Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Scalia Makes Obamacare Jokes

March 30, 2012 by  

If his quips during the oral arguments over the Constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s healthcare plan are any indicator, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia likely thinks the whole thing is a ridiculous mess.

In discussions about how the Court could decide which portions of the 2,700-page healthcare document couldn’t stand up to the test of Constitutionality, Scalia told Obama lawyer Edwin Kneedler that making the Justices read the entire document would violate their 8th Amendment rights.

Scalia said, “Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”

Scalia also took on the Administration’s counsel on Tuesday, taking a moment to lecture Obama lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. about the savvy of American consumers.

The transcript of the exchange:

SCALIA: These people are not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and need the money now.

VERRILLI: But that’s –

SCALIA: When they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they’ll buy insurance, like the rest of us.

VERRILLI: But that’s — that’s –

SCALIA: — I don’t know why you think that they’re never going to buy it.

VERRILLI: That’s the problem, Justice Scalia. That’s — and that’s exactly the experience that the States had that made the imposition of guaranteed issue and community rating not only be ineffectual but be highly counterproductive. Rates, for example, in New Jersey doubled or tripled, went from 180,000 people covered in this market down to 80,000 people covered in this market. In Kentucky, virtually every insurer left the market.

And the reason for that is because when people have that guarantee of — that they can get insurance, they’re going to make that calculation that they won’t get it until they’re sick and they need it. And so, the pool of people in the insurance market gets smaller and smaller. The rates you have to charge to cover them get higher and higher. It helps fewer and fewer — insurance covers fewer and fewer people until the system ends.

This is not a situation in which you’re conscripting — you’re forcing insurance companies to cover very large numbers of unhealthy people —

SCALIA: You could solve that problem by simply not requiring the insurance company to sell it to somebody who has a — a condition that is going to require medical treatment, or at least not – not require them to sell it to him at a rate that he sells it to healthy people. But you don’t want to do that.

According to SCOTUSblog, the Court will render a decision regarding Obamacare by June 28.

Below is the audio for the Supreme Court’s Obamacare hearings from this week:

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Scalia Makes Obamacare Jokes”

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

  • Vicki

    The OP writes:

    You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic?

    Looks like Scalia well understands the mess caused by Congress letting bureaucrats write the laws and the mess caused by Congress not reading their own bills to say nothing of all the unrelated subjects they stick into a bill. No wonder they are 2000+ pages long.

    If you agree that Congress should do its job then go to downsizeDc and write to congress demanding that they read the bills and write the laws.

    https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/

    https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/write-the-laws/

    And point out to them that they should really stick to one subject at a time.

    https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/

    • randice

      Not only this, but, bill should be no longer than 5 pages. The Constitution is 4 pages long which governs the entire country, and our lawmakers can’t even govern healthcare in less than 2,700 pages. (nor should they, but, that’s another subject).

      • James Andrews

        YOu are right!

    • eddie47d

      Scalia is supposed to be the cream of the crop on the Supreme Court and refuses to read what he has to act on. Maybe he’s not so brilliant after all and might as well go sit in the halls of Congress if it’s too much trouble. Government by the lazy for the lazy. Do the job you get paid for or step down.

      • Ship Rider

        It is not Scalia’s job, or the Supreme court’s for that matter, to interpret the health care bill in it’s entirity! It’s their job to interpret the constitutionality of the “individual mandate”! The complexity of this massive atrocity might take years for the justices to sort out and frankly they have better ways to utilize their time. Bottom line is that a Democratic controlled Congress forced this train wreck down our throats as one more step in the journey to socialize our “Great Nation”. Remember what Nancy Pelosi said? “We have to pass it so we can find out whats in it”. Heck of a way to do business. Bottom line, 2010 was luming and the Democrats knew they would take a beating in the election so the bill had to be passed before November or it would be, like Hilliary Care. Face it, for many in congress, it is all about “Power and Control” in forcing a “Cradle to Grave” mentality, and absolutely it is not about what is best for the “individual” or the general well being of this “Great Nation” in which we now reside.

      • Steven

        Scalia doesn’t have to read it.It is unconstitutional from the very start.And if you refuse to see that,then you are for the socialists/marxist takeover of our great country.Will you be happy when our government can force you to do anything?This is the start,and if it is passed then what can stop them from anything!

      • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

        eddie – sometimes you just plain make no sense and want to argue an issue that is non-existent just to be as contrary as possible…silly guy.

      • Meteorlady

        Jezz Eddie – he’s ruling on ONE PORTION OF THE LAW. That’s all he need to understand and read. Why would he read the entire 2700 page document unless there is another challenge to another portion of the document. Do you even understand the 85th Amendment?

      • tom s

        You expect that the Supreme Court Justices should read the entire bill? Those idiots that wrote & passed & the idiot that signed it into law didn’t read it..& for the most part didn’t know what they were voting for nor signing.

      • slapjack

        If this is your case, then the whole damn town needs to leave because they all are all sucking hind teet on our hard earned money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • http://LibertyAlert Ron Nunn

        No one has read the entire bill that voted it into law. Why should the Supreme Court Members have to read this OBAMANATION?

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        This is rather disturbing, people. Two wrongs don’t make a right. It was Congressmembers’ responsibility to read the bill before voting on it, and it was the President’s responsibility to read the bill before signing it, and it remains the Court’s responsibility to read the bill before judging whether it’s Constitutional or not. It’s a travesty of our democratic process that the first two branches of government utterly failed in this basic responsibility. That is NOT an excuse for the third branch to refuse to do its job as well. If the Supreme Court wants to rule on a law without having read it, that’s a new low, even in the corrupt system that we have.

      • DG

        Eddie –How long would it take you to read and understand 2,700 pages of Legaleze–the rest of your life??? with all the non-speak and double talk the “lawyas” put in there–remember it was also written with the “trial lawyers group”

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Yeah eddie, RIGHT! You’ve got a built in excuse for everything and like my pappy always said: Excuses are for losers!

        May I remind you of the Speaker’s own words:
        “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out, uh, what’s in it”
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

      • eddie47d

        You’d expect the Supreme Court to be a tad bit smarter than members of Congress but apparently most of you don’t think so. Thanks for sharing that.

      • Chris

        Scalia needs to do the job he is paid to do. If it is to hard for him to read it, have someone read it to him. His job is to read and conclude if the laws are legal. If he can not do that, he needs to step down! No excuses for his laziness.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Chris, your comment is as ignorant as eddie’s.

        They don’t need to read the 2700 +- pages to render their ruling on the constutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act. The constitutionality of the individual mandate, which is the core provision, the legs, of the Affordable Care Act along with the law’s Medicaid expansion are the two most important provisions that will affect the outcome. If they are struck down, more than likely the whole statute will be gone.

        Supreme Court Justices consider only those cases that address issues that have an effect on constitutional law. The Supreme Court justices may hear a case and issue an opinion that can help resolve conflicting decisions in lower courts. Both sides of the case submit written briefs that present their side. The justices may permit oral arguments. After reading the briefs and hearing the oral arguments of each side, the justices meet privately to discuss the issues and to decide the case.

      • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

        JeffH – remember as you’ve told me – some things can’t be fixed – ever….

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Libertytrain, OMG :) ear to ear…you did it again.

      • Jordan48

        Dear eddie4

        I realize that you do not understand the judicial tort review process involved here and the mechanics involved, so perhaps you would be so kind as to go sit in the corner and study up on it. In the mean while, please do not speak, lest you convince those who thought you a fool, removing all doubt!

    • CJ

      Reagan tried to impose the line-item veto for just that point… to remove unrelated riders from bills so the true purpose can be achieved. Many times our representatives vote against bills just because of the riders attached, at their peril as their opponents will quickly accuse them of voting against the main bill, when in fact the corpus was meaningless beyond its aluring title, which frequently is written to deceve.

      • mn1013

        Actually I think it was Clinton who tried to do that.

    • mdbonjr

      PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!!! and stop overlooking facts that do not fit your idealistic viewpoints.

      The severability clause was removed from this bill meaning, if any portion of the bill is stricken, the whole bill, by law, has to be stricken. The only way and/or reason the Justices would need to read the whole law is if they do not find anything unConstitutional in it.

    • absolutely amazed

      Scalia is a buffoon, pure and simple, unworthy of being a judge of any sort, as proven by his banal behavior. To even mention that an unhealthy person does not deserve affordable health insurance is obscene. Certainly some situations warrant a higher insurance premium – smoking, sloth and obesity caused by eating the junk food foisted upon us and leading to the horrors of diabetes, etc. But not for the poor devil who gets leukemia, or colon cancer because he/she could not get screening colonoscopy, or breast cancer because of heredity (she of course shouldn’t have chosen those parents) or no access to screening mammograms. What the hell is he thinking? Of course, Bush’s Medicare D is equally nationally obligatory, and should be subjected to the same judiial scrutiny. If you do not sign up for Medicare D within the prescribed period, your are fined/overcharged for the rest of your life. That is exponentially worse than Obamacare’s wish to have everyone in an insurance that by definition of insurance diffuses risk.

      • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

        absolutely amazed – I only wish we had a few more people in government as much a “buffoon” as he is. You’re apparently not quite right in the head.

      • Vigilant

        “To even mention that an unhealthy person does not deserve affordable health insurance is obscene.”

        And when, pray tell, did Scalia ever say that?

      • Vigilant

        “Obamacare’s wish to have everyone in an insurance that by definition of insurance diffuses risk.”

        “Diffuses risk?” No, it diffuses costs. It’s called “redistribution of wealth.”

        If you don’t believe that, simply look at Dr. Donald Berwick’s statements (one of the persons who helped craft the Obamacare debacle). He praised the British system of nationalized medicine, admitted that rationing was part of the bill, and said that universal health care was by nature a redistribution of wealth.

        I’m “absolutely amazed” you can even tie your shoes in the morning.

      • former walmart person

        I am absolutely amazed that BIG PHARMA companies that all the liberals claim to hate can force me to buy their products at the barrel of a gun. If I don’t buy their product (health insurance) even if I think it is a horrible product, or I would like to spend money on other things (like paying the mortgage? – I would rather have a roof over my head then some crappy, very expensive, sub par health insurance), I can ultimately be fire bombed by the IRS, Waco style.

        Stupid liberals, against big business in all its forms but swooning over Obama Care (more accurately titled “Big pharma care”), where the big business (health insurance companies) can effectively force you to buy their product at the barrel of a gun.

      • Jordan48

        Reply to Absolutely Amazed:
        I am indeed: absolutely amazed at your illiteracy! The individual mandate contained in this legislation (ObamaCare) demands that everyone (except those who have received waivers from Obamanations administration) will be required to pay for medical insurance and if they (who? Us, the people) fail to buy it, we will be “fined”, “penalized”, “taxed”. Even Nancy Pelosi has gained waivers for her friends and those businesses within her home district, which basically says that the average citizen will pay their share while others will not! The fact that this bill was passed into law by a Democrat Party controlled House and Senate under Obumblers regime, and they didn’t even read the 2700 pages before they passed it into law. Now that is the most dumbed down act of arrogance, considering that numerous polls of average voters in this country show that approximately 65% of those polled don’t want it (ObamaCare). The fact that Justice Elena Kagan should have recused herself from participating because of personal bias and her participation as the former Attorney General in helping to craft this legislation. This is obvious because of her apparent coaching of her successor AG during the recent hearings on this matter. Both Kegan and Ginsberg should be impeached from the SCOTUS for failing to perform their oath of office in upholding and protecting the U S Constitution!. If this court does not declare Obamacare to be unconstitutional, it is highly probable that they (the justices) will not have a job much longer, for Obamanation will destroy judicial review of our laws as he establishes his Marxist-Socialist government, as well as the abolishment of all our freedoms and Constitutional guarantees. When this happens, who will stand between the common man and the “brown shirts” who come for you in the night, or for one of your family members? To whom will you turn when you no longer have any guarantee of due process of law when these lawless socialist pigs take it away from all of us?

    • CJM2

      Vicki: The reason that bill is 2700+ pages is because it is riddled with pork barrell issues and other agendas that have nothing to do with health care. One example is funding a pet project of pelosi’s…in SF and has no benefit for the general public, but it does benefit a select few in that area. Another example is how the government obtained control over all student loans, forcing lenders to give the Dept of Ed those loan contracts. There are many other items that the sneaky congress did not want the general public to know about; if the administration thinks the Supremes don’t know about this, they are highly mistaken. My bet is that Scalia read those 2700+ pages and is well aware of what’s in that bill….and that those items should not be there. Hopefully, the abomination of obammy’s agenda will be tossed in its entirety.

      • Vicki

        I am well aware of why it is 2700+ pages long. It is one of the many reasons I advocate downsizeDC . org’s One Subject at a Time legislation.

        https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/

        You should check it out and while there see what other emails you can write to your congressmen.

  • s c

    What? Justice Scalia would stoop to using humor to characterize a system of divinely-inspired healthcare? However, you want to look at this, I must admit that it does fit.
    Justice Scalia is required to be tactful. I’m not. I won’t say exactly what I think about a 2,700+ paged Frankenstein pile of skunk dung. Right on, Justice Scalia.
    I’d be tempted to DEMAND that every member of the Senate and the House submit 300 or more pages pages of their understanding of Obummer’s healthcare scam. And until I got it all, Obummer could take his healthcare scam and use it as doorstops in the White House.
    Fair is fair. When our “leaders” in Congress have NO idea what they passed, it is automatically illegal, immoral and an affront to EVERY American. Normally, I’d tell each member of Congress what to do with that legislation, but I’m fresh out of vaseline and I forgot the complete list of things it helps soothe.

    • CJM2

      sc: I agree that the politicos can take this abomination and put it where it does them the most good. However, since they have wasted taxpayers time and money, I would not allow them the benefit of vasoline—-let the abomination be placed by dry measure!

  • Warrior

    Yea but I’ve heard pundits and advocates of the “plan” say that there were three days of strong debate before it was passed.

    Hmmm… where did I misplace those 3 days of “vigorous debate”? Oh, I remember now. That was before “transparency” was so in vogue!

  • Randy

    It should come as no surprize that those that press so hard to re-write the constitution to remove your right to PROTECT yourself and family from criminals and government run amok…are the same people that trample the constitution to force you to COVER those that refuse to work or contribute to the cause in any way.

    • Brian L

      Hear, Hear! ALL of you are very correct – Obamacare is a boondoggle and is unconstitutional. Making people buy insurance…Please!

    • Jordan48

      The primary reason Obamanation and his ObamaBot minions (Reid, Eric Holder, Nancy Pelosi, Napolitano, Jezebel Hillary Clinton, Sebillius, Schultz, etc.,) want your guns is simple….if they disarm the people, they can more readily control the masses as they build their Marxist-Socialist Empire! We will become like North Korea, Cuba, etc. You will have to live on $12,00 per month, with a government subsidy of beans and flour, while Obumbler and his adminstration live a life of debauchery and decadence. If you don’t like it, off to jail you go! Ever heard the term “political prisoner”? In their minds, they control everything, they know whats good for you and me, and this nation will no longer be a nation of the people, for the people, by the people, but BIG BROTHER will be your slave master! Doubt my warning at your oown peril! Doubt my warning at the peril of your children and your family members! Doubt my warning, then watch and see! If you give Obumbler one loop hole in the law; if you chip away at the U S Constitution, he will take away everything you own in the name of the State (BIG BROTHER).!

  • Vincent

    Why even bother with health care when we have the Department of Homeland Security to take care of us with their recent 450 million rounds of hollow-point bullets purchase?

    When was the last time the DHS sent troops to fight wars?

    It must be the NEW Healthcare Deal!

    Submit or Die?!

    • PendragonRise

      Vincent, that was priceless! I needed a good, Kurt Vonnigut laugh this morning! Thank you.

      • Jordan48

        You are obviously not a student of history! Perhaps you skipped those classes or just grasped the intellectual ability to comprehend. Its not too late for you, however. Might I suggest you study the Fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Adolf Hitler. Some of the strategies that Obamanation is using now were used by Hitler to destroy the nation of Germany, disarm the citizenry, abolish the laws of the land and replaced them with oppressive and cruel laws while his administration took controll of the national media news outlets in Germany to manipulate and brain wash the masses. Investigate a company called Media Matters: a close ally with the Obamanations administration, which controlls the major news outlets in this nation at present. (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC) National News is very carefully structured and manipulated to create division within this country. These godless men in Media Matters are working to deceive the masses and this strategy is being carefully orchestrated by the Obamanation administration on a day by day basis. Face the facts: Obamanation is a man of great deceptions and he is a CURSE upon this nation and its people! I’m in no way paranoid: Just telling you the facts here! Watch and SEE! Then you can cry for yourself, your children, and your loved ones!

    • Kate8

      Vincent – It must be the back-up plan.

  • Howard Roark

    I especially like Scalia’s comment about the Fed Govt extorting the states into accepting the Fed Govt’s medicade program.( Basically the Fed says that if a state will not go along with the Fed the Fed will not give any medicade dollars to the state) Scalia in a scene straight out of the Godfather said that the Fed made the States an offer that they cant refuse.

    • absolutely amazed

      Some of you make the argument that the States should be responsible for the health of their citizens. If so, they should pay the full cost of Medicaid for their citizens, or pay none at all, and let their citizens die in the corridors. You can’t have it both ways. Scalia is a dunce.

      • Dennis48e

        Medicade is a FEDERAL program forced onto the states. As long as it exists the FEDERAL government is responsibal for its financial support not the states.

      • james

        The states could afford medicare cost if they recieved all the tax money from their citizens instead of sending the money to Washington.To pass Obamacare without reading it is like voteing for a person you never heard of or know nothing about.Oh! sorry didnt mean to enlighten you to much.To vote for any bill to become law before reading and understanding the contents of it is a foolish act.Only fools would do such a thing.To get rid of Obamacare is a step in the right direction but it wont fix Washington.To much lying to much greed and to many people who do not love our United States of America live here.Any culture or people who do not love our constitution needs to get out or be removed from our country.Then and only then can we rebuild our great nation.

    • Ben Williams SR

      it should be medicare for all !,and Scalia can go to HELL !

      • s c

        What a predictable response from a typical utopian. When did you surrender your brain to a “me first” mentality? Justice Scalia is trying to keep America free and help brain-addled utopians like YOU understand that freedom ISN’T ‘free,’ Uncle Scam isn’t your ‘friend’ and that ADULTS need to act like ADULTS – not like spoiled brats whose parents never put any effort into good parenting.
        Your quick-fix mentality will be your undoing. By the way, I have some bills that I need to pay. Using YOUR mentality, I have determined that YOU are obligated to pay them.
        Stick it, utopian. May you live long enough to be at least half as ‘intelligent’ as you think you are. YOU are what has made America a second-rate country. I have no use for you or your W H ‘God.’

        • WideRanger

          Methinks thou doeth protest too much! But that’s just me…I prefer cooler heads who can think and walk at the same time. Maybe Scalia was trying to say that all those who have retired should all have Medicare?? But, if not, then what? I can’t get too disturbed over a casual remark that I don’t really know what was being said….that means I just don’t trust my guessing about the importance of what was said! Don’t jump to conclusions….

  • jorgaone

    If the witch doesn’t recuse herself–and it is found to be “legal”– we as a nation are sunk…HOW can the Congress just sit still and let this go on? ESPECIALLY the Right side of the isle??

    • Gary

      Agreed. Kagan is the dangerous one. She will be pushing to be the Chief Justice after Roberts. Her brazen nature was revealed by her obtuse comment regarding “half a loaf of bread”. First high profile case, she should recuse herself. Instead, she inserts herself into the discussion with complete impunity. Watch out for her. Very dangerous.

      • Warrior

        kagan believes it is perfectly acceptable for the uncle fed to shovel ‘boat loads” of money to the states. Now that a constitution you can believe in.

  • JohnC

    Sounds like it was an insurance company problem in NJ, after all they raised their rates compensate for the state imposed mandate of coverage for all…of course it would cost more but maybe just maybe they raised it too much and shot themselves in the foot

    • carrobin

      Scalia either isn’t very bright or he’s totally political. (Probably both.) And if “Obamacare” fails, we’re stuck with the greedy, unreliable insurance companies (you want “death panels”? That’s where to look). Not to mention that unless the cost of our for-profit healthcare system is changed very soon, nobody will be able to afford insurance, much less medical care and medicine. This is a crisis for the USA and the conservative SCOTUS just jokes about it.

      • Maxine Karr

        Sweetheart, you sound very young and very inexperienced. Wait until you have lived a little longer.

  • Sirian

    The SCOTUS hears the arguments, then within three days they hold a meeting within which they discuss the suit/arguments and vote on it. This vote is NOT the final decision it is but their standing on the matter at that time in particular. There have been former cases where the vote was leaning one direction initially but changed during the interim period or changed before the final was released. Kennedy’s switch for instance on a case years ago. That’s where he assumed the mantle of the “Flip Flopping Justice”. From there they recess from a joint session for additional time to review, research and make a final determination. During this period is when “opinions” are written up by some concerning the matter but this information is never released to anyone other than their clerks. The final vote, so to speak, comes later on and the decisions/opinions are held more or less in a very serious “TOP SECRET” status until the Chief Justice gives the word to release it. That is why there is no way of knowing as to which direction this will move. There are three directions it can go – but let us all pray that they will take the direction that is most logical and Constitutional – repeal the entire bill altogether. Until it is released we are merely hungry spectators circling the perimeter of the court.

    • Vicki

      On what grounds do you assert they could use to repeal the entire bill? The lack of severablility and the claim that the individual mandate is unconstitutional?

      If so how can you claim that forcing us to buy a product is unconstitutional if you ALSO claim that forcing us to NOT buy a product IS constitutional?

      Either both are powers we delegated to the government under the commerce clause or they both are NOT. I of course believe they are not.

      • Maxine Karr

        You really should read what you wrote. The government will not make you NOT buy insurance. It will be up to you, to buy or not to buy. That is the way it should be. If we could buy insurance across state line and if a reasonable limit was set on liability claims,
        we would see the costs go down.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Vicki, the individual mandate is the very heart, the legs of the legislation…without it there is a very good chance the legislation will be tossed out on it’s head, as a whole.

        If they strike down a key provision of the sprawling law, what other provisions would have to fall along with it?

        Justice Antonin Scalia said the whole law would have to go. “My approach would be to say that if you take the heart out of this statute,” he said, “the statute’s gone.”

        In addition to the “mandate”, several justices expressed concern that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unduly coercive to the states.

      • Vicki

        Maxine Karr says:

        You really should read what you wrote.

        I would strongly suggest that you follow your own good advice and actually read what I wrote.

        I will rephrase it here with explicit examples.

        Question: If YOU think that the government has the power to forbid you to buy something (Simple examples. Incandescent light bulbs, cars with low mpg, guns with scary attachments) why do you think that the government does not have the power to force you TO BUY something (Health Insurance)?

      • Vicki

        JeffH says:

        Vicki, the individual mandate is the very heart, the legs of the legislation…

        I understand that. So can you answer my question? If YOU think the government has the power to deny your purchase of a product how can you say that they do not have the power to force you to purchase a product?

        I actually suspect that you agree with me that the government does NOT have the power to deny our purchase but it has been doing so for years for a wide range of products.

      • absolutely amazed

        Thank god the government forbids us from buying contaminated food, unapproved medicines of no proven value, airplanes with uninspected engines. But they ought to obligate us to buy the very product that will insure our best chances at good health.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Vicki, you know we agree :)…just sayin that from what I can gather, especially from Judge Napolitano and the comment by Scalia and even some of the liberals that have been interviewed, it don’t look good that the indivdual mandate will survive the SCOTUS and that can knock the socks off of the whole deal.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Vicki, you bet I don’t believe the government has the right or the Constitutional muster to force me to buy anything.

      • Vicki

        absolutely amazed says:

        Thank god the government forbids us from buying contaminated food, unapproved medicines of no proven value, airplanes with uninspected engines. But they ought to obligate us to buy the very product that will insure our best chances at good health.

        You actually believe there is a God?

        Government forbits us from buying contaminated food.

        http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/GE-contamination-as-USDA-weakens-rules-0166.html
        That works real well. And there are countless cases of people getting sick from contaminated food that they bought and consumed foolishly thinking that it was inspected.

        Unapproved medicines of no proven value.

        like fluoridated water? Oh wait…..
        http://www.nofluoride.com/

        airplaines with uninspected engines.

        Works almost as well as the contaminated food
        http://www.thelastinspector.com/

      • Sirian

        Vicki,
        Go watch this and you will have a better understanding – it cleared up a lot for me.
        http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=20308633&topic_id=24584158

      • Vigilant

        Vicki says, “So can you answer my question? If YOU think the government has the power to deny your purchase of a product how can you say that they do not have the power to force you to purchase a product?”

        Since you pose the question on a generalized and philisophical basis, I will answer it as such. OF COURSE the government has the right to prevent you from purchasing certain things. It is the very ESSENCE of government. If it had no power to do so, there would be no need for government. Anarchy without chaos is a Utopian pipe dream.

        The bulk of laws on the books are proscriptive (the “thou shalt not” dictums), not prescriptive. And without those laws, you’d go back to man in a state of nature.

        Do you suggest that any individual should have the right to purchase a few kilos of anthrax or a gram of botulism toxin? Do you feel more comfortable in an airplane piloted by a person on a cocaine high because he excercised his “right” to purchase it? Is it OK to purchase people (white slavery)? How would you feel if your neighbor picked up a suitcase nuclear bomb for sale at the local weapons store? Only the insane would advocate

        No Ma’am, there is NO argument in favor of your contention that government should take a hands off stance on socially jeopardizing behaviors that threaten to destroy the very fabric of civilized and ordered society.

        No, it’s not just If I think the government has the power to proscribe certain behaviors, it’s the common sense view of most of the people in this country, and it was the view of our Founders. Thank God for that.

      • Vigilant

        Correction: I meant to spell it “exercise.”

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        Since you pose the question on a generalized and philisophical basis, I will answer it as such. OF COURSE the government has the right to prevent you from purchasing certain things. It is the very ESSENCE of government.

        Thank you for confirming what many of us have long suspected. That you are not in the least a conservative let alone someone who supports small government.

        For a TRULY free people the possession of ANYTHING created, grown, obtained without fraud or theft, can not be illegal.

        Now lets look at the purpose of government.

        “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.”
        Declaration of Independence.

        Governments purpose is to “secure these rights”.

        Now you are correct that the essence of government is power but that is why the Constitution EXPLICITLY limits the power we can delegate to the government

        “Only 39 of the 55 Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution. Sixteen refused and warned that the powers being transferred to the new government could be used to take away the freedoms just established. They were right – the power to tax and the power to control “commerce” are being used to override the Bill of Rights – to control Americans, their rights, and soon, their guns. ”
        http://www.foundingfathers.com/intent.htm

        As we can see all around us that warning is EXACTLY what is happening and has happened for a number of years.

        Now you claim the government has the right to do something. I challenge your assertion. The government has ONLY powers that we allowed ourselves to delegate to it.

        PEOPLE have rights and powers. Government (ANY government) has only powers and only the powers we delegate to the government. I offer as proof the 9th and 10th amendments. The 10th in particular with respect to government strictly limits STATES from having certain powers. The word right (or rights) does not appear ANYWHERE in that amendment. Note that the 9th says people have rights. The 10th comments that the powers not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states or the people.
        It also mentions that certain powers are prohibited to the states but not to the people.

        Hence it is clearly expressed that states have ONLY powers and that people have rights and powers.

        Note that the Constitution, typically thru the Bill of Rights, prohibits us from delegating certain powers to government even if we wanted to. This was of course done in part to prevent democracy.

        Now could you please point out where in the Constitution the federal government was given the power to prevent us from purchasing certain things.

        Try not to say commerce clause cause that is exactly what many of the founders warned of. Alas they were correct.
        http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2012/03/22/if-the-individual-mandate-is-constitutional-the-commerce-clause-has-no-limits/

        The main proponent of that clause did want it to become the loophole of unlimited power for the federal government.
        http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/24/madison-father-of-the-commerce-clause/

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        Anarchy without chaos is a Utopian pipe dream.

        There are some here who would disagree with you :) In truth if all the people involved were self-governed there would be no need. But some do not and would try to force their will on non-consenting others. This is the explicit reason why governments are instituted amongst men (Declaration of Independence)

        All that is needed to have a successful anarchy is for the people to honor first principle.
        “First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
        How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
        is how you shall be judged.”

        Another way is the golden rule (the real one) In such a group there would be no need for “government”. Such a people would behave because they would.

        Because these “good” people would come in contact with people who DON’T understand or honor the principles governments are instituted amongst men.

        Now most anarchy that we know of has the stigma of chaos only because people claiming to be either anarchists or to want anarchy are doing it just to topple a government they didn’t like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

      • Vicki

        Vigilant says:

        No Ma’am, there is NO argument in favor of your contention that government should take a hands off stance on socially jeopardizing behaviors that threaten to destroy the very fabric of civilized and ordered society.

        I am not surprised that you support prior restraint. Tell me, what is your position on firearms ownership by law abiding people?

      • Vigilant

        “Thank you for confirming what many of us have long suspected. That you are not in the least a conservative let alone someone who supports small government.”

        Vicki, you have a penchant for either misunderstanding or purposely mischaracterizing my positions. And that comment, after the thousands of my postings to just the opposite effect, is below the belt. Your adoption of the Alinsky technique is not at all appreciated, and I expected better of you.

        I don’t need to be lectured on the provisions of the Constitution. I am aware (possibly more so) through years of research and study, than you are, of the nature, origin and articles.

        You need to get away from the true believer idea that everything can be cast in black and white. Disabuse yourself of the notion that there are only two types of situations: tyranny or anarchy. To even imply that I support a leviathan as opposed to limited government is, to be frank, a lie.

        Given your impassioned defense of anarchy, I could just as easily have said, “Thank you for confirming what many of us have long suspected. That you are not in the least a conservative let alone someone who supports any government at all.”

      • Vigilant

        “Note that the Constitution, typically thru the Bill of Rights, prohibits us from delegating certain powers to government even if we wanted to. This was of course done in part to prevent democracy.”

        WRONG. We may delegate as many powers as we wish to the central government. Read Article V, since you seem to be unacquainted with it.

        To say we don’t have the power to amend the Constitution is to deny our natural rights, does it not?

      • Vigilant

        Vicki says, “Now could you please point out where in the Constitution the federal government was given the power to prevent us from purchasing certain things.”

        Your superficial and literalist view of the Constitution denies any rational consideration of the argument as posed. To hang your hat on such an argument is ridiculous.

        In order for the Constitution to list every instance in which a sane and civilized society is prohibited from engaging in certain activities would be to create a document the size of the Obamacare Law. The Constitution was never created to do such a thing, and you of all people should know that.

        The states and the lower governments do such things. Where it is deemed by some that such laws are unconstitutional, they are adjudicated through the courts and, if need be, the Supreme Court.

        Thus, prohibition on purchases of some things are Constitutional unless successfully challenged in the legal system.

        Where does the Constitution prohibit incest, child molestation, purchase of nuclear weapons or chemical/biological weapons by individuals? It doesn’t, nor should it be expected to do so. It is the very latitude of the Constitution which properly leaves those laws in the hands of the states and the people.

      • Vigilant

        Vicki says, “I am not surprised that you support prior restraint. Tell me, what is your position on firearms ownership by law abiding people?”

        Please look up the legal definition of “prior restraint” as well as the limited conditions under which it has been found to be Constitutional. I do not advocate prior restraint as a general rule, but there are exceptions. I do not categorically state that it is bad, as you do, nor do I state that it is categorically good, as your putting words in my mouth would indicate.

        You know precisely what my position is on the Second Amendment, as we have discussed this at length before.

        I will answer it for the general public again providing you answer the question I posed first, i.e., “Do you suggest that any individual should have the right to purchase a few kilos of anthrax or a gram of botulism toxin? Do you feel more comfortable in an airplane piloted by a person on a cocaine high because he excercised his “right” to purchase it? Is it OK to purchase people (white slavery)? How would you feel if your neighbor picked up a suitcase nuclear bomb for sale at the local weapons store?”

      • Vigilant

        Anarchy without chaos is a Utopian pipe dream.

        Nothing in your response addressed the realities of anarchy. Instead, you launched into a sophomoric argument normally found in freshman philosophy classes or theological discussions.

        Here’s a news flash for you: anarchy has never been successful as a practicality in any historic context of which I am aware. Human nature is human nature, government is a necessity, and I’ll not engage in fantasy discussions of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

      • Vigilant

        With regard to the Commerce Clause, you’re way off base.

        “The main proponent of that clause did want it to become the loophole of unlimited power for the federal government.”

        http://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/24/madison-father-of-the-commerce-clause/

        To accuse Madison of such underhandedness is as un-American as you can get. The author of that article fails to tell you that Madison’s sentiments over time became more anti-Federalist than Federalist. As his association with Jefferson matured, Madison revised a number of his views, and it was largely his efforts which ensured that the Bill of Rights was appended to the Constitution. There are a number of books out that deal with the Jefferson-Madison relationship. You should read one.

        This demonizing of our Founders has been going on for some time, promulgated by fanatics on both the left and the right, for purposes that have nothing to do with clarification of the truth. Instead of a balanced, objective view of history, these pseudohistorians wish only to skew your thinking into a rampant anti-American view.

        Our Constitution, in my mind, ranks up there with the Bible as one of the greatest works in history. It was NOT the Articles of Confederation that made “The Great Experiment” work, it was the principle of federalism with individual sovereignty that has made the Constitution the longest standing written constitution in the history of mankind.

        That the government has been allowed to trample that document is not the fault of the Founders. It is the fault of the people who lost their way and relinquished their strong moral character.

  • Howard Roark

    You all probably remember when we were kids and something did not go well we hollared “do over”. well that diesn’t work in law.There is a rule of law called legislative intent that means that if something has been used in writing law over and over and the legislature leaves that thing out, then it is deemed that the legislature intended to leave that thing out.

    When the Dems wrote their health bill they commited two fatal errors. !. they failed to put in a severability clause that says basically that if any part of the bill nis struck down as unconstitutional then the rest of the bill stands.So because they did not put in the severability clause it is deemed by law that they did not intend for it to be there and as a result the entire bill either stands together or goes down together. Justice Scalia in fact commented on this point. 2. They over and over called the payment to be paid by those that do not buy health Insurance a penality or fine and not a tax.

    Its almost hillarious to watch the lying Dems try to get out from under these two major errors.

    • eddie47d

      That’s an interesting point you brought up Howard yet have you ever seen a document prepared by lawyers. Pages and pages of gobbledygook to cover every aspect of the case. It’s obvious why the Healthcare bill is so long. Now you want more documents added onto the Healthcare bill (severability clause). How many pages would have been added over those two words?

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Eddie, a severability clause only needs to be one sentence. And nothing Howard wrote indicates that he WANTS it in there.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        eddie, do you ever wonder why you get hammered day after day and end up in the PLD penalty box? Just can’t be fixed! It’s a disease!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL6wbsGx9qw

      • Maxine Karr

        It is so long because it covers much more than health care. I haven’t read much of it, but most of what I have read has nothing to do with health care. It is a government takeover of MANY things.

    • http://Comcast James Wright

      The best laid plans of mice and demo-rats often go awry….

    • Aurelio Nunez

      Sir, we are destroying one of the best health system of the world that we have in this
      country. Hundreds of people come to this country for healing from around the world.
      But when you have the House speaker of the Demo party says lets pass this bill so we can see whats in it. Something is wrong with the system. We are being lied to and all it
      has to do about getting re-elected. Sorry, but that is my feelings

      • Paul Russo

        The system you speak of is not broken. Those who are derelict of their duties who have failed the people who gave them their responsibilities are broken in themselves.

    • Kent

      and the truthful republicans scream about how affordable health care foor all will mean less health care for the elite?

    • http://ConservativeVictory2010 Mario Crociata

      Tell a lie often enough and loud enough and to a Liberal it becomes the truth! In fact if a Liberal speaks it, it IS the truth!!!

    • Paul Russo

      Lying Dems should be outlawed. The truth should be the law.

    • lady kroft

      geeeezzzz !! Howard…learn how to spell, that way you might “look” intelligent.

    • vejer

      first off,,,it just aint right for the govt. to tell you what to do,,,,second thing,,if this thing gets green flagged,,if it isn’t shot down..then go ahead and reserve my jail cell,,,,i will not conform,,,and i will not obey…and i don’t give a good —–d—- who likes,,or dislikes it,,lock and load fellas,,,,it may come to that

    • enzo

      WAKE UP: Read time mag. on obama care & compare statements. The GOV’T has the right to protect Americans; such as in -speed limits+traffic controls + food & drugs regulations+police & firemen protections + health & safety benefits for the elderly, the mentally & sick citizens. Where is the religious belief of ” HELP THY NEIGHBOR” or is GREED the new religion?

    • Jay

      i believe that as American citizens we should demand that their be a law that stats they can never put in a severability clause that says that if any part of a bill is struck down as unconstitutional then the rest of the bill stands. because if any part of a bill has been passed that is unconstitutional it shows that they are not doing their jobs right. And to keep the house and senate in line, they should never be allowed to pas any thing that they personally have not read! THEY WERE THE ONE HIRED NOT ONE OF THEIR STAFF PEOPLE. Its beyond time we stood up and demanded to be heard, and stop letting the people we hired dictate to us how we should live.

    • michael

      even pelosi said she didn’t read this bill, so how does shwe know whats in it, in fact no one knows. so get rid of this mess, obama thinks because he is black he can get away with anything he wants, well does the white part of him think the same way? or is he even American? just get rid of obamacare, no one wants it and if companies and unions get a waver, then why can’t ordinary people get a waver? come on, whats right for one should be right for all.

    • jerry

      I believe that it is unconstitutional for the government to tell me what I can or cannot do. As long as I do not hurt or cause harm to another person then I will exercise my liberty and freedom as I see fit. I don’t want to pay car insurance, health insurance, wear a seat belt or pay taxes. It is so simple, where in the constitution does it say the government has the right to make me purchase anything? I already pay for people to have a cell phone who can’t afford it because the government feels it is a safety issue. How far can they go?
      I hope the members of the Supreme Court are not influenced by anything other then what the government can or cannot impose upon the government of the people.

    • Steve London

      America is not a democracy? Then what would you call it, a dictatorship?

      Please, be realistic in your statements, there are very impressionable people reading this. They are the nuts that go outside shooting up everybody based on some misunderstood statements such as this. People these days are a bunch of loose cannons, looking for any foolish reason to go berserk.

      • Vigilant

        You, sir, need to go back to your history books. The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Never has been, and it was designed specifically by the Founders to NOT be a democracy.

        • Jerry Morris

          You are correct in that the founders never intended for this country to be a democracy, however, the 17th Amendment seems to have changed that. Our State legislatures use to select the Senators for the US congress, not the voters. And the voters didn’t use to vote in the Presidential elections either.

          Right now, there isn’t anything Constitutional about the way the Federal government is run. Congress does what it wants, and the SCOTUS goes beyond its powers as well. Did you know that the Constitution does not delegate the power of “judicial review” to the federal judiciary? It gave itself that power with Marbury vs. Hamilton in 1803. That’s why we started getting “activist judges”.

    • Jordan48

      It has long been the view of many of us that the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is our best defense of upholding and protecting the United States Constitution, especially in view of the fact that Obamanation will not, even though failure to do so is a wanton and wilfull disregard of his (Obummers) oath of office..The fact that newly appointed Supreme Court Justice, Elena Kagan, failed to recuse herself from hearing the ObamaCare fiasco which she helped to create as the Attorney General under Obamanations adminstration. The fact is that she actually had to coach the man who held her job in arguing Obummers health care law before the SCOTUS. Her personal bias is so obvious, a blind man could see it. Her failure to recuse herself is a violation of law, but that does not concern her one itty bit! Many of us knew when she was nominated by Obumbler that she was his “shill” and would defy any law of this nation to support her Master!Both Justice Ginsberg and Kagan despise the U S Constitution and the principles which is stands for…liberty and freedom of the masses. If the SCOTUS allows this law (ObummerCare) to stand, they have sealed the fate of this nation, its’ people, and the Supreme Court. For this president will destroy our entire system of judicial review and oversight!

    • TJ Goforth

      Who is John Galt?

  • Norm

    1. The Obama Administration’s top lawyer told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the health reforms Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts helped inspire the president’s controversial health care overhaul — that Romneycare shaped Obamacare.

    2. I’m sure a “brilliant” law scholar like Antonin would have no trouble reading and digesting 2700 pages. In fact that is his job and duty, unless he has already made up his mind.

    3. These supreme court clowns are APPOINTED for their political beliefs and are no more than pawns. The power they exert is insane.

    • Warrior

      What’s even more amazing is the “CLOWNS” who voted for it didn’t read it either!

    • Vigilant

      “1. The Obama Administration’s top lawyer told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the health reforms Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts helped inspire the president’s controversial health care overhaul — that Romneycare shaped Obamacare.”

      And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? States can do what they please. The Feds can not. Read the Constitution, sonny.

      “2. I’m sure a “brilliant” law scholar like Antonin would have no trouble reading and digesting 2700 pages. In fact that is his job and duty, unless he has already made up his mind.”

      It is NOT his job and duty to do that. He’s required only to rule on a very specific portion of the law.

      “3. These supreme court clowns are APPOINTED for their political beliefs and are no more than pawns. The power they exert is insane.”

      The only insanity evident is the mistaken notion that SCOTUS justices can decide using personal political biases or appealing to international laws and protocols that have nothing to do with the Constitution. The liberal justices violate their oaths of office every time they do it. The Conservative justices rule properly based on Constitutionality and nothing else.

  • http://www.cindynel.co.za peter

    Is Verrilli really a lawyer? Are’nt they usually bright folks? Sorry, but if he expects the judiciary to read 2,700 pages of hogwash he cannot be too bright. Why does he not leave the medical insurance in the hands of those who know how to administer such unwieldy matters.I am sure that they are aware of how clients react to the taking out of medical insurance, how often those clients abuse the conditions of the contract and that is precisely why there are financial advisors available to protect both the iinterests of the insurer and the insured, something the Fed’s are grossly misqualified to do anyway. But then they do not actually want to ensure that everyone is healthy, they just want the money – again. Same old, same old, good for us but bad for you. Toe the line or else. Are we that stupid? Who said the Democrats were democratic by the way? They must be on life support if they think that.

    • Norm

      Under Obama care insurance companies do handle the entire process.
      And like medicare part D, it’s sure to be a total fiasco, overpriced, and geared to make the goverment poor, the insurance execs very rich, and the insured confused and taken advantage of.

      • momo

        That’s why insurance companies have super pacs, Norm.

    • eddie47d

      Whether you purchase a private insurance plan a Democrat plan or a Republican plan the costs will be absorbent. There is no way to get around that. Republicans have offered Healthcare plans over the years too and the price of health has skyrocketed. What is your plan Peter to keep costs down and to serve as many people as possible? We have known that private insurers are in it for the money and pay themselves handsomely so there are culprits in many corners.

      • Ship Rider

        Guess what? Supermarket chains are in it for the money! Dentists are in it for the money, Oil is in it for the money! Auto manufacturers are in it for the money! Life insurance is in it for the money! Department stores are in it for the money! Most Utility companies are in it for the money! House construction is in it for the money!, Your Landlord is in it for the money! SO WHAT! It is the incentive of profit that spawns creativity, ingenuity and advances that make our standard of living go up every generation! Let’s not demonize those in our culture that want to make a buck!

      • Meteorlady

        Eddie – go google Group Health Cooperative. It originate in Seattle and it’s a full cooperative and very successful. When the health care debates were going on the Republican presented this plan for the states. It was not wanted by the Democrats. Not enough money in it for the insurance companies or drug companies.

      • Meteorlady

        It’s Business Eddie – private business. They don’t operate and people don’t invest in them if they don’t make money. They can’t grow, can’t hire, can’t do much of anything without making money. So if you want to reduce health care costs, charge those that are over-weight, smoke, drink, take drugs, or don’t exercise, and other life shortening things, more money. If we are healthy then charge is less – give us a break and charge the very people that are driving up the health care costs more. That seems fair to me and maybe they would have incentive to loose weight, eat right, exercise, stop smoking, stop drinking and drugging…..

      • eddie47d

        Great comment Meteorlady and I agree that the government can’t be overly generous but they could also charge those who have your list of troubles more than a healthy person. Instead of dropping people like the private companies do.

      • absolutely amazed

        Meteorlady’s comments below make some sense – cooperatives, which are pooled risk businesses, are what insurance companies are, or what Medicare is. It is reasonable to increase the premiums for those whose health habits are irresponsible – smoking, drugs, sloth, obesity – and mind you, pushing 50% of the nation is one of these things, if not more – walk the aisles of WalMart to check the obesity piece. But if we had a single payor system, then no one would be “in it for the money” if you took the private insurance business out of it. So single payor takes the business aspects out (the insurance companies would cry loudly) and making sure everyone is insured, but those who practice high risk health habits would have the obligation to underwrite of their health care costs.

  • Howard_75

    What is it about “insurance” that the politicians and lawyers don’t get? “Insurance” is a risk management tool. If you require a company to over a person with a preexisting condition, then there is no risk to manage. You may as well require an auto insurance company to issue collision insurance at every intersection where automobiles are sure to collide and not limit the amount of coverage provided. How about a life insurance company being forced to issue a policy to a person after he/she has been given less than six months to live and for any amount desired?

    There are problems with the health insurance companies and reform may be needed, but requiring an individuals participation is not “reform.” A good place to start might be with standardizing coverage across the United States instead of leaving it to fifty State Insurance Commissioners to define what coverage is provided within there borders.

    • Joseph Murphy

      The health insurance pays your hospital bill. It is that hospital bill that is extremely too expensive. For example, a Tylenol tablet costs $10.00 in the hospital and at the drug store, you can buy a bottle for maybe $2.00. The insurance company has to set premiums high to cover those extremely high hospital bills.

    • absolutely amazed

      Which is more important, Howard 75 – your health or your automobile?

  • Brian

    It’s nothing but a control game. Insurance for everyone but under our rules. The insurance can’t be too good just enough so the people THINK their covered. How about opening up so every insurance company can sell in any state? Oh, we can’t do that, we’ll have very little control of our subjects lives.

    • http://butI'mtolei Smilee

      They can sell in any state if they want to and get a license from that state and conform to that states insurance regulations. This across state lines argument would be a federal law that would let any insurance company sell in any state and ignore all state regulations and be subject to almost none under these proposals. Your basing your position simply on conservative rhetoric that tells you little about how it rally works.

  • Charlie

    I’v got a fireplace could use this mass of trash called “Obamacare” to heat my home in the winter. Then “obamacare” would be worth something….heat for an american family during winter.

  • Jim K

    The bill is over 4 times longer than Joyce’s Ulysses and probably as difficult to understand. I don’t think the justices will live long enough to argue point by point or section by section on the specifics.

    Personally, before Obamacare I could not get long term disability and wonder of wonders, I cannot get it now. I guess I’ll have to work until I die or go on the dole. I rather work and be poor.

  • Charlie

    It is not the federal governments job to provide insurance. The main job is to protect the states within the union. The people in all levels of government work for us, “WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. Somehow these employeed by us have become confussed to the way our country is set up to run. All employeed by us in government at all levels should have to be: An american , have a test before hired to see if knowledge is there about our constitution, and thhen they should remmeber always they work for us under the laws of the constitution
    .If you distroy the foundation of any thing the whole thing shall fall.

  • WideRanger

    Surely you have enough people on staff that can do what you ask. They can send as many ‘comments’ to test the system as they like…and send them from their homes. Maybe utilizing them would be instructive and a ‘teachable’ moment for everyone involved?

  • http://yahoo bob peters

    look,all you people who want to buy
    obamas insurance,Have at it! Personally most of us dont want anything to do with his communist agenda! Leave the rest of us alone and do your socalist thing! Period!! thank you!

  • Patriot007

    Our well-intentioned Govt. created local mandates requiring Hospitals to service any indigent person arriving at any emergency room. Thus the game of making paying customers and those who purchased insurance cover the failure or refusal to pay for services fell upon the rest was started. This escalated into requiring insurance companies to pay higher fees for services that actually cost less, but helped balance the operating costs of the hospitals based on the paying and productive citizens. Soon this stupidity led to the indigent abusing ambulatory services for things like cut fingers with emergency room visits. This is why market models don’t apply to Medical economics because a Govt. mandated monopoly is created. Thus $20.00 for a 2 penny aspirin! Now the Socialist movement of Democrats and Liberal Republicans have inspired them to forge a system that codifies the same game while allowing exemptions for the indigent, Union workers and, any other Obama supporting specialty group. These Santa Claus like gifts to the “needy” is borne on the shoulders of the tax-payer. I don’t consider those dependent on Govt assistance nor getting unearned income credits tax-payers just because when they shop they are required to pay Govt. mandated taxes due when purchases are made. This whole scheme has gone from helping those with legitimate needs to draining the life blood of the productive citizens that work hard and sacrifice to make ends meet as well as demonizing successful entrepreneurs and businesses for not being enthusiastic about this farce. This law needs to be swiftly declared unconstitutional and its authors denounced as a result. Here’s a novel concept….Compassion for the working tax-payers and over taxed business owner!. I administered Govt. funded Social Services for 12 years before changing careers. Impoverished people need a way out of poverty, not a way to become more comfortable staying that way. The Elderly and handicapped are the ones who get the brunt of the highest healthcare costs. The problem doesn’t go away with the demise of this bill. We need wise leaders….Sigh! Get rid of the requirements to help indigent care from hospitals and create a lower overhead system utilizing local clinics, surgical centers, Licensed Nurse Practitioners, and other cost saving measures. Change the liability scheme and laws that creates large rewards to litigants. Create liability pools and funds that keep local communities and its Healthcare system solvent. In fact, make Healthcare a local responsibility, the feds don’t care about costs because they don’t have to produce anything that generates revenue, except for a vote by Santa Claus like politicians. You know, Santa gets the credit while parents get the bill so likewise, Congress spends and productive citizens get the burden of paying for it. Obviously there are no easy answers, but trying methods that should encourage market driven lower costs. Most people don’t want to be involved unless it affects their pocket book and those on the Govt. mandated giveaway side only needs to protest since they have nothing better to do than take on the job of full-time activist while the rest of us have to get up early and work late to pay bills. May God help America find its way. It’s a great country with great people. I just hope we can learn to hammer out a program that encourages reasonable costs and requires people to shoulder their own burdens.

    • Maxine Karr

      Thank you so much. I agree with everything you said – I wish we had more like you -
      Someone with good common sense.

    • absolutely amazed

      Some solid common sense, but this is a nation, people do move frequently, changing not only community, but state, etc. I thought we abandoned being a Confederation in 1789 when we framed the Constitution and set about being a nation. So called States’ Rights too often enfranchised slavery and similar abuses. To have different voting laws in Alabama than Oregon is patent nonsense, not common sense. If you want a voter ID card, make it the same throughout the nation, just like the Social Security card or Medicare cards we have and are obligated to have – but not a different requirement in the Southeast as compared to the Northwest. Either we are a nation, or else we are 300,000,000 individuals who each want their own way – having learned nothing since leaving the Olduvai Gorge in Africa some tens of thousands of years ago. Sanborn Florida seems to work that way, though. . . .

  • Wayright

    Do any of you remember Bill Clinton’s Health Care Plan?
    It was, “Better put some ice on that.”
    Things have gone downhill since then.

  • Mary

    As someone who has had 20+ yrs. in the healthcare field, I’ll try to be explain briefly WHY Obamacare is a joke…besides the fact that it IS unconstitutional. One of the critical reasons for expensive insurance premiums is the fact that physicians are sued for malpractice…a lot of times they are sued with frivolous lawsuits. As a result, the physicians carry malpractice insurance which is extremely expensive. OB/GYN’s can pay $150,000/yr. for insurance. As the premiums rise for doctors, the healthcare costs rise for individuals. Tort reform would have put some controls on the sue-happy people and lowered the malpractice rates…which, in turn, would lower YOUR rates. But guess what? Tort reform is the ONE critical thing that was intentionally omitted from Obamacare. Purchasing healthcare across state lines would also open competition which, in turn, would force insurance carriers to lower premiums…competition does that, you know. Once again though, this was not addressed in Obamacare. That’s why Obamacare is a JOKE. The end.

    • OB1

      Mary, you are absolutely correct. I have heard this for many years from many doctors and dentists. Tort reform would make a huge impact on healthcare costs and insurance premiums. The Trial Lawyers Association who heavily backed Obama are opposed to tort reform. (Gee, I wonder why?). Many members of congress are lawyers and members of what association? Trial Lawyers Association. Vote the lawyers of of both houses of congress then get a bill passed to limit frivolous lawsuits as well as cap the dollar amount of some ridicules lawsuit awards, much of which goes to guess who….the law firm representing the plaintiff!

      • http://butI'mtolei Smilee

        Mary & OB1

        The total cost of malpractice is a little less that 2% of total medical costs in this country. They did as you suggest and passed this law in Texas and it did not reduce the cost of medical care at all. Included in the doctors malpractice insurance is full payment of their lawyers fees so in addition to insurance they have no other costs. Insurance companies charge so much as doctors income is high and they know doctors have to buy it. In other words the insurance companies are ripping them off.

  • Terry Sternaman

    FOR THE PEOPLE – BY THE PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MANDATE :
    NO BILLS/ LAWS ,PASSED BY ANY LAW MAKER / CONGRESS OR STATES ,OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. SHALL BE MORE THAN ” SIX ” ( 6 ) PAGES LONG.
    THE CONSTITITION IS ” FOUR ” ( 4 ) PAGES . WHICH GOVERNS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. ( ” NO MORE HIDDEN PORK / NO MORE HIDDEN AGENDAS / NO MORE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PERIOD. BY ANY LAW MAKER OR OTHER PERSONS IN ANY GOVERNMENT ENITY .

  • William

    From what I am reading here, it appears that NONE of those people who are trying to get this Bill repealed, have actually read it. However, how many people EVER READ anything they SHOULD READ, to keep informed? It appears that the “repeal” group must have some prior knowledge about its contents, since it was modeled after the one the Republicans originally drew up. The only things I need to know about it, are that it will allow the poor to HAVE health insurance, AND it will allow people with pre-existing conditions to GET health insurance. STATES already have mandated the purchase of Health Care Insurance. If States can do it without having the Constitutionality of it challenged, then THE ENTIRE COUNTRY can, as well,. unless the states all want their own Health Care mandates thrown OUT. Someone should ”pull Scalia’s work card”. He doesn’t seem to know his job.

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      William, whether States can do that is up to the individual citizens of each State. That’s likely why you haven’t heard of the legal challenges that go on in States that try it. It never makes it to the federal level (e.g., Supreme Court) because it’s resolved at the State level. I’m sure that Justice Scalia understands the difference between State authority and federal authority that you don’t seem to understand. In other words, Scalia understands his job perfectly well; it’s you who don’t understand it. But that only makes sense, since Scalia is on the Supreme Court, and you’re not. *shrug*

      • http://butI'mtolei Smilee

        Any ruling by a state supreme court or any part of a state constitution can be appealed to the federal courts and then can be ruled on by the federal appeals court and US supreme court. Remember CA proposition 8 changing the CA Constitution was over turned by the federal appeals court. Federal Constitution overrides any state law unless the US Constitution prohibits it or is silent on it.

    • Dyana

      William, people with pre-existing conditions could ALWAYS get health insurance, just at higher rates! I should know, I am one of those. My insurance premiums for just major medical, with a $5,000 per year deductible has gone up THIRTY PERCENT since Obamacare passed. Who knows how much they will increase when (if) the bill is fully in effect in 2014. That is ME paying for health insurance for other people. Why should I have to do that????? I’m not rich, have always worked hard, been responsible for myself and family. Why don’t we ever talk about THAT? Don’t have kids if you can’t afford to feed, clothe, house, educate them! Liberals say, well, yeah, but they’re here and we can’t let them go without anything – and I am not unsympathetic to that. But when are we going to start talking about how to GO FORWARD from this – other than just creating more and more welfare recipients? The federal government is a runaway train and NONE of us is going to have food or health insurance pretty soon if something isn’t done.

      • http://butI'mtolei Smilee

        Dyana says:
        March 30, 2012 at 1:05 pm

        Obamacare costs so far has only increased government cost 1.5% so if your costs where raised as much as you say it has, it was the insurance company that did it not obamacare. Insurance companies will have to pay out at 80% to 85% of their premiums collected after it takes fully effect in 2014. They now pay out only 60% to 70% of their premiums collected . You really think this will increase premiums more when obamacare takes full effect. Premiums since 2000 have doubled and that does not take into account increases in deductibles, copays and less coverage and your complaining about obamacare increases. Rates should go up much less than in the past after it takes effect.

    • mdbonjr

      William, please, take some time to read, study and understand how government works. Ignorance is not justification and you sir a very ignorant on the matter. This is not intended to slander you but, it is intended to be constructive criticism. You can start with the Constitution and for immediate answers to your argument, learn what Federalism means.

    • Maxine Karr

      William, do you know anything about our constitution? Please read it.

    • Dennis48e

      “since it was modeled after the one the Republicans originally drew up.”

      No, it was modeled after one a RINO republican drew up.

  • mark

    Obama care is designed to be like a leach or a vampire on the american people. A redistribution of wealth just as he told us he was going to do when he was running for president. Yet people still voted for the hope and change and we are getting it. Are the week minded people happy yet?

  • DoctorBob

    This monstrosity of a healthcare bill is 2700 pages, ensuring that ONLY a very patient lawyer could POSSIBLY understand it. Meanwhile, the Declaration of Independence is ONE page. Now, which document is more meaningful and will stand the test of time? Stupid Dimwitcrats! You think you can foist off a 30 pound document on us and expect us to live with it? THINK AGAIN!!!

    • Joseph Murphy

      The justices could learn about the complete bill, by having their clerks the various sections and then explain each section to the judges. For expample, are you aware of how large computer programs are written? Each programmer is assigned to write one section of a large program. A senior programmer has the job of connecting it all together.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/GaryMallast Gary J. Mallast

    RE: “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic?”

    Hmm. Maybe Justice Scalia and the others should contemplate the precedent set regarding the unduly prolixic in the ancient case of Mylward v Weldon (Chancery Court of England, 1596, Corpus Juris Humourous in Brief, p. 55) and order a hole cut in the center of the law and have it hung around the neck of former Speaker Pelosi for her to wear whenever she goes on the floor of the House for the next few months.

    Remember, Speaker Pelosi told her fellow Congressmen and the public to pass it to find out what’s in it.

    The offending document in Mylward only amounted to “six score” (1200) pages after all..

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      Awesome, Gary!

  • karendenise324

    Where did these Supreme Court Judges come from ?????

  • Viet Nam Vet 67-68

    After the Georgia debacle in court about Obamination being Illegal I don’t trust one single court judge, cop, and especially Congress Obamination and the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court dosen’t throw out the entire Death Bill I know they have been gotten to. I also have afeeling that this next election is rigged because none of the Congress or Obamination has listened to what the people of this Country want. None of them are afraid of being thrown out of office, makes me wonder WHY?? Obamination has broken his promise to uphold our Constitution so many times I don’t think there is anyone who could count how many times he has done it. All of them should be an act of Tresason and he should have been removed after the first 50 let alone his 53 Czars all Radical Socialists/Communists. Did you notice after Obamination told the Russian give me time when I am reelected I will be better able to do what I want, Pravda just after that selected Obamination is the one they would like to see as President, a Russian Communist paper, can you say TREASON. Who in Congress has said a word about this Treason Demo-Commies or RepubliRATS not one. Can you say rigged election!!! Oil up your Guns we are going to need them.

  • jopa

    I don’t know how true it is but I have heard on several occasions that Clarence Thomas hasn’t spoken a word , made any comments or suggestions in the six years he has been on the bench.That is one big embarrassment to our judicial system and to think he can sit there for the rest of his life is sickening.He claims to have some sort of speech impediment and if so should have declined the nomination rather than sit there like a turd on a rock.

    • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

      wow, heard that he hadn’t spoken a word, have you — you must really have an “in” there in that Supreme Court. Sounds kind of like you have a racist problem to me. Oh dear, how embarrassing for you to display those tendencies for all to see.

      • absolutely amazed

        No racist problem – he just doesn’t understand why a doofus sits on the Supreme Court, and I agree. He should never have been nominated, he should recuse himself from any case which has any hint of a Tea Party influence, since he is married to a lead Tea Party executive. He should be impeached, if that is possible. He doesn’t talk, he probably doesn’t listen, and I doubt very much if he can think for himself.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        I’m “absolutely amazed” at what an ignorant unsubstaniated comment absolutely amazed just posted.
        1. Ginni Thomas is ot nor ever has been an executive for any Tea Party. She is the founder of Liberty Central which is not the Tea Party.
        2. Justice Clarence Thomas…the only reason you despise him is because he is a conservative black man and married to Ginni Thomas.

        It’s so easy to see where you liberals get your misinformation…you’re all so predictable.

      • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

        exactly Jeff- and the unbelievable racism they show toward any black conservative male is beyond any comprehension – why do they hate the black man so? I can not fathom – how many times have we seen this in recent years when a black man or woman of conservative leanings achieves. They attempt to take them down, trample them and accuse them of all sorts of oddities. What absolute racists the left is and are.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Libertytrain…dishonest and immoral. In the end they better seek forgiveness or have a good pair of asbestos shoes.

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      Even if it were true, it wouldn’t matter a whole lot. Someone can be mentally engaged without making lots of noise. He’s rendering opinions and doing his job.

      • jopa

        That is the problem, in that he is not rendering his opinions.He just sits there mute all day long.He hasn’t expressed an opinion and nobody knows where he stands or why on any issue for the six years he has been there.Never even heard of Ginni Thomas,whats so special about her?

    • Vigilant

      jopa and amazed are the epitome of ignorant leftists. Such statements about Justice Thomas are absolutely unfounded, straight out lies.

      Thomas has been active in every SCOTUS decision and his written opinions, like Scalia’s, are masterpieces of Constitutional scholarship. No “doofus” could have written a minority opinion in “Kelo vs. New London, CT” as brilliantly as he did. And yes, he wrote it himself.

      If you’re going to blather on about his qualifications and intelligence, you might first actually learn something about the Supreme Court, its function, and the Constitution itself. Since you both have failed to understand one thing about Clarence Thomas, his proficiency and his value to the Court, I would question YOUR qualifications and intelligence.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Vigilant…:) Excellant!

        jopa has made it a point to regularly post lies & slander. Whatever credibility he/she may have had in the past has been negated by intentional and outright lies and incredible ignorance to the facts.

      • Vigilant

        Thanks, Jeff, and add to that list denniso, Eric Bischoff, absolutely amazed and other Alinskyites.

      • http://butI'mtolei Smilee

        Thomas has been engaged, he just has chosen not to say anything at oral arguments in six years and rarely since he has been on the court. Not necessary really and some of the judges probably talk too much and often they rule later different than what they say in oral arguments and that is why rarely can anyone predict that what the final outcome will be with any accuracy.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/GaryMallast Gary J. Mallast

    Correction: “six score” is 120. O goofed. Oops!..

    • http://www.linkedin.com/in/GaryMallast Gary J. Mallast

      That should have been “I goofed.” Someone called on the phone just as I typed that.

  • Wayright

    Has anyone factored in the illegal immigrant problem into the health care equation? Free access granted to all of our social programs and emergency room visits are probably as much responsible for the mess we are in as anything else. How many decades do we have to complain about closing our borders before anything meaningful happens? I don’t live in a big city so I don’t get to see first hand what an impact this has, but I do have a few doctors as business clients that fill me in.

  • mdbonjr

    The severability clause was removed from this bill meaning, if any portion of the bill is stricken, the whole bill, by law, has to be stricken. The only way and/or reason the Justices would need to read the whole law is if they do not find anything unConstitutional in it.

  • grimm

    Would someone please show me anywhere in US history where your beloved Drones ever started a program was/is successful, at or under costs and no matter how bad a program was/is was never repealed. Oh and why are your belove Drones exempt from this obamanation health bill.

  • gadfly32

    There should be a congressional Rule that ALL bills must be read in their entirety twice before voting on them. 2. all bills should have a time limit, at which time they have to be repast or be removed, same reading rules will apply

    • Big Woody

      To have each bill read before it is voted on would be a waste of effort. If you watch c-span, you will notice that when most speaches are made, there are hardly any members present in the chamber. To have each bill read while there is a quarum in either house might have some impact but doubtful as the Senators and Representatives are seldom paying attention while they are in their respective chambers. Also can be seen on c-span.

  • http://none don larson

    Let’s all hope that the new Health Care Law is struck down. Then, maybe we can go back to BASE, and adopt a true Universial Health Care Plan. It’s simply called Medicare. Put everyone under it and save $400 Billion in the process. It’s not rocket science! The Structure is already in place, and, when people do their jobs, it works well. Do we need to concentrate on taking fraud out of the System – - you bet!

    It would be great to hear the Pigs at the top of the Health Insurance Companies that are making 30%, or more, on the Premiums of those they currently insure – - SQUEAL!

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      The key words being, “when people do their jobs.”

      Like that’s ever happened. This is the gubmint we’re talking about.

    • Maxine Karr

      You are wrong. The federal should get out of a lot of things and turn them back over to the states as it should be. Health care, the welfare system, and education are the ones that come to mind right now.. They can be handled much better at the local level.

      • cawun cents

        Apparently you went to the shortbus for a ride to school.
        You feel that the local politician is better equipped to steal your money more effectively than the national representative?
        Wow!
        Have you any idea what you are posting?
        Have you ever lived in a state where the legislative branch was an oligarchy and spent OP’s money like they owned it?What a disaster the progressives are waiting to happen.
        How much more damage will gubment supporting voters wreak on our nation?
        Until havoc has been established?
        I wont say that you are woefully incapable of understanding what you propose because you just wont get it.
        You are one of the unique individuals that thinks gubment works best when using funds for public works at the expense of every working citizen.
        Lets first start at the basic levels of government and figure out why the improvements that are being made dont necessarily add up to actual improvement.Then we can accurately assess whether local,county,state,and federal politcians,can make any clear and defining decisions about improving anything,to the detriment of their constituents.
        I understand that there has to be some level of governing activity.
        But the level of excessive laws,rules,and regulation,has left us indebted to foreign interests in a now symbiotic suicidal relation of titannic proportion.We are in bed with communism on every level,and even our capitalistic corporations have gone to these less than inviting places to do business to escape draconian measure here at home.
        We have far too many folks becoming lawyers and making laws which in effect do noting but force the average to be slaves to their own endentured form of financial accruity.
        How do you propse that even the softer levels of gubment which are neatly as draconian as the immense versions,will bail us out of this mess?
        The answer is….they wont.
        Government needs to butt out of commerce for awhile and let the people rebuild their Constitutional Republic for the betterment of the nation.
        Any soul searching person with a mind to question his/her own thinking will come to this conclusion.
        If gubment was the fix,we’d have been out of this mess decades ago.
        Wake up and smell the coffee.
        -CC.

    • Big Woody

      Very good point. But until we get the laywers our of the mix, we will never control health costs. We need tort reform to let the doctors do their jobs in an affordable way. Texas has passed some good laws and is showing a positive effect. Then again, if we get the laywers out of Congress, our government would work a lot better too.
      Are you aware that our flu shots come from off shore because of our liability laws? We require our children to have their shots but no company can produce them in this country.

      • cawun cents

        Are you aware that every one of those influenza shot shipments is overseen by several gubment agencies?Do you also realize that any one of those agencies could tamper with the immunization injections?
        If I wanted to introduce nano-technology to the youth of this nation for control purposes then how would I accomplish that goal?
        It might go something like tampering with foreign immunization injections,Hmmm?
        Just a contemplation for all those who think that everything is peachy keen in their world and that the gubment would never seek to control them thusly.
        By the way,I am not trying to start a conspiracy theory,or say that I believe that this kind of thing is literally happening.But the possiblity might be looked into if one was enterprising enough,or someone were thinking outside of the tiny viewing box that is your television/computer/cellular phone screen.
        Infecting yourself with time released who-knows-whats,to feel as if you are safe from disease,is probably not a good way to remain completely healthy.
        But what do I know?
        Apparently very little……
        -CC.

      • http://butI'mtolei Smilee

        Malpractice costs are a little less than 1.5% of overall total medical costs and the Texas laws have not lowered medical cost at all in fact premiums for insurance in Texas have gone up the same as everywhere else. Your only spouting conservative rhetoric with no basis in fact.

      • Vigilant

        Wake up smilee.

        http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/06/the_high_cost_of_medical_malpractice_97346.html

        “The next time you visit your doctor, scrutinize the bill carefully. What it won’t tell you is that about ten cents of every dollar paid for health care goes to the malpractice insurance doctors must have to protect themselves in case patients sue them.”

        “According to Towers Perrin, a global professional services firm, malpractice litigation costs $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975. But that’s less than half the story. To avoid being sued, doctors use excessive tests and other procedures to avoid lawsuits, and stay out of certain areas of medicine. The result is higher costs for medical care.”

  • RP

    Here is the best plan – NO health care insurance. Health insurance is a ponzi scheme! The insurance companies are making money by under paying the doctors and denying claims that kick back to the insured, making the insured responsible for payment of not only the health care premium, but the doctor and hospital bills. Cut out the middle man. Doctors and hospitals that do not accept insurance can charge less because they are not getting robbed by the insurance companies.

  • louie1

    The fact that Scalia feels easy about cracking jokes about this inane bill says it’s as laughable to him as it is to us. Saying “You must pass it to know what’s in it” tells me that Pelosi doesn’t give a hoot about the American people, only her priority of kissing up to Obama. As my dear old Dad would have described her – “She’s as useless as the hind tits on a boar hog!” I’ll bet Scalia would appreciate and agree with Dad’s description as it fits the Obamacare bill, too.

  • Ronaldo

    But Nancy Pelosi said that we should pass the Obama Health Care and then see whats in it. Isn’t that good enough for you Justice Scalia? Don’t you trust her wisdom, or lack thereof?

    • cawun cents

      Maybe she’s(Pelosi)one of those thoughtful people who check their stool for fiber?
      Evidently she must have more time on her hands than I do.
      It’s not like I have time to read 2700 page legislations either.
      But apparently after passing it(didnt she have to swallow it first?)her backside was satiated.
      It must be difficult to have all that fiber up inside you at once.
      But when you are full of fecal matter it helps to relieve yourself once in awhile,right?
      These folks just put it down on paper,and expect us to proofread it for them like a blind person might from the commode.
      A thirty pound block of fecal matter might require a whole ream of hundred dollar bills to wipe with…….but then again she and her ilk have been bilking us for our hard earned hundred dollar bills to wipe their posteriors with for quite some time.
      I say mke them use pennies.
      Cheers!
      -CC.

    • http://butI'mtolei Smilee

      She said we have to pass it before people will know what is in it. They passed it and people still do not know what is in it and will not understand it until they use it. This is true and she understood that, when she said that conservative rhetoric with all its lies where confusing people and sadly they are still lying about it. Fact is in recent polls, poll takers still get asked if they had passed it yet, this two years after.

  • dufas magnet

    The entire supreme judges are nothing more than over paid, self-important posers (see pic). Their just as much out of tune with the American public as any of the Pub candidates AND Obama himself.. What we’ve got here is a bunch of political whores with little to no brain matter dictating to the Nation that all them and their children should also be as dummified as they are there-by no one will be able to distinguish the difference.. Politics and the ho’boys (and girls) sucking off the g’mental welfare should be given pink slips and any and all pensions taken away (except for the one’s who actually spent two or more decades of their life just like us workers) but they should be allowed to receive S.S. and not a hedge fund that rewards four to six years of service (unless with their own money they invested). Fire these ba$tards, don’t allow them position for life as when each year passes they grow more jealous of passing judgments and instead just ride the big pay waves to their demise.

  • Paula

    This whole thing would go away quickly if no man, woman or child, regardless of who they are – our incompetent president and Congress included, were not EXEMPT from all laws written.

  • Jon

    I believe that everyone who wants to buy insurance should be able to, even if one of the options is government-sponsored. But to make that work, we also need to repeal the laws that require doctors and hospitals to care for people who choose not to be insured. Uninsured people who don’t have cash would not get emergency care (or nay other kind). They could be turned away to die. That is freedom. Unhappily, that could include their children, but that is also freedom of choice. If a person chooses to put his child at risk, he may be liable for endangerment or manslaughter– but the public is not responsible to fill the gap. If the child doesn’t grow up, it provides one less idiot for the rest of us to deal with.

  • Pat

    Anytime an individual signs his/her name to a legal document you need to know the content before signing on the dotted line. Ask these persons who originally signed it to give answers to 10 questions pertaining to content of document, if they cannot tell you the answers they have no clue what they signed….kick them out of the office/position they hold. The same goes for the President. Also, if there is hidden agenda not pertaining to healthcare….situation resolved, the bill is void. When it comes to these judges they need to divide the bill, read and understand it or get it explained in laymans terms by the writers. If it is not pertaining to healthcare or is uncontitutional then throw it out. It is about accountability for your actions verbal or written and the impact it may have on the American people. I still say whatever the care is in this bill it should be the same for the people trying to say this is the healthcare the American people will have in the future. What is good for the goose is good for the gander from the top being the President of our country down to the lowest position held by any politician.
    People who wrote this bill had hidden agenda and in order to hide it never to be disclosed until a time that is was too late to be recalled……only saying and probably correct.
    The way that Queen Pelosi as she thinks she is, stated that it had to be signed and we would find out what was in the bill after signing??? Who would be so lame to make a statement of this magnitude that impacts so many people?

  • Earl, QUEENS, NY

    Let’s hope and pray that the SCOTUS will strike down all 2700 pages of Obummercare. However, if it upholds it, there are things we can do. In 2010, we voted out many of the Democraps in Congress who forced this (what we know is an unconstitutional) raw deal upon us. This year we have a chance to defeat many more of these leftists in the House and Senate. ….. Now, perhaps the most important thing we can do in this 2012 primary season is to defeat the candidate who is least likely to keep his pledge to repeal Obummercare. For those of you in Rio Linda, I’m talking about the RINO Mitt-nitwit Obam-ney. If he still defends a disaster AKA Romneycare which is nearly is bad as Obummercare, do you really trust him?? GET REAL!! There’s only one valid reason to vote for Mitt Obam-ney, and that is if (sic) he’s the nominee to challenge BHO. Pathetic!! Even John McCain would’ve been a better POTUS!! Who wants a RINO like Mitt Obamney??!!

    Furthermore, let’s also remember that we’ll never get rid of Obummercare if the democraps are voted back into power. All GOP Senators and House members voted against Obummercare 2 years ago. But because they were in the minority, they did not have enough seats/votes to stop its passage. Thus were it not for the foolish errors of voters who believed in the tooth fairy (that democraps would do a better job), there’d be no need to repeal Obamacare because it never would’ve passed in the first place!!

  • PJL

    If no-one has read the bill, then how do we know there is a mandate? The entire discussion is absurd, and serves to distract from the truth – the Supreme Court has become a force of corruption that serves corporate greed. Scalia does not want a light shone on him or his fellow thugs.

  • former walmart person

    All of this theater and a giant destraction. Soon enough, everything will collapse and you will be murdering your neighbors for some cat and dog food.

    “Health care” will become as silly a word as “TV” would be in the 1600s.

  • Jerry Morris

    I’ve got a bad feeling that even if the justice throw Obamacare out, Obama will still carry on with it. Take a look at the Constitution. There is nothing in it that gives the Judicial Branch the power of “Judicial review” of law passed by congress. The Judiciary gave themselves that power with Marbury vs Hamilton in 1803

    http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

    • http://alicelogan@att.net Alice Logan

      Mr. Morris, you are wrong this was case brought to the Supreme Court of the United States
      and in Article III, the Judicial Department of the Constitution of the united States of America in Section 2. Extent of judicial power — “The judicial power shall extent to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constituion, the laws of the United States, and treaties made
      orwhich shall be made under their authority:. . . paragraph 3, In all cases affecting ….and those in which a a state shall be party, [11 states filed suit over Obamacare] shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. . . “

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.