presidents have appointed 813 trial Judges to the District Court bench while Democrats have made 508 such appointments.

            If the Federal Judiciary is comprised of a bunch of liberal activists, it is the GOP who put them there.

          • Munday in Texas

            had to use you Kate, but this is for flashman- you point out all the judges that either side has appointed-fine. How many were democrat nominies in the last 20 years and how many of those are still serving?
            How many of the judges now serving are reg as republican or democratic.
            Just saying….

          • Kate8

            Hey, Munday. They’ve sold out on both sides.

            It’s difficult to find an impartial and Constitutionally loyal judge across the board.

            BTW, judges are not supposed to be partisan. They are supposed to uphold the Constitution, not distort it.

          • BOE

            Judges bought off??/ I think it may be more like threatened and their family`s too. We are dealing with street thugs remember?

      • eddie47d

        Correct, Flashman; If anyone bought or rejected any product or service based on Crystals assumptions then no one would buy anything. He is neither a salesman of ideas or a reliable source for information. If he tries hard enough maybe he could sell bomb shelters to the gullible with all the unreliable fear he is preaching.

        • hflashman

          Anyone with an iota of intelligence would realize you could spot Crystal $500, a case of champagne and drop him at the steps of a Parisian House of “Ladies’ … and he’d still be a virgin in the morning …

          • Shibamom

            Boy…you really think highly of yourself don’t you? Perhaps you are related to the “annointed one?” After all, he too feels that most Americans are too stupid to listen, read, eat, drink, interpret, speak, etc., etc., etc. You actually make me a bit nauseous.

          • hflashman

            Shiba…actually, it would be accurate to state I think so low of Crystal and his trashlike ilk.

      • DaveH

        Flashdunce, the real trash is that which is incorporated in your typical Liberal conjecture and fabricated fact.
        The Commerce Clause has been misconstrued for decades by Big Government lovers whose main goal is to feather their nests at taxpayer expense. The power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to the Federal Government to stop the States from issuing measures meant solely to protect their own industries from competition through differential tax measures, tariffs, or other competition-stifling methods. Our Founders had no idea that the Federal Government would someday use the Commerce Clause to protect their own favored Corporations and to further their own enrichment.
        Here is article one of the Constitution for those who would really like to learn (specifically section 8):
        http://www.cato.org/constitution/article1_en.html

        • DaveH

          Further insight into the Founders intentions with the Constitution can be found in the Federalist Papers:
          http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

          • hflashman

            Instead of reading some fantasy wacked out worthless document written with an agenda in mind…I’ll rely on SCOTUS opinions which state the true state of affairs. For Commerce Clause and the basis for Congressional powers….Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942),

          • DaveH

            So you would defer to a panel of judges whose opinion was issued during the period of greatest government growth in our history, over that of the original creators of the law? It figures, Flashdunce. You prefer ignorance over knowledge.

          • Bruce D.

            HFlashman your statement has gone beyond opinion and disagreement. You are in a condition of treason against the Constitution of the United States of America and the people of America. You should be looked on as a cancer and a traiter to this country.

      • http://Alaska Wild Bill

        Flashman

        There are 5 things that I like about you deluded,pseudo intellectual socialist regressives.
        (1)—
        (2)—
        (3)—
        (4)—
        (5)- You eventually die.

        Wild Bill
        Alaska

        • http://Alaska Wild Bill

          Flash,Bob Wire and the ever annoying Eddie

          To take this discussion to the next level,I would hope and pray that when you regressive anal orifices do expire,that you are re-incarnated as park statues and become intimately aqquainted with several 500 pound pidgins who will drape you with your well deserved “robes of many colors”.

          Wild Bill
          Alaska

          • FightRite

            LOL!! You are poetically funny!!

      • Patriot38

        hflashman:
        Money talks and BS walks. You should take a long walk on a short pier! The only thing wrong with the judges’ analysis is that he didn’t dump the whole micro-cephalic socialist health-care plan.

        • hflashman

          Patriot…you didn’t read the decision did you ? LOL

      • FightRite

        You obvoiusly are one of those “Liberal Intellectual Elitetists” or (L.I.E.) who say that the “Right” is trying to deprive the “common folk” from having “affordable” healthcare…First of all this healthcare IS NOT affordable, it IS NOT the solution! You sit there in you ivory tower passing judgement on those who do not go along with “mainstream” thought-which by the way is nowhere near the majority of American thought or belief. You are out numbered 70% to 30%.All you can hope for is that your friends in congress can squelch the rational conservative voice-which they are attempting to do..but ultimatly will not as illustrated by the election results in november.

        You think that all your degrees and wealth will insulate you from the rising tide of Americans who will not put up with this “liberalism” if you want to call it that. You are the ILK of America and your lies will be exposed.

        • hflashman

          Yo FR…let me guess…you have a third grade education…either that or that’s where your learning comprehension stopped. The GOP and your ilk started out saying ‘no’ to any health care reform and removed yourself from the debate by constantly refusing to be involved in the reform. Costs are skyrocketing, insurance premiums are killing small business and the consumer. Health care to the middle American sucks as compared to the rest of the Industrialized World.

          And all the GOP and your ilk could do was support more bleeding from our pockets and bodies and more cash into the coffers of the insurance and health care industry. Lies and threats and downright slander and defamation were used without regard to honesty ad truth and any showing of concern to America.

          Do a favor for everyone. Go find a chicken coop…take an egg…and suck on it. When you want to get involved with REAL solutions….come back and quit whining and pouting.

          • Kim

            Uh, you lost me there, flashman. You are saying our health care is below the standard of other countries? I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to get into the doctor in England, or Canada, or Ireland, or anywhere they have socialized medicine, but I can assure you we are a lot better off here.

    • Conservatives United

      The incoming governor of Wisconsin, (My former state) Scott Walker, stated that as soon as he is sworn in that he will be joing the Florida suite.

  • Teresa

    Didn’t you yourself say this was not a tax Obama?

    • Kate8

      Teresa – Obama, himself, admitted that his speeches were only “rhetoric”.

      Progressives don’t have an issue with lying. If it accomplishes what they want, it’s acceptable. Even necessary.

      Kind of sounds like Islam. They have a lot in common. They both believe in forced submission.

      • JeffH

        Kate8, sounds so familiar, “the end justifies almost any means”. The end is what they want, the means is how they get it. In the last few years, whenever we hear or read about social change, the issues of “means and ends” is always prevalant.

  • Runninbear

    Finally someone willing to adheare to what the Contitution says we are suppose to be doing ?I mean saying we haven’t read it and pelosi saying”We have to pass it to see whats in it, and now they are doing the same thing with this Ominubus bill ?

    • Mike

      The comment by pelosi “we have to pass it to see what’s in it”, just goes to show how stupid democrats are. The only people who follow the democrats and obama are the ones who are too lazy to work, and we all know who’s too lazy to work. In case you don’t know who is too lazy to work, just check out the prison population or the federal aid programs. Better yet just open your eyes and look around you.

      • hflashman

        That comment by nancy pelosi is taken out of context to the point it has been twisted way out of context. Anyone using it is either a fool, an idiot, or cares not whit for truth.

        • Bob Wire

          They(the opposition)is required to take sentences out of context to make a strong argument.

        • DaveH

          Here’s one apparently posted by a Liberal. Must have been posted by Flashdunce (who has no credibility on this board):
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE-F5CX34qI&feature=related

          • DaveH

            “not just about healthcare for America, but about a healthier America”. Sure, healthier for the ruling Elite.

        • Kate8

          The fact is, flash, they DIDN’T read it.

        • libertytrain

          I didn’t notice it being taken out of context at all. Strange – she said it, they didn’t read it. I don’t understand your comment but I’m not a leftist lib.

          • Palin12

            It’s exactly what pelosi said…the only other thing she added was “away from the fog of uncertainty”. Not out of context at all, just plain stupid.

          • Palin12

            “fog of controversy”

        • S.C.Murf

          now flash nancy used it so by your own words she is all three adj. that you listed, Right?

        • 45caliber

          And your good friend Nancy used it.

        • JeffH

          Hey Flash, you’re finished, finito, закончил, 완료. You got nothin’ left!
          You walk like a commie and talk like a commie and we all know you’ve got the credibility of a commie…so you must be a commie…you also got a cling-on commie or two attached to your backside as well I see.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            JeffH,
            Only one thing to add!! CHIRP CHIRP CHIRP!!!!

        • LeRoyZ

          No, flashman, that’s NOT “out of context” as you put it. That’s IS what she said and what she meant. Also, in your earlier comment where you say, “instead of reading a wacked out fantasy document….”. Are you saying the Constitution is a wacked out fantasy document?? You’ll rely on an opinion instead?? Tell me, where can I get some of what you’re smoking…..I want some!!!!

      • rob mull

        Unfortunately, Democrats are not stupid, they just think differently than conservatives; as constant reminders of “Flashdunce” and “Wire” draw [us] back into reality; some people actually believe that Mr. Obama is not an advocate of Cloward, Piven and Alinsky.

  • Mike

    It doesn’t matter to me if they strike it down as unconstitutional or not, I will not purchase something that some dumb blackman (not my first choice of words) says I have to. As long as America is a free country and I don’t steal from my fellow Americans, I will just continue living my “fly under the radar lifestyle”. I think everyone that is in Government is power hungry and are trying to force the American people to worship those idiots. Just like fifty percent of Americans, the Government needs to downsize.

    • Bob Wire

      Yea me Too! and I don’t buy things from “dumb white guys” either. LOL!

      But really now, what does race have to do with the topic at hand?

      I’d prefer the government allow me to suffer and die without extracting money out of my pocket to help other American’s that not as eager to “leave”.

      But the truth of the matter is , they have done so and will continue to do so by whatever instrument that is at their disposal.

      The problem we have today with health Care are many, ~

      first, The emergency room had been turned into a “Catch All” and it’s became very difficult to keep the cost down and the quality of care up as uninsured people put off medical care. My city and county taxes picks up the tab for theses “walk-in’s”

      second, So many American’s fear death and have failed to embrace their mortality. Everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die.

      third, The medical professionals are stuck in the middle of a battle between people that don’t want to die, death, the ability to pay and the over riding oath to preserve life.

      four, The Insurance Providers, have made health Care a lucrative and profitable game as they have wedged themselves in between supply and demand and dictate the terms of any coverage while enjoying antitrust immunity status. Consumers are held captive as paying out of pocket for something like a gall bladder removal is equal to buying new small automobile or a down payment on small house.

      “Oct 26, 2008 … Average hospital stay: 5 days, $22596 … patients were admitted in the first half of 2008 and each patient’s stay cost an average $23863.”

      This is more then most Americans can pay out of pocket.

      “Family of 4 looking for affordable health/medical…

      New postby Bette » 08 Feb 2011, 04:43
      Family of 4 looking for affordable health/medical insurance.?

      I am looking for insurance for me and my 3 kids. Does anyone have any suggestions as to whom i can go to to find some that won’t cost me an arm and a leg. i live in west Texas so any suggestions located in this area would be much appreciated.
      the company i work for covers me but not the kids. they are onit now and it costs almost 500 a month. I think that’s too much and i know there are insurance that cost less. I just wanted to know if anyone knew the names of some that would be worth looking into.

      Bette”

      That is 6,000.00 per year. For a family bringing in 36,000.00 that 1/6 their of their income before taxes.

      Or looking at it another way $6000.00 per year is the same thing as working 1 year,(40hrs per. wk X 50 weeks) for $3.00 per hour.

      So three dollars is removed from each hour of ones hourly pay to cover basic medical coverage, and not to mention any deductibles or denied coverage much less any co-pay’s or prescriptions.

      So there is need for heath care Reform, ~ if not this one ~ something else?

      • rob mull

        As soon as ObamaCare is ended, perhaps an intra-state competition of insurance companies will afford fair pricing. Capitalism has always worked well if not absorbed by government bureaucracy and regulated by nincompoops.

  • Patriot

    Never, never ever believe what these people say! Look at all the bills they are trying to pass within this lame-session; there is something much more sinister at play here! Not sure how much more I can take.

    • Teresa

      Yep, did you hear Harry Reid get up and make his hypocritical statement that they make huge salaries to DeMint and they need to work thru the holidays if need be for the American people. Can you believe the nerve of this man? All for the sole purpose to get HIS agenda and the Democrats bills passed thrus as fast as they can! They should have already HAD a budget and the bills passed that he is profoundly wanting passed. As far as the Start bill, this is even ridiculous to bring up in a Lame Duck. I praise DeMint for his tactics is delaying this. They will USE the American people as mere pawn for nothing more than their political games and that will never change!

      • eddie47d

        Yes,Some of the Republican tactics are disgusting or is there just too much pressure on them to want to accomplish anything. I know the Democrats can be slow in explaining things but the Republicans always use the brain freeze excuse on every issue.

        • Teresa

          Right now there are very few in congress that actually get what the American people want and that is to cut spending! THEY are the ones using the Americans as hostages..BOTH parties all in their lil political game! But the Democrats are the ones that think it is perfectly fine to steal from the more fortunate in taxes and using that as their only tactic to push thru all these ridicilous bills and debts at OUR expense.

        • DaveH

          The Democrats are slow in explaining things, Eddie, because it takes time to create lies that the gullible public might swallow.

          • Bob Wire

            NO Dave, they just hate to go back to the invention of the wheel to explain it to people that don’t want to understand it in the first place.

          • eddie47d

            Thanks Bob.

          • DaveH

            Speaking of that, Bob, how come their brand of politics have resulted in failure in any country that implements them? Oh, I know, but this time it will be different.
            Definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

        • rob mull

          Yes. Especially if the ideas that cause “brain-freeze,” are of distinctly Communist origin.

      • hflashman

        Ummm..teresa…not one bill is new and has languished for the year as the GOP said ‘no’ to everything. As for the START Treaty…over 1000 hearings and been in front of the Senate for over nine months…and DeMint still claims he doesn’t understand it. Typical GOP tactic…playing dumb. or is it playing?

        • Average Joe

          Sorry Flash old buddy, painting your turd red, white and blue…doesn’t make it any less of a turd.You can fly it all you want…but none of us are gonna buy it. Please take time to get over your….ignorance.
          You wouldn’t know TRUTH…if it hit you upside the head with a 2 x 4……

        • DaveH

          Flashdunce,
          I want all your money. What’s that you say? NO? Okay, let’s compromise then, you need only give me half of your money. The Democrat way.

        • Teresa

          flash, even the Dems don’t understand it, its written half in russian…do you understand it…NO…so why pass it???? THATS THE DEM WAY! Now ask yourself, why is it they want it passed NOW?

          • hflashman

            So teresa…you’re stating that in the4 past 9 months and almost 1000 hearings, no one bothered to translate the Russian half 9which is the translation of the English half)? Even the GOP who are now complaining they haven’t had time to consider the treaty?

            I know…I know…having non verifiable nukes running around is making the world so much safer…

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Hate to tell you flash, they aren’t gonna be any more verifyable if they pass it as there is no clause to VERIFY in it!! Even your alphabets reported THAT!!!

      • Kate8

        Teresa – Every time I hear Ried or Pelosi mouth the words, “For the American people”, I can hardly contain myself. The evil that exudes from these two is nauseating.

        BTW, I was disappointed to hear that DeMint backed down. They must have made him a deal he couldn’t refuse.

        • Bob Wire

          Yea, Kate I felt the same way with Reagan. ~ I came to the conclusion I was not considered American by the people in power.

          So , ~ do as I did, get mad and fight like hell!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            bob,
            At least Reagan said “trust but VERIFY”!!!

      • Patriot38

        In my humble opinion, they should let the government close down until January. The country would continue to function, maybe more efficiently, and we should withhold their salary (over the table and under the table) during their vacation. If they would put out an HONEST budget, they could do it rapidly; they have had plenty of time. It’s all the “pork” that takes the time to “justify” with government “bureaucratic” garble! Most of these guys are so crooked you could pull a wine cork with them, and we U.S. citizens (the term ‘Americans’ is too broad a term, since it includes citizens of all of North, Central, and South America) are insane enough to keep re-electing them over and over expecting a different result! Until we get control of the asylum away from the inmates, we will continue to have problems. Obama is not who I worry about, he is just a childish puppet, it is the sea of fools that keep electing and re-electing the ‘entitlement’ minded socialists/communists in the first place. The government and our educational system are infested with these socialist/communists! We have become the WORLDS largest and most generous charity! The government gives to EVERYONE except the working middle class U.S. citizens who dutifully pick up the tab. We simply can’t afford it much longer! No person or country can borrow its way out of debt! No fiat money system can ever pay off the national debt because they have to borrow to do it; if you have to borrow you are always in debt. The Federal Reserve System must be eliminated, and a credit money system backed by something besides the governments’ word established, before the debt can ever hope to be paid! We all know what our governments’ word is worth, and our monetary system of Federal Reserve Notes is reflecting this more and more by the value of a Note (government IOU) being worth less and less. Robert Gibbs is Obama’s Chemical Ali, and he keeps saying everything is rosy, but we will soon find the thorns by ourselves. The clock is ticking! We need to get with it! Socialism never has worked because the elite powers always eventually run out of other peoples money! In order for the government to give out all these monetary benefits it must first take money away (steal it) from the working people! This removes the incentive for the working class to work, and soon they get on the government dole with everyone else, and without their support, the system fails, and the people revolt when they get hungry! It’s happened before, but we keep forgetting our history.

        • Teresa

          This is off base but here is an update for you:

          Acting quietly, below the radar of U.S. public opinion and without congressional approval, the Obama administration is implementing a key policy objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to erase the border with Mexico and Canada.

          The administration is acting under a State Department-declared policy initiative described in a March 23 fact sheet titled “United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision.”

          “Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries,” the State Department declared. “The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of ‘hold the line’ and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21st century border management.”

          At the same time, CTV News in Canada has obtained a draft copy of a declaration between the U.S. and Canada entitled “Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness,” to be implemented by a newly created Canadian-U.S. “Beyond the Border Working Group.”

          The two documents strongly suggest the Obama administration is pursuing a stealth bureaucratic methodology to establish a common North American border around the continent, encompassing the U.S., Canada and Mexico, while simultaneously moving to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico as well as between the U.S. and Canada.

          Under the Bush administration’s SPP, the U.S., Mexico and Canada organized some 20 different “shadow government” bureaucratic working groups composed of agency heads and undersecretaries in the three nations. The groups span a wide range of policy areas, from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration, trilateral travel, transportation, energy, environment, food and agriculture, health and financial services.

          The administration is acting under a State Department-declared policy initiative described in a March 23 fact sheet titled “United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision.”

          “Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries,” the State Department declared. “The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of ‘hold the line’ and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21st century border management.”

          At the same time, CTV News in Canada has obtained a draft copy of a declaration between the U.S. and Canada entitled “Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness,” to be implemented by a newly created Canadian-U.S. “Beyond the Border Working Group.”

          WND has reported since 2006 that a blueprint published in 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations entitled “Building a North America Community” called for the establishment of a common security perimeter around North America by 2010 to facilitate the free movement of people, trade and capital between the three nations of North America.

          In his 2001 book, “Toward a North American Community,” American University professor Robert Pastor, a co-chair of the CFR blue ribbon committee that authored “Building a North American Community,” called for the creation of a North American Commission, a North American Parliament, and a North American Court on Trade and Investment.

          The language of the documents declaring “A New Border Vision” with Mexico and Canada could easily have been lifted directly from the CFR report or Pastor’s book.

          The 2005 CFR report “Building a North American Community” called on page xvii of the Foreword for the “establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security perimeter, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.”

          CTV News reported that the language of the draft agreement specified that “A New Border Vision” for the U.S. and Canada would involve “a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries in a way that supports economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity, and in a partnership to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two countries.”

          Similarly, the U.S. State Department fact sheet calling for “A New Border Vision” with Mexico specified five areas of “joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel,” namely: enhancing public safety, securing flows of people and goods, expediting legitimate commerce and travel, engaging border communities, and setting policy.

          Under “setting policy,” the State Department fact sheet with Mexico called for achieving rapid policy change through “an agile inter-agency process within each country as well as a means by which both governments can easily coordinate at a bi-national level.”

          This provides additional support for the conclusion that the bureaucratic “working groups” established under SPP in the Bush administration will continue to operate under Obama administration.

          CTV News reported that the draft declaration of “A New Border Vision” with Canada similarly also specified a cross-border policy agenda, including:

          An integrated cargo security strategy;
          A joint approach to port and border security and screening;
          Cross-border sharing of information between law enforcement agencies;
          A closer working relationship between the two militaries in the event of emergencies;
          A new level of collaboration on preventing and recovering from counter attacks.
          Affirming the continuance of the working group process, the draft declaration with Canada specifies the U.S. and Canada “intend to address threats at the earliest point possible, including outside the perimeter of our two countries.”

          The origin of the SPP can be traced to a trilateral summit meeting in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, between President George W. Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

          At the end of the Waco summit, the three leaders simply declared that the U.S., Mexico and Canada were now in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, without the signing of any international agreement between the three countries or the ratifying of any trilateral treaty by the U.S. Senate.

          The SPP in the administration of President Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as “the eurozone.”

          The concern was that under the SPP, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could evolve into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the Amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.

          WND has reported analysts have believed the North American integration plan will proceed incrementally, largely below the radar, since the SPP was declared “dead” by one of its chief architects, American University Professor Robert A. Pastor, who for nearly 15 years has been a major proponent of building a “North American Community.”

          • Kate8

            Teresa – They are coming at us from all directions, so fast and hard that we’re being thrown off-balance.

            They want this all done before 2012.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Teresa,
            got that self same E-mail the other day! This man and the plos we have in Washington have got to be voted out and stopped!!

        • Diane

          Amen to your humble opinion Patriot38.

  • Bus

    Thank heaven for Madison’s foresight in creating a balance of power. The ultimate check on government power is the people, watch these newly elected folks very closely and keep retiring the old guard as fast as elections allow.

  • Norm

    Health reform supporters were quick to stress that the vast majority of health reform cases have come out in their favor, with judges either ruling the law to be constitutional or tossing out the suits altogether.

    “While the Virginia case is important and has drawn strong media interest, it is no more important than the many other rulings by judges of equal rank who have determined that the law is constitutional or have issued dismissals on procedural grounds,” says Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now.

    While White House officials believe the law will ultimately be ruled constitutional, they do anticipate losing some of the 20 cases out there.

    The insurance industry hasn’t weighed in on any of the pending health reform legislation, but has strongly supported a requirement to buy insurance in tandem with industry reforms.

    “Throughout the health care reform debate there was broad agreement that enacting guarantee issue and community rating would cause significant disruption and skyrocketing costs unless all Americans have coverage,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans spokesman Robert Zirkelbach, referring to requirements that insurance not turn down applicants and not charge more to a sick person than a healthy one.

    Carol E. Lee contributed to this report.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46310.html#ixzz18HfZlapi

    • s c

      Norm, dream on. Stop smoking that Obama crack. When the wraps come off your false ‘god,’ you can try and explain to friends and neighbors how it is that any supposedly rational adult can have his head rammed up his rump so far that anything makes sense if it feels good.
      First, it’s right to have some faith in some leaders, BUT it’s beyond stupid to have complete faith in someone like der Obummer [Lenin, Marx, Hitler, Alinsky, etc.]. R E A D that damned 2,000+ page aberration you call healthcare. Maybe someone will start an anti-addiction program and help wean you off Obummer’s drug-induced insanity.
      You progressives never cease to amaze me. Only political addicts can put complete faith in politicians. On the whole, only politicians who go back to the late 18th century and early 19th century can be looked at as talented, constructive leaders. Those half-wits you call leaders are cut from the same diseased cloth as the vast majority of pimps and whores who’ve controlled Washington since the late 19th century. Start using whatever it is between your ears – before it’s too late. ‘I think, therefore I am’ is more than an old expresion – if only some people would understand it and live it.

      • Norm

        s c
        The point you’re missing is that if these “free” citizens don’t have insurance then I, and the other insured, will ultimately pay their health bills.
        Those pro-bono hospitals stays cost just like anybody elses. And let’s not forget Medicaid. That’s a pure taxpayer cost.

        • DaveH

          No, Norm, you are missing the point. There is no such thing as Free healthcare. Somebody always pays. And the fact of insurance is that it creates more consumption of those services, thus healthcare prices rise. Supply and demand. Something you would know, Norm, if instead of boring us with your misinformation, you would read the economic articles on Mises.org and get a clue.
          Who do you think will pay for the middleman, whether it be a Government middleman or an private insurance company middleman? With mandated insurance, the costs of healthcare can only rise.

          • Norm

            DaveH
            Somebody always pays for healthcare indeed. Why should that not be the people who use it?
            Get some of the freebooters to actually buy insurance and pay for some of their costs.
            If the demand for healthcare increases, and I doubt that it will significantly, the supply will increase and efficiency in the use of equipment and personnel could actually reduce prices.
            We have a lot of half empty hospitals in my area that actually compete for patients with media ads. Add to that, expensive diagnostic and robotic equipment with minimal usage.

          • hflashman

            “With mandated insurance, the costs of healthcare can only rise” Dave…once again you twist facts.

            From the WHO and WSJ:
            More money per person is spent on health care in the USA than in any other nation in the world,[2][3] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the USA than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.[3] Despite the fact that not all people in America are insured, the USA has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita, because of the high cost of medical care and utilization today.[4][5] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.

          • DaveH

            I agree completely with your first sentence, Norm. But don’t confuse healthcare insurance with healthcare. If you really want the user to pay then we need to get back to free markets and voluntary contracts. One does not need healthcare insurance to pay for his/her own healthcare. In fact, with insurance the policy holders are paying for other peoples’ healthcare. Those who take care of themselves – eat right, exercise, and avoid dangerous pursuits must subsidize those who don’t.
            And adding a middleman to the equation only increases the overall costs of healthcare.
            The Libertarian solution would be to do away with the mandatory licensing, and let the patients decide what kind of credentials they want their doctors and nurses to hold. The credentials should be displayed by those doctors and nurses (voluntarily) and they would of course be subject to lawsuits if their credentials were fraudulent. The people who don’t want to pay the big bucks could then choose cheaper doctors such as midwives, nurse-practitioners, or paramedics, etc.
            Here are those and more Free Market solutions:
            http://mises.org/daily/3643

          • DaveH

            And Flashdunce, you must be kidding right? WHO? Their ranking of healthcare in various countries is based largely on whether or not the healthcare is delivered in a “fair” way by Government. Their rankings are purely political (as are most of your comments). But even the WHO ranks the US #1 in health care delivery that is important to patients.
            http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf
            Oh, I know you won’t read it, Flashdunce, because you prefer to sweltor in your Liberal Ignorance. But maybe others would like to learn something.
            If you don’t like our healthcare or its costs, you have a choice here. Don’t use it. But then you disdain people having choices, don’t you Flashdunce?

          • DaveH

            The Liberal leaders have quite a scam going. First they drive up the medical costs with their regulatory meddling, then they offer themselves as the solution to the high costs. But when has the government ever run anything efficiently? They are expert at turning silk purses into sow’s ears.

        • Bob Wire

          “Stop smoking that Obama crack. When the wraps come off your false ‘god,’”

          The topic is Health Care Reform and future attempts to repeal.

          Having nothing to do with controlled substance abuse or Gods, false or otherwise, wrapped or unwrapped in some feeble attempt to debase and slander anyone character.

          Fox News and a few faithful watchdog of liberty are forcing the issue front and center for review and debate today as the 112 Congress and a GOP majority takes control . It’s important that this be addressed in serious and respectful fashion it deserves.

  • Duke Woodhull

    Friends: Read Victor Klemperer’s book, “I Will Bear Witness” (Random House, 1998). The similarities of the situations in Germany during the period 1934-1938 and the United States today are terrifying. Supine apathy, bewilderment, acceptance of outrageous political acts, and breathless idolatry……they are all there to see!!

    • eddie47d

      ….and that is just on the Republican side!

      • Conservative at Birth

        You are etiher an Ostrich or a fool. Take your pick.

      • Stan Smith

        A typical Libtard! The Democrap has already done that!

      • DaveH

        Eddie in a rare Liberal act of honesty admitted that he was a Union member some time ago. So why would he embrace Republicans whose basic platform (which most of them seem to have forgotten) is that of Free Markets unfettered by Government (or Union) force?

    • momo

      The only thing missing is the sieg hiels!

      • DaveH
        • http://none Mike

          Dave, How true is that video lol. The look on Nancy’s face in that one picture looks like she is about to blow a vein. How pathetic is the retoric on the left when offerd a goverment power grab over any true reform They respond mindlessly. When a true reform that involves the goverment getting out of the way its just us greedy capitolist standing in the way of statist reforms. Mike L.

          • DaveH

            I wonder how many of the Liberals posting on this board really work for the Government. I guess we will never know the answer, as we sure can’t expect honesty from a Liberal.

          • http://none Mike

            Dave,I dont know really. But I bet there are at least 3 and I think you know them.I have started to really read Flasinthepans comments as well as Bob unwired. And respond to them accordingly. Its funny how if you read from one comment to the next how you can use their own words against them so easily. Eric is sometimes so dyed in the wool I wonder how he gets out of bed without the goverments help.

            I did my registration thing the other day I am now a card carrying Libratarian. And am working on some others in my circle of friends and churchmembers to do the same. We need to get out of this 2 party rut before we are buried in it. Mike L.

        • JeffH

          DaveH, thanks for the humor(NOT!). I remember seeing that before and…OH SO TRUE!

  • Giles

    This entire “health care” issue ignores the fact that “modern medicine” (allopathy) is really an Applied Science (also called an Industrial Art), thus a healing ART (and not a pure science). Allopathy as a “healing art” is just one among many.

    Will Obamacare therefore pay for the “healing art” of MY choice and finance the shaman, or Priest, or Rabbi, or faith-healer, or homeopathic doctor, or chiropractor, or bloodless surgeon, or fasting clinic, or herbologist, or colonic specialist, or whatever I choose as MY healing method of choice?

    Moreover, the unstated dirty little secret is that Obamacare is predicated on the fallacy that allopathic’s so-called “health care” is the ONLY kind of health care worth having. This is patently false, for many healing arts are as good, if not better, than the standard drug and surgery approaches of allopathy. Moreover, all healing arts, including allopathy, enter into the realm of faith, and the choice of healing being a freedom of religion issue.

    Thus, forcing anyone into a mandated healing art of any kind is repugnant to to “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or the prohibition thereof” even if they are not seeking a formal “religious” exemption.

    • eddie47d

      Many folks have supplemental insurance of all kinds (life,Health,homeowners). What you say is relevant and you pointed out some excellent choices. At this point in the healthcare debate (maybe in the future)but for now we can’t afford to support every alternative out there.Some alternatives are only personal whims and an individual should buy other insurance to take care of those needs.

      • DaveH

        We don’t need to afford every alternative out there, Eddie. We just need to get Government out of our decision making process. What Giles was trying to point out is that one-size does not fit all, and Government should butt out of our personal choices.

        • JeffH

          duh!

  • Norm

    Conservatives are likely to make all kinds of fallacious claims about what the election results mean. One we’re likely to hear a lot about is a supposed mandate to repeal health care reform. But claiming a mandate doesn’t make it so. Consider these results from two recent polls.
    A mid-October AP-GfK poll asked respondents what they would prefer Congress to do about the new health care law. Contrary to the conservative story line, 57 percent wanted to either leave the law as is (18 percent) or change it so it does more to change the health care system (39 percent). On the other side, 41 percent wanted the law changed so that it does less to change the health care system (9 percent) or completely repealed (32 percent).
    By Ruy Teixeira November 1, 2010

  • Norm

    Congressional Republicans are threatening to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the recently passed health care reform law. But President Barack Obama pointed outon “60 Minutes” that the law is very similar to Republican Gov. Mitt Romney’s health reform law in Massachusetts. And it turns out the law reflects many other ideas that enjoyed Republican support in the past. Here are 10 of those ideas.
    1. The Affordable Care Act is built on the same scaffolding as former Gov. Mitt Romney’s health reform approach in Massachusetts. Both reforms create new coverage options through insurance reforms and Medicaid expansions, improve the affordability of coverage, and require shared responsibility for health care financing across individuals, employers, and taxpayers.
    2. The new law requires all individuals to hold health coverage—an idea advanced by Stuart Butler and Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation as far back as 1989. Other conservative scholars and Republican policymakers who have embraced the idea of shared responsibility include Mark Pauly, a health economist at the University of Pennsylvania; Sen. John Chafee; a group of the health care law’s cosponsors—including Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT)—who introduced similar legislation in 1993; and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
    3 The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to pool the risk of small businesses and individuals through the health insurance exchange—thus giving them greater bargaining power and better rates. Enabling individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to band together and obtain better prices was a key plank in the House Republican leadership’s “Solutions for America.”
    4. The Affordable Care Act gives young adults new coverage options. These include staying on their family coverage through age 26 just like the proposal the House Republicans offered during the health reform debate.
    5. Employers may automatically enroll their workers in health insurance. This was proposed by the Republican Study Group and the House Republican leadership during the health care debate last year.
    6. Employers may use premium incentives and other tools to encourage workers to participate in a range of workplace wellness programs. This idea enjoyed widespread Republican support. Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), the Republican House leadership, and the Republican Study Committee introduced proposals during last year’s health care debate. A bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) also championed this approach in the Senate HELP Committee.
    7. States may use federal funding to experiment with medical liability reforms. This is similar to the proposals advanced by Sens. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) during the reform debate.
    8. Families and businesses may purchase coverage across state lines. This was an idea shepherded by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) and others, including the House Republican leadership, during the health care debate.
    9. States may pursue their own approaches to health reform as long as they can provide equivalent or better coverage at a comparable or lower cost. The House Republican leadership championed state innovation in their alternative proposal to health reform.
    10. The Affordable Care Act establishes high-risk pools that provide access to health coverage for those who generally are unable to find affordable insurance in the individual market, particularly those with a preexisting condition. This is an idea Republicans endorsed in their alternative proposal.
    By Ruy Teixeira | November 1, 2010

    • Teresa

      have you even read the bill, apparently not, gov. has control over who lives and dies, not the doctors….unionized offices (theres the majority of the jobs and money not to where you think it belongs), everyone will be required to have a chip inserted in them, paid abortions, your tax money will be used to pay for translators in ER rooms….the list is so ridicilous its almost comical if not so scary!

      • Bob Wire

        kinda like the insurance companies do today hmm?

        why not accept that if you are holding a bad hand, your chances of losing is great? Or that “your life” could at any time be in someones hands beside your own and little can be done to change this fact.

        SOooo ? To whom are you placing your trust? A for profit identity? So if you die anyway, you can sue the hell out of them? Or Government, that you can’t sue but not profit motivated?

        I think I will choose door number # 3 !

        • DaveH

          The diffence, Bob Wire? We don’t have to buy insurance from the private insurers except with the force of the healthcare bill.

          • Bob Wire

            It true Dave , you don’t have to buy it but as a nation, somebody somewhere at some point will see you get basic care, where you buy it or not and that’s where the rubber met the road with the issue of health care. We’ve got too many people that can’t or won’t pay for medical care or buy coverage! Yet they get it anyway! That’s the issue before us.

            How should it be addressed? The original plan was addressing the needs of but a few (often at the cost of others doing without)

            This plan address more people and ask of them to help pay for it. So it not free unless you refuse to pay or refuse to accept the care provided.

            I would think an opt out should be offered. ~ You don’t want care ? Fine ! Take it down the rode and deal with your health issues as you please.

            But kinda flys in the face of Prolife”, where some would insist the government intervene in life and death issue. I can close my eyes to it, as I find it necessary to accept hypocrisy and purist ideals only goals that offer direction.

          • http://none Mike

            Dave, Where people like Bob there dont see this going is to a single payer system. Eventually the cost of these new policies will be so high the avarage working american will not be able to afford them. This is where the nanny goverment will step in after willfully driving the privat sector out. We will be forced into getting our healtcare from a goverment supplied center. These centers allready exist out there they are the public clinics of america. At one time I was forced to rely on one of thoes clinics for care and it very nearly killed my father with a missdiagnossis. If we want to go down the road of so many other countries out there that are state controlled healthcare.We can look to them to see what we are in for. Long lines,Rationing,And end of life care that involves no more than a shot of morphine and a warm place to die.

            Here are some real time reforms that would help lower the cost of insurance and helthcare in general.1 Tailored countrywide insurance plans. Let the customer decide what coverage they want. If a customer dosent need pre-natal care covered let them choose to be exempt from it. This is just one of many examples of things that are covered in generic policies. That people pay for whether they use it or not.

            2 Remove the FDA from decision makeing policies in research and development of drugs. What have these folks prevented? They study a drug for a month and are paid to declare it safe for consumption. And a few years later are supporting lawyers who are sueing thoes same companies for the un intended side effects of drugs they approve. Another fine example of the nuts running the asylum. They get paid either way.While we the people suffer.

            3 Stop subsidising the rest of the world with the drugs we develope here. By this I mean that places like Canada and Mexico buy their drugs from our country at a discount rate. While we here in the USA bear the brunt of the cost for research and developement. This is an unfair pratice and should be stopped.

            4Tort Reform.If a company produces a drug that kills its patinces or badly injurs them. Confiscate that companies profits from that drug and distribute the procedes to thepeople who were affected. Place such heads of thoes companies in a court of law and stand to be prosiquited if found to be in knowledgeable compliance of marketing an unsafe drug. This would quickly put an end to the payola system we have now where they are not truely being held responsible for their bad decisions. Same goes for doctors that are found willfully neglagent in their patient care. If they faced a loss of freedom as well as loss of monitary gain they may be more careful in their patient decisions.

            5 If there is a safe natural alternitive out there then support it. Not what we have now if its not a chemical that can be patented the research is stopped or repressed.

            These and many more things could be done to lower our healthcare cost in the united states.And are perfectly compliant with the constitution. We do not need this massive unreadable bill to do them either.Mike L.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Bob,
            One way to address the non-payment part is to evict the illegals from the country and close the borders! Make it manditory to show a drivers licence or state ID to use the emergency room! 30 million less people going to the ER for a cold WOULD cut costs a little bit right awaynow, wouldn’t it??

    • Teresa

      oh and btw, if your one of Obamas lil union buddies your excluded….ain’t that sweet! what a crock!

      • Bob Wire

        What are we? The Labeling commission today? Why is it important that he be labeled? What does that serve?

        • DaveH

          “Labeling Commission” isn’t a label, Bob?

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Bob,
          what? His name isn’t Obama?? You like my Nobummer better???

    • 45caliber

      Norm:

      You are correct on item 1. It was designed on the Mass. program – which even Romney is admitting is failing completely. It seems that, since it is “free” everyone with a splinter or a head ache is rushing down to take advantage of it. And it has bankrupt the state.

    • momo

      Tell me Norm how’s that working out for Massachusetts?

  • 45caliber

    I’m in favor of scraping the whole thing and keeping what we have. The government is simply wanting to take control of a large section of our economy simply to bring in socialism. Oh, and to keep doctors from receiving enough money to compete with lawyers for political jobs.

    • Buddy

      “To bring in Socialism”?? 45Cal, where have you been for the last several decades??

      • 45caliber

        Perhaps I should have said, “Bring in MORE socialism.”

        • Bob Wire

          accuracy is much better, It reads clearer , makes sense.

          Why would we want more socialism, could any future proposed reform in health care cut or decrease socialism?

          I find it upsetting Federal Tax dollars are used as incentives to “some” enterprises to offer their employees heath care at reduced rates why I pay full price, or have been denied and have none, while I pay these Federal Taxes.

          The old system was crap ! and favored the few. The new system is crap and favors more.

          • DaveH

            It is crap whenever Government gets involved. Their involvement is simply designed to make an increasing number of people dependent on Big Government so as to insure the Elite leaders longevity. Vote buying, that is all.

          • http://none Mike

            Bob, Oh really then you should be opposed to this healtcare reform bill totally then. The unions and politicans have allready exempted themselves from it as well as a few of our richest companies. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If this is so great then they should have lead by example and been the first ones on it. No just the oppist is true its so bad they were the first to exempt themselves from it.

            Keep opening your mouth and a few of us just might stick your foot in it for you. Mike L.

    • eddie47d

      We need a system that helps the most people at a reasonable cost. Our present system does not do that and we need to slow down the usage of emergency room services. That would be a big savings right there. If someone wants a Cadillac plan then I’m sure there will be plenty of companies who would be willing to provide you with one as a supplement.

      • 45caliber

        eddie:

        We need a system that doesn’t help ANYONE. We need a system that simply protects us from the aggression of others (the whole idea of having a military and police force) and allows us to do whatever else we want. Then we can help ourselves. If someone is too stupid or lazy to take care of themselves then they can do whatever they want as long as I don’t have to “help” them. I help those I wish to help. I don’t need someone else trying to use my money because they can help someone better than I can. Mainly, it seems, they help themselves the most.

        • Average Joe

          eddie has either…never read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence or has absolutely no understanding of the documents. The purpose of government is to protect our individual rights…not to decide what these rights are.
          The government does not grant us our rights….our creator does.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

          • hflashman

            Joe;

            As you state government does not grant us our rights, our Creator does. Correct/

            then there’s no problem at all with us granting all people the same Rights as long as they fall within the jurisdiction and powrs of our Nation. Right/ So any talk of ‘illegal” aliens being given the same rights as we do means ….and supporting denying all criminals the same rights as we enjoy in case of arrest and trial means ….

            Hmmm…could this mean those who espouse this differing treatment are saying there is more than one Creator? Wow …. so christians are denying the truth of the 10 Commandments and the validity of christianity itself when they espouse different standards for different people.

            In that case, I agree with everything you say

          • eddie47d

            Your right Joe ,The People do have a right to go to government with an issue that affects their Safety. Healthcare is a major Safety issue and the healthier a nation is the stronger that nation will be. As a side issue on the same subject;Since it’s the lower middle class and poor that serves in our military then it behooves you to keep them healthy for your patriotic wars. You don’t want sickly soldiers on the battlefield do you.

          • JeffH

            By eddie saying “Since it’s the lower middle class and poor that serves in our military then it behooves you to keep them healthy for your patriotic wars. You don’t want sickly soldiers on the battlefield do you.”

            What eddie just inferred is that the health care mandate make sense to keep our future military recruits, the lower class and poor, healthy to fight the patriotic wars for the upper class.

            Who else would’a thunk of that one?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Flash,
            you are right, they do have the right. the right to pay for their healthcare like others do. the illegals have the right to stay in their country and fight for it just like the founders of this country did and defend it just like we have done. If you are not ready to stand and fght for your own country, don’t expect another country to invite you to the table. I have had I have had relatives in every war this great nation has fought!

        • Bob Wire

          “We need a system that simply protects us from the aggression of others (the whole idea of having a military and police force) and allows us to do whatever else we want.”

          I would add the protection from predatory economic practices, such as lending, insurance, price fixing, insider trading, political hyjacking, fraud etc. that drain the lives blood out of law abiding citizens that have misplaced trust.

          • 45caliber

            That is still aggression.

          • Bob Wire

            true! LOL! it is~ I guess I’m a little punch drunk and hypertensive today, and why use one word when 10 paints a picture of what I want to be defend from.

          • http://none Mike

            Bob, There are laws on the books that are supposed to protect us from corperate agression. Your buddies in the whitehouse just choose who is seen as the agressor now not the market system. The changeover happend when we declared some too big to fail while others that got caught up in their agression were left to die on the vine. Choose your words wisely because they can be used against you. Mike L.

  • LiarsMustBeDefeated

    Focus on the distractions, my friends, and you miss the big picture. Overload the judiciary and confuse the public. Is this the hidden agenda? Yes? Alinsky would be proud.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Naomi

    Friends, from a book by Dick Francis written in 1987 no less,he wrote, “Entrenched belief is never altered by the facts”. As a military friend told me, they used people who are racists, ideologues, zealots, as training aids. That’s all you can do. Learn to recognize these people, whether they are Socialists, Marxists, Progressives, Liberals, whatever. You cannot reason with them. “Entrenched belief is never altered by the facts!” They believe only what they want to believe, period. It’s tragic, because they have already destroyed so much of our country and taken away so many of our liberties, and they are not about to stop – unless the more informed and serious citizens stop them, by voting, and making their voices heard.

    • Diane

      This is a very true point Naomi. Those of us that do understand what is really going on here must continue to keep the heat on our elected representatives. We must continue to speak up on the Constitutional issues because it is effective. The truth will prevail and sets people free. We can not help those who have already chosen their path to perdition, but we can try with those who just don’t know the truth.

  • Carol

    And I still want to know why I’m paying the medical and dental for illegals and those who have lived on welfare their whole lives when I’m sitting here with 5 teeth broken off at the gumline because I don’t have the money to pay dental bills. Since I worked all my life, I’m not eligible for the free help.

    • Bob Wire

      kinda sucks don’t it? ~ I believe this disparity is slowly being addressed and the pressure needs to be continually applied at all levels.

      We are “exporting” more and more illegals by the day. There is so many, it’s taking a huge effort and a lot of time to do in a humane and professional manner.

      Keep the pressure applied Carol.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Naomi

    Carol, the reason you have to pay, is because the Liberals in this country want illegals to have preference over American citizens. This way they will vote for Democrats who hand out the tax payer money. It’s all about power and control. Union power, Democrat power, etc.

    People want to know why so many business’s outsource their jobs. It’s all about the unions. They have a strangle hold on American business. That’s why so many go to China, Taiwan, Thailand etc. for cheaper labor. Don’t blame the businesses, blame the corrupt union bosses, and the Congress, and the politicians, who are supported by the unions. That’s how so many Democrats have gotten into the government, even Barack Obama, who was supported by the unions. We have had a thugocracy in the unions, for a long time, and they only get more and more powerful. This is one of the dirtiest secrets in our government today.

    • http://deleted j.McConnell

      Naomi: We had Unions in the 50′s and 60′s and the country was in much better economic shape. What
      we did not have is the same percentage of those here illegally who are dependent on various social
      services at the expense of the taxpayer nor nearly as many lawyers.

      • DaveH

        Socialism doesn’t destroy a country overnight. It takes time to waste the accumulated assets of Freedom.

    • Bob Wire

      “Carol, the reason you have to pay, is because the Liberals in this country want illegals to have preference over American citizens.”

      You may believe that and you can say that, ~ but in word or deed it’s just not true and where you got it I haven’t a clue. My guess, it your vision and understanding of a liberalism or do you have a particular liberal in mind or deed in mind to support such a wild claim?

    • Bob Wire

      “People want to know why so many business’s outsource their jobs. It’s all about the unions. They have a strangle hold on American business. That’s why so many go to China, Taiwan, Thailand etc. for cheaper labor. ”

      I’m left to suppose American’s need to live in grass hut and go bare footed so we might compete with third world nations.

      I think you might take in account where you find yourself in the food chain as you seem to be a frog attempting to defend the snake in a debate about whats for lunch.

      • 45caliber

        You may be right about the grass huts.

        Not long ago a Congressman was complaining about the American reaction to a tax. His comment was: “We only pay about 55% tax. In India and Bangladesh the tax rate is about 95%. And these Americans are complaining about a measily 5% increase!”

        The point he fails to understand is that we don’t want to end up living like those in Bangladesh do!

        • DaveH

          It’s easy for politicians to trivialize tax increases because they are the benefactors.

    • 45caliber

      Naomi:

      It isn’t ALL about unions although they are certainly a big part of the reason. The MAIN reason is the way our government does business. We have so many regulations, fees, taxes, etc. that it is far easier to deal with some other government.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Naomi

    j.McConnell,

    The 50′s & 60′s are a long time ago. Since then a lot has changed.
    The unions were decent once upon a time, that isn’t the case any more.
    No, we didn’t have the percentage of illegals we have now, but they are allowed to access various social services, because it suits the powers that be. They are the potential voters , the unions who make money from them, and the congress, and politicians, who all make out, thanks to their vote. Our economy has collapsed thanks to all of them. In case you haven’t noticed, we are in dire trouble. Not as obvious as Greece, Great Britain, France and other socialist countries, but we are there, it’s just being covered up, by the administration and the main stream media. Many people aren’t aware, don’t care, or are too busy with their own interests, to realize the reality around us.
    As for lawyers, that’s a whole other can of worms. Again, the Democrats did not include tort reform in the Obama Healthcare Reform, nor will they. They are in each other’s pockets. Between them, they are destroying doctors, healthcare, people, ad infinitum.

    • 45caliber

      To lawyers, all other professions and people aren’t of real value if they aren’t paying the lawyers.

      To make matters worse, at the moment a doctor is about the only profession that allows the doctor to compete for votes in Congress (such as Ron Paul). And the lawyers don’t like it. They have been trying to eliminate doctors from running so now they can simply by making sure the doctors cannot get paid enough to compete.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Naomi

    Mr. Wire,

    We don’t need to live in grass huts. But we do need to live within our means. As wages soar for union jobs, up go the prices of everything. It’s just like the people rioting in Europe. They are so used to being given everything, they can’t accept less. It’s a vicious cycle.

    You may hate business, however, there are two sides to our free system, and greed works both ways.

    • Bob Wire

      as a business operator , I agree.

      I pay my tote & fetch men, $10.00 per hour while min wage is 7.50.

      I pay Techs 20.00. ~ and I make a modest living while accepting the fact some people can’t afford my service and I can’t work for them.

      My most recent Tech, came to me after working for his Father-in-Law 5 years for $14.50 an hr., 10 12 hour days and Saturdays. He is an excellent Tech, loyal, dedicated, dependable. My commitment is to keep him busy and fine tune his profession edge so one day he will be his own man and take care of other men that come up behind him, willing to treat them in similar fashion.

      Him and his little wife was so poor and their cloths so tattered and threadbare, wearing shoes you might expect to find in a dumpster. While the Father-in-Law dabbled in Day Trading, bought his wife a new vett and new 3 story home. ( he busted and folded this summer)

      I know well about greed and how abusive people can be to one another and that’s just one of the reasons for unions. Then you can get into work quality. ~ I am not a union shop and don’t want it here, but I take care of my people, as my business is only as good as the people I employee. I am a working boss and not removed from labor and it’s demands.

      It true, Unions have been misused and abused in the past as well as today, much like political office or appointments into position. But we don’t do away with them because of a bad element but work to improve.

      GM labor unions have made concession, starting pay is now $14.50 per hour. Now if you can find a lot of greed and wealth in that, more power to you.

      • DaveH

        Unions are Force. Free Markets are voluntary. If you believe in thugery then Unions are okay. Please explain to me, Bob, the difference between a small gang of thieves demanding your money or else, or a large gang of thieves demanding your money or else.

        • eddie47d

          Then you have a small gang of corporate thieves who make a ton of money and lay off a ton of workers so that they can make even more money for themselves.Bring on the unions, for if it wasn’t for hard working employees that executive wouldn’t be making squat.

          • DaveH

            It’s their money, Eddie. You like to spend your own money as you see fit, don’t you? They aren’t forcing you to work for them, are they? Instead of being grateful that they offer you a job, you spit in their face.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        bob,
        What is their hourly with bennies? Last i heard before the bail out was something like 70.00 an hour?? and you wonder why you pay 30,000 dollars for a car?? Then they go out on their lunch break and smoke pot, drink beer and come back to work. If they get hurt, workmans comp pays for it even though they had no business working. The news did an expose on it, had them on tape, and the company still couldn’t fire them as the union stopped it! How many of the recalls on GM products is caused by the pot and beer? Next death caused by it could be your wife or kid!!

    • j.McConnell

      Naomi & Bob Wire: Wages are an indication of the standard of living and I for one am only too grateful to live in a country like this where even the poor, in some cases, have cable t.v., cell phones etc. Some, but not all, unions seem to pander to illegal aliens just as some politicians do. I think those unionized government workers such as police, firefighters and emt’s who were told by their government that the air was safe to breathe would support the need for union representation. Likewise not all unions are like the A.F.T. demanding concepts like tenure. I wonder if the treatment of workers by Bob Wire is the exception or the rule as he states that he makes a modest living and takes care of his people. Unions have certainly not outlived their usefulness and where corruption exists it should be prosecuted. I am amazed by individuals upset by a unionized auto workers wages who do not bat an eyelash at what athletes make? Hey how-bout those Yankees!!!!!

      • http://deleted j.McConnell

        Should have added safe to breathe “at ground zero”.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        j. McConnell,
        don’t get me started on THOSE salaries! And now Vick wants to get a dog?!?!?!? he should be living in a dog house! He doesn’t deserve the loyalty of a dog!

        • Claire

          JoeH— I agree with you. Vick wanting a dog? Good grief. I will never give him the benefit of a doubt. He has no heart, I wonder if he even has a soul? Anyone that commits acts of cruelty towards dogs like he did should never be allowed to have another dog. Ever. I despise what he did. I do not trust him, I never will. What kind of dog will he pick? Another pit bull? So he can start his dog fighting again? The torture he put his dogs through is an abomination. As I have said before, animals are at the mercy of human beings. What kind of human being commits these despicable acts? I know a lady that went to his place and rescued some of his dogs. It was a horrific situation. Shame on him. Shame on the people that participated with him in these evil acts.

  • William Glammeyer

    First, it would really help if people would actually read the entire so-called ‘Healthcare’ reform that was forced on us. You may be surprised to “see what’s in it”. There is a lot of it that has NOTHING to do with ‘We The People’ and our health! It is supposed to save us money? I was just informed where I work that our rates were going up 25% because of this ‘healthcare’ reform, and by 2014, when it finally hits the fan, that they have no idea how much the cost will increase then!

    If the government was really worried about the ‘uninsured’ 30 million people, why not just make a program for them and not FORCE everyone to pay for it? It seems like it would be cheaper to pay for just 30 million instead of 300 million.

    My main problem is that even if something is good and I like it, I should not be forced to buy it! That should be MY choice! Dumbass Obama uses stupid analogies and says it is no different than having to buy car insurance. WTF? There is a big difference! If I do not have a car, or I choose not to drive, then I do NOT have to buy insurance! That is my choice! I can either drive or I can walk! But with this new health insurance, you either buy or you pay a fine of around $3000.00. If you do not pay the fine, then you go to jail. It does not matter if you are healthy or sick. Simply, it should be a free choice of what you want to buy.

    “A government big enough to give you everything you want,
    is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” Gerald Ford

    “When the people run the government, it’s Democracy. When the government runs the people, it’s tyranny.”

    • Bob Wire

      “if I do not have a car, or I choose not to drive, then I do NOT have to buy insurance! That is my choice! I can either drive or I can walk! ”

      Makes sense, but this is not a car, so you are suggesting , health care and living or dying should be you option as well and your choice to pay for it or not.

      Why can’t those who choose opt out while those who don’t stay and pay?

      But if it was as you wish, everyone would need to care their “wishes” and instructions on how to administer to your health just in case you are found unconscious or out of you mind with pain.

      Doctors and emergency people are often left to make these decisions for people, their function is to persevere live and no questions asked. You are automatically introduced into the “system”

    • DaveH

      William,
      The difference is even bigger than that which you stated, although I believe forced auto liability insurance is just another ignorant government scheme forced on the consumers. With mandatory auto liability insurance you are being forced to cover possible harm to others. With mandatory health insurance you are being forced to cover possible harm to yourself. Huge difference.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Naomi

    Wild Bill;

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Naomi

    Wild Bill;

    I would like to say how much I enjoyed your comments. You have a genuine comedic flair. It is so good to laugh with a talent such as yours.

    Thanks.

  • Conservatives United

    We all just need to ignore FLASH IN THE PAN and his stupid comments!!!!!!!

  • William Glammeyer

    All I was trying to say, is that we should have free choice. That is all. You can take any statement and stretch it to mean just about anything, and add whatever you want. I was not trying to make any reference to dying or living, or making sure that I am covered in case I drive into someone else. However, I do agree to an extent that auto insurance is just another scam, but it is something that needs to be. I just don’t believe the insurance companies should take advantage of that fact. I could make statements for hours about consequences of something you do (or buy), but all I said is that it should be a free choice to buy what you want. If someone wants to keep adding to that, there is nothing I can do about it. That is their free choice! I will not argue anymore about such a simple statement; FREE CHOICE. (Thanks for reading.)

  • http://none Mike

    Ok I went through and read the article and all the comments. And responded to a few here and ther. Let me say this right off the bat. I have been comming to this sight and reading writeing and responding for about 6 months now. And while I agree with alot of posters here and disagree with others.There seem to be 2 that stand out above all others. Flash and Bob Wire. I hate to single you 2 out because I know there are others but you 2 take the cake.Were you seperated at birth? You spout the party line nonsense like well trained dogs and when confronted with facts by others you make your circular arguements.And allways fall back on talking points.

    Others like Eddie are sometimes rational at least you can have a conversation with them without getting retoric thrown at you every time you try.

    That being said. This is a debate about fundementaly changeing a section of our way of life. Its about our choice in how we treat our bodies when we become ill.I for one would love to have all my options available to me if I become ill.I do not want a beuracrate some where in an office in a place I have never herd of makeing thoes choices for me.

    It will eventually come to this if this bill is left intact the way it is written. The avarage american will not be able to afford these goverment mandated health plans because they are loaded with coverages that they as consumers will never need. They will also become inflated as the goverment starts to mandate more and more care.Who do you guys think is going pay for this? Some magic money fairy? No Ill tell you who is. Its going to be you and I my friend.

    Once the wonderfull federal goverment that you 2 love so much has forced out compition. It will be time to step in with the ultimate goal of this bill. The single payer system. Single payer system.What a missnomer there. There is no such animal its actually a multipayer system when they raise the taxes to cover it. If this single payer system is so wonderful why are goverments that have had it in place for years running away from it? I tell you why it becomes unattainable after a certin point.

    Then the rationing starts. Who then chooses your care? Certinly not you.Your cases are reviewd by a panel of people who have never metyou or your family period. They do not care that you might be supporting your kids or grand kids. They only see you as a cost.They will weigh your life in a chart on productivity and age. So what if your a fit 70yearold or a bloated deadbeat 30 year old. The bloated 30year old is going to recive care before you do because its more praticle to treat him based on years of productivity. Do you want your decisions for care to be made by someone else? I have a feeling if this time comes about in your liftime that answer is going to be no.

    So in conclusion. Please by all means continue to spout your party retoric. And dont be too offended if by way of proxie if we defeat this monstrocity.We will be saveing your life at some later date. Mike L.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Mike,
      And there has been more debate here in this one page than the republicans were allowed to participate in!!! They even tried to get people to turn in people if they made one wrong statement about it whether it actually was wrong or not!

  • Diane

    Mike L, you are absolutely right on the health care plan, this is just phase one. If we do not keep fighting to kill the bill we all lose. You are right about calling out Flash and Bob Wire as well. These two are sponges that have fully absorbed the progressive mantra and worship at the feet of the almighty government god. Truth is beyond their reach at this point. I used to feel sorry for this condition but have sense learned not to cast pearls before swine so to speak. These folks and their cohorts move from blog to blog spouting their socialized talking points and begging for an argument so they can take control of the points being made. We can’t help ignorance of the truth.

  • Allan Halbert

    Of the roughly 2/3 of Americans who want to see Obamacare repealed, zero “want” anyone to bleed, pay unfair prices, or enrich an insurance company, as yours, and other liberal posts suggest.

    These claims are ridiculous. We simply oppose government overreach and entitlements that can’t be paid and which are bankrupting states and our federal government.

    Liberals cannot bring themselves to recognize this as a valid point of view, which means they will reap failure before compromise.

    • Allan Halbert

      The above was a response to Flashman’s comments.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
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.