Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[Ryan Ruck]

Looks like "it" is spreading...

Vandals Strike Rep. Giffords' Office In Tucson, AZ

Mar 22, 2010

A federal investigation has been launched after vandals destroyed a glass door and a window at the Tucson Congressional offices of Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Giffords press secretary C.J. Karamargin in Tucson said Monday the front door of the office was shattered along with a side glass panel.

U.S. Capitol Police were notified of the destruction and are investigating along with Tucson police.

No rocks or bricks were found and authorities are looking into whether a pellet gun may have been used.

Giffords' district office in Sierra Vista was not vandalized and there were no claims of responsibility for the Tucson office vandalism.

The congresswoman joined Arizona's other House Democrats in voting for health care reform Sunday night.

Health Care Debate Turns Violent In Wichita, KS

3/22/2010

Rhetoric over the national health care debate appears to be getting violent here in Kansas and across the country. Bricks are flying through windows as a protest to the action in Washington.

"We've had our fair share of disgruntled phone calls," says Lyndsay Stauble who works at the Sedgwick County Democratic headquarters, "people angry about the issue of the day. But we've never had a violent act of vandalism. This is the first time."

Here in Wichita a brick bearing anti-health care and anti-Obama messages was thrown through a window at the Sedgwick County Democratic headquarters. The destruction came just before the House passed health care reform Friday night or early Saturday morning.

No one was at the building when the vandalism happened. "As long as i've got internet access and a telephone I can work," says Stauble, "So, i'm working.."

Police say a single brick with a couple of messages was thrown through the glass. Party leaders are back to work inside with minimal damage. Police are investigating but with less than $1,000 in damage, it's criminal damage to property.

No one has been caught but police are investigating.

"It was an enormous mess," explains Stauble. "There was glass everywhere, the window busted in. Signs messed up gouge in my desk. It was a very big mess. Took a long time to clean up."

Similar incidents were reported in several states. A Democratic congresswoman's office in Arizona and at least two Democratic offices in New York were hit with similar destruction and similar messages. It also appears there is a group asking people to throw bricks through windows.

If someone is caught here in the Wichita area, the crime would likely be a misdemeanor with fines up to a thousand dollars and up to six months in jail.

[American Patriot]

Colorado states last night they would also be filing a lawsuit to STOP this new law.

[American Patriot]

Obama to Sign Health Care Bill Today as GOP Challenges Constitutionality


Several States Are Challenging the Mandate Requiring Americans to Have Health Insurance

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthCare...ry?id=10176898

President Obama will sign the historic health care bill into law this morning, but Republicans are still fighting back with promises of lawsuits and heated rhetoric, including a shot from one GOP governor who blasted what he called Obama's "nanny nation approach" to government.

Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty discusses his party's fight over bill's legality.




Republicans across the country are specifically challenging the mandate in the health care bill that requires every individual to have health insurance, charging that it is unconstitutional.


The individual mandate is an "unprecedented overreach by the federal government forcing individual citizens to buy a good or a service for no other reason then they happen to be alive or a person," Republican governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty said today on "Good Morning America."


Pawlenty said he sent a letter to Minnesota's Democratic attorney general arguing against the constitutionality of the mandate.


"They've taken it to this big, federalized, bureaucratic, government-run, kind of nanny nation approach," Pawlenty said. "I don't think defending the Constitution and individual's rights under the Constitution, and the relationship between states and the federal government under the Constitution is a frivolous matter."


Twelve state attorneys general, all of whom are Republican, have already filed suits to block the health care bill on the grounds that its requirement that everyone have health insurance is unconstitutional. Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill.


Senior White House adviser David Axelrod dismissed the lawsuits, saying the Obama administration is very confident the health care bill "will withstand those legal challenges.

"First of all, every single major piece of legislation that's ever been passed in this country has engendered lawsuits. That's the nature of our system. We expected that," Axelrod said on "GMA." "We're not concerned about these lawsuits."


Watch live coverage of President Obama signing the health care bill at 11:15 a.m. ET on ABC News network or streamed live on ABCNews.com.

Under the health care bill, by 2014 most Americans would be required to have health insurance or pay a fine, with the exception of low-income Americans. Employers would also be required to provide coverage to their workers, or pay a fine of $2,000 per worker. Companies with fewer than 50 employees, however, are exempt from this rule.


Like many of his GOP counterparts, Pawlenty assailed the partisan nature of the health care bill. The legislation did not garner one single Republican "yes" vote in the House, which passed the bill Sunday night.



"There were 10 or 15 really good reforms that both sides could've agreed on," Pawlenty said. "They [Democrats] were more interested in achieving that ideological or political goal rather than working with Republicans to get something done."


Republicans are regrouping and gearing up to use the health care bill against their Democratic opponents in November's midterm elections. Ads bombarding Democrats who were going to vote "yes" for the health care bill filled the airwaves well before the bill was even passed.


The Obama administration, however, believes the passage of the health care bill will actually help Democrats in the midterm elections.


"I think the heavy political lift would've been is if this bill went down," Axelrod said. "The reality of this bill is so different than the caricature they've [Republicans and insurance companies] painted."


As the two parties prep for tight races across the country, Democrats are likely to spin the argument in a way that reflects those who voted against the bill are voting against insurance reforms that would benefit Americans, such as the removal of lifetime caps on coverage or denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.


"Ultimately this is not about the politics of November. It's about the security of Americans now and for future generations," Axelrod said. "But I also think the politics will work out much better because we did the right thing. ... Every Democrat who campaigns on this will be able to campaign proudly."


The president will sign the health care bill into law around 11:15 a.m. today, after which he will make remarks at the Department of Interior in what is likely to be a celebratory event. In the audience will be lawmakers who voted for the bill, and people whose stories the president has used in the long fight to get the bill passed.

[American Patriot]

Republicans target Democrats on healthcare reform

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L5QS20100323


Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON
Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:31am EDT






Opponents of the proposed U.S. health care bill are pictured during a rally outside the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, March 21, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vulnerable Democratic U.S. lawmakers who backed President Barack Obama's healthcare reform plan are being targeted with freshly cut Republican TV attack ads.


Barack Obama | Healthcare Reform


The spots hope to convince voters that the landmark healthcare measure, which narrowly won final congressional approval on Sunday, is a bad idea and that the lawmakers who supported it should be defeated in the November election.


"After all this wheeling and dealing, we still have a cost-raising, tax-increasing bill," an announcer says in one of a number of ads by the House Republican campaign committee set to begin airing this week. "Stop the madness."


Ken Spain, the committee's communications director, indicated that a few dozen Democrats in the House of Representatives, many facing tough re-election campaigns, may eventually be targeted.


He dared the Democratic Party to go ahead with plans to try to defend them and build support for the overhaul.


"The more Democrats talk about the healthcare bill, the worse it gets from them," Spain said.


With Obama expected to sign the measure into law on Tuesday, surveys show the public opposes it, by about 50 percent to 40 percent.


The legislation would expand the government health plan for the poor, impose new taxes on the rich and bar what are seen as insurance industry abuses, such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.


Republicans have denounced the plan over the past year as a costly and misguided federal takeover.


Democrats reject that and contend public support will grow once people know more about the benefits and are trying to get that message across.


Democrats intend to highlight key elements of the healthcare bill that will take effect this year. These include providing tax credits to small businesses to purchase insurance for employees; increasing funding for community health centers and permitting young people up to age 26 to be on their parents' health insurance policies.
Health Care for America Now, a coalition of more than 1,000 liberal groups -- labor, civil rights, women organizations -- is standing up for Democrats who voted for the bill.


The coalition said it would begin airing TV spots on Tuesday, entitled, "On our side," to thank Democrats for preventing the well-financed insurance industry from killing the bill.


"These representatives were there for us, and we're letting them know that we will be there for them," said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.


Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling said he expects the healthcare bill to hurt Democrats in the November election.


"A lot of voters simply believe that the president and Congress should have been more focused the past year on the economy," Jensen said. "In order for Democrats to avoid a really bad election in November, the economy is going to have to turn around."
Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele e-mailed a fund-raising letter on Monday to rank-and-file members.


"Let's fire Nancy Pelosi," Steele wrote, noting that if Republicans pick up 40 seats in the 435-member House in the November election, they will take control and Pelosi will no longer be speaker.


(Editing by David Alexander and Chris Wilson)

[American Patriot]

Florida says several states to file healthcare lawsuit


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2215987420100322

Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:01am EDT






MIAMI, March 22 (Reuters) - Florida's attorney general will file a lawsuit with nine other state attorneys general opposing the healthcare legislation passed by Congress, a spokeswoman said on Monday.
Bonds
"The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference.


"On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens." (Reporting by Michael Connor, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

[American Patriot]

Liberty’s Activists vs. ObamaCare


A profound connection is taking place between ordinary citizens and their favored representatives, a feat the left cannot match by design.
March 23, 2010 - by Richard Pollock Page 1 of 2

As pivotal Washington weeks go, last week was one of the most dizzying: a full House vote on a wildly unpopular bill, backroom deals, a president pressuring disobedient members of his own party, a canceled trip to Asia. Twisted arms, votes won, and an intraparty brawl. The vote itself ended a week of developments that have challenged the country’s core.


But another sort of history was made this weekend as well. Few in Washington, D.C., have experienced the kind of electrifying atmosphere that lit up the nation’s capital in the final two days before House Democrats prevailed shortly before midnight on Sunday. Washington is typically lousy with professional lobbyists and special interest groups. Washington is not accustomed to the citizen activists who descended there on Saturday morning. The city is not used to seeing a visceral link between ordinary citizens and the minority of legislators fighting for them.


Thousands stood under Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Capitol “hideaway” office, chanting: “Kill the Bill!” Later, in haunting tones: “Naaancy. Naaancy.”



It was a transformative moment inside the Capitol building: Buttoned-up congressmen, aides, and pages looked on in awe at the insurrection. They pumped their fists in the air and tens of thousands roared their approval below.


The week did not start out auspiciously for health care opponents. They held a small tea party rally on the Capitol grounds on Tuesday, March 16. The Capitol Police denied them the right to build a stage or a sound system. They used a bullhorn; someone found a park bench. About a thousand people showed up.
“Welcome freedom fighters!”


Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) greeted the small crowd with the bullhorn. The crowd roared back. “Freedom fighters” was apt — these were peaceful insurgents, guerrillas. They did not control the levers of power or register with the mass media, but they somehow managed with their zeal to slow the dragon.


When Speaker Pelosi announced midweek that a vote would be held on the weekend, tea party organizers tried to reply by putting out a call for a rally on Saturday. First they scheduled it to take place in a small park off the Capitol grounds itself. But as word filtered in of buses, cars, and planes coming, the organizers moved it to the west side of the Capitol building. Only fifteen months earlier this is where Barack Obama had been sworn in as president of the United States. It’s a large space. A small group would look lost.


Very early on Saturday, as I parked in Union Station — a little more than a mile from the Capitol building — I was forced to drive to the top level of a parking garage. All the other levels had already been filled. People were writing personal signs on the hoods of their cars or on the stone pavement at Union Station. Vans pulled up. American flags and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags were unfolded. It was a beehive of activity, yet it was as quiet as could be.


No one told them what to write. No one organized them. Alexis de Tocqueville knew of these citizens.


As I walked with my cameraman towards the Capitol building, we could see people silently making their way toward the west side. It was two hours before the rally. We walked pass the Russell Senate Office Building and turned right onto Constitution Avenue. There were already at least 10,000 people at the foot of the Capitol.


For over two hours, the crowd grew. Having participated in anti-war demonstrations, I can tell you that this protest was reasonable. There were perhaps 25,000 people, but it had not been organized by union bosses or Soros-funded groups. These were individuals who drove overnight from the Carolinas and who left in the early morning hours from New York and Delaware. A group of 100 boarded a commercial plane from San Diego.


Over the entire weekend, tens of thousands of citizens remained, circling the Capitol building. About 2,500 went to the Rayburn House Office Building, named after the power broker Sam Rayburn who was known as “Mr. Democrat.”


About 1,500 filled the steps of the Cannon House Office Building and Capitol Plaza, adjacent to the Capitol building itself.


Everywhere you could hear the chanting: “Kill the bill!” The streets were filled; it was impossible to pass. Many of the original 25,000 went to see their congressional representatives on Saturday; others encamped throughout the grounds.


At 5:00 p.m. the demonstrators ringed the Capitol building, about five deep. Flags were everywhere. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) held an impromptu town hall meeting on the steps of the Capitol.


That evening, on two large windows, several congressional staffers printed signs on 8×10 sheets of paper before taping them to windows on the east side, facing the crowd:


“V-O-T-E N-O!”


“S-C-R-A-P T-H-E B-I-L-L!”


As the letters appeared, the throngs went wild: “Kill the bill! Kill the bill!” Inside, congressional staffers pumped their fists in the air, whooped, and yelled. Flags waved. There was pandemonium.


These were staid Republicans and conservatives? No, no they weren’t.

Early Sunday morning about a hundred returned. They soon swelled to several thousand. They were now on the south side of the Capitol building, adjacent to a pathway that is the usual route most members of Congress walk to vote in the House chamber. An underground tunnel runs from the House offices — most of the Democrats chose that route.

“Kill the bill!” wafted into the Capitol building itself. It was faint, but always in the background.

Around mid-afternoon, a group of congressmen stepped out onto the balcony facing the south side. They unfurled a handwritten sign:

“K-I-L-L T-H-E B-I-L-L”

Now the crowd went into an absolute frenzy. Again, congressmen pumped their fists. It was an electrifying moment, seeing the connection between elected representatives and the public.

Emotionally, it seemed as if it was uplifting to both groups of participants. The congressional representatives have worked in isolation, reviewing parliamentary rules, reading 2,700 pages of legislative language, and holding caucuses. It was an insider’s chess match, and they had little connection to the real world of angry Americans.

Those on the lawn knew little of parliamentary procedure. They only felt left out — secret deals were being cut, and no one was listening to them.

Around 4 p.m., about a half-dozen members of Congress came to the walkway above the lawn. Leading the group was Rep. Michelle Bachmann. A bullhorn was passed up to her. “You are my heroes,” she told the crowd. They roared back. Other congressmen and women spoke to the crowd. A visceral connection had been made; energy had been swapped.

The left, which sought to organize “ordinary citizens” using such teachers as Saul Alinsky, has rarely captured the imagination of a plurality of the public. All demonstrations were tough to organize, and people did not instinctively respond to their entreaties. That’s why community organizing was so tough. Over the years, leftist activist organizations found themselves with many bureaucratic entities, such as unions and women’s groups. They could mobilize activists, but not regular citizens.

The type of “activist” that has emerged on the tea party side is what the left has never been able to tap: ordinary people.

Typical of those who came to D.C. was a guy with the improbable name of James Bond. “I’ve never been a protester,” he told me near the Capitol building. He is from Wilmington, North Carolina, and he had his daughter Taylor perched on his shoulders. “I’ve always stuck to myself. But I thought this was important enough that if I didn’t come and at least voice my opinion on it, that I would never get the chance again.”

Among the blizzard of signs, there was a single, lone sign I will always remember. It was held by a young girl, across the street from the Rayburn House Office Building on Independence Avenue. She looked to be about ten. The handwritten sign, which was almost as big as her, read: “Will You Give Me A Free Pony Too?”

I suspect that when Francis Scott Key first wrote that America was “the land of the free,” he might have had a different kind of “free” in mind.

Nevertheless, mandating the impossible — free, yet scarce, goods and services — was the order of the day.

Just last week the federal government held a party on behalf of its “National Broadband Plan,” an idea to provide free “universal” high speed broadband for all Americans.

And of course, no one will have to pay for it. Right?

<- Prev Page 2 of 2 View as Single Page

Richard Pollock is the Washington, D.C., editor for Pajamas Media and the Washington bureau chief of PJTV.

[American Patriot]

Colorado AG will join lawsuit to stop health-care plan
By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post
Posted: 03/23/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 03/23/2010 02:31:33 AM MDT

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said Monday that he was joining with attorneys general from at least 11 states who are mounting a legal challenge to the health care overhaul that Congress passed Sunday.


So far, all of the attorneys general challenging the bill — which President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law today — are Republicans.


But Suthers said the legal action isn't about politics, saying the new health care bill "has serious ramifications for states' rights and individual freedoms."


Suthers said the health care bill, by requiring all Americans to buy health insurance, violates the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says "powers not delegated to the United States by



the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

One of the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is the regulation of interstate commerce. However, Suthers said, this would be the first time Congress has tried to use the interstate commerce power to regulate citizens not engaging in a commercial activity.


"As desirable as it may be for all Americans to purchase health care insurance, the commerce clause, or any other provision of the Constitution, does not give Congress the authority to compel a citizen who would otherwise choose to be inactive in the marketplace to purchase a product or service that Congress deems beneficial," Suthers said.


Writing in The Washington Post on Sunday, Randy E. Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, said the court has "long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of 'economic' activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce.


"The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance."


Suthers joins attorneys general in Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Pennsylvania, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Florida and South Carolina in challenging the health care bill.

Separately, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has said he will file a lawsuit on behalf of his state challenging the bill.


In a statement, Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, criticized Suthers' action.


"Colorado and all states need national reform to ensure that people with pre-existing illnesses do not lose coverage or are denied coverage," the governor said. "We need national reform to help drive down costs, and we need national reform to stop annual double-digit insurance premium increases that are devastating small businesses and families alike.


"I am confident the reforms poised to become law in Washington will complement and support Colorado's efforts, that they are within Congress' power to regulate commerce and that they are constitutionally sound."


Tim Hoover: 303-954-1626 or thoover@denverpost.com

[American Patriot]

GOP sick over health bill Launch multipronged attack on Dems’ federal health reform package Peter Marcus, DDN Staff Writer Tuesday, March 23, 2010

State Republicans have mounted an assault against the most dramatic federal health policy changes in four decades, using legislative tools, a lawsuit and a citizens’ initiative to “protect” the state from mandates and taxes associated with the historic reform.
Republican Attorney General John Suthers at an afternoon news conference yesterday announced plans to join with other states in a lawsuit to exempt Colorado from provisions in the sweeping health care overhaul. The lawsuit alleges that Congress does not have the authority to regulate interstate commerce that would force consumers to carry health insurance.
Republican state lawmakers are also planning legislation that would exempt the state from a now inevitable federal mandate requiring all citizens to buy insurance or pay a penalty. At an afternoon news conference before Suthers spoke, an army of Republican lawmakers stood side-by-side inside the cramped Capitol press conference room, promising to fight what they perceive to be an attempt by Democrats to “ram government mandated health care down the throats of the American people.”
“There’s nothing symbolic about individual rights,” said Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, defending the GOP’s push against the legislation. “You either fight for them or you don’t, and we intend to fight it in every way we can.”
“I can’t imagine that in the end, the Supreme Court in this country will allow the federal government that kind of hammer to use on its citizens,” Lundberg continued.
Meanwhile, Jon Caldara, president of the libertarian Independence Institute, is kicking into high gear over a ballot initiative he is pushing that would exempt Coloradans from the federal mandate that would require citizens and business owners to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The initiative would be on the 2010 ballot and has already received initial approval from the Secretary of State’s office, allowing Caldara to begin collecting signatures.
For Caldara, the issue is a personal one, noting that his 5-year-old son suffers from Down syndrome and has gone through open heart surgery. He says had his son been under a government-sponsored health care system, he would have never received the level of care that he has received up until this point.
“If my little man lived in almost any other country in the world, he would be dead right now,” said Caldara. “This is not some arcane bit of policy, this is not something about budget numbers here, this is not something about what’s good and what’s bad for pundits — this is about saving my son’s life, and I will be damned if I will let the atrocity that happened in D.C. yesterday threaten my son’s life.”
Suthers said he will join with at least 10 other state attorneys general to challenge the health care mandate.
“The United States Constitution enshrines a form of limited government to protect the rights of the states under a system of federalism and to protect the individual freedom of American citizens,” Suthers said in a statement. “The individual mandate to purchase insurance or suffer economic sanction violates constitutional principles and lacks constitutional authority.”
Liberal groups immediately bashed Suthers for announcing plans to join the lawsuit.
“Attorney General Suthers is once again using taxpayer resources to help launch a partisan attack against health care reform,” said Bobby Clark, executive director of ProgressNow Colorado. “Nearly every Coloradan will benefit in some way from this historic health care reform, and his actions show he is more concerned with electoral politics than the health and lives of Coloradans.”
Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said in a statement that he is “disappointed” by Suthers’ decision.
“The Attorney General doesn’t recognize what most Americans do: health care is broken in this country and needs to be reformed,” said Shaffer. “This legislation may not be perfect but it’s clearly a major step forward in covering 32 million Americans and saving the taxpayers nearly $1 trillion in the next 20 years.”
Gov. Bill Ritter also criticized Suthers for the decision to join the lawsuit, arguing that the state needs federal health reform.
“Our focus the past few years has been to control health care costs, improve quality and increase access to care and coverage,” he said in a statement. “We are making tremendous strides, but we can’t do it alone.”
The overhaul that is heading to President Obama this morning for his signature extends insurance coverage to 32 million Americans, expands the government health plan for the poor, imposes new taxes on the wealthy and bars insurance practices such as refusing to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.
The 10-year bill is estimated to cost $940 billion. Republicans believe the measure will cost more than that, and in Colorado cost the state as much as $100 million.
In addition to requiring most Americans to have health coverage, the legislation also provides subsidies to help lower-income workers pay for coverage and creates state-based exchanges where the uninsured can compare and shop for plans.
Many of the insurance reforms would kick in immediately, but some major components wouldn’t take effect until 2014.
As part of a compromise, Obama promised to issue an executive order affirming government restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion would not be changed by the health care bill.
The Senate yesterday began taking up a package of changes approved by the House. The Senate is taking up the issues under budget reconciliation rules requiring a simple majority to pass. But Republicans have vowed to fight the changes, arguing that they have enough sway to block its passage.
While public opinion over the health bill is widely mixed, supporters say the measure would help citizens receive necessary care.
“This is an incredible victory for Coloradans,” said Patricia Hill, a Colorado Springs resident who battles cancer. “I have battled both cancer and insurance companies for many years. When I was sick I was denied coverage for specific care multiple times. Finally, people will no longer have to fight the insurance company while they fight their illness like I did.”
— Reuters contributed to this story

[American Patriot]

12 states have filed (or will today) and a total of 36 states considering legal action:

Michigan, Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Nebraska... (Still working on the list)

Grounds for suing "Congress has limited powers based on the Constitution."

Check the 10th Amendment.... states can regulate car insurance, but the Feds can NOT mandate it. (another example used by the left FOR the health care thing).

Congress believes it can do this based on the Commerce Clause. Congress can legislate things that are going on, they can't regulate things that ARE NOT GOING ON (ie not purchasing health insurance).

[American Patriot]

The Foundry seeks to further conservative principles and policies through daily commentary on current news and events.

---

Intolerable Acts and Tea Parties

Posted March 22nd, 2010 at 1:00pm in First Principles, Health Care







http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/22/...d-tea-parties/

In 1774, in response to the first Tea Party, the British Parliament issued a series of acts designed to control thecolonists, stop their protests and restrict their liberty. The American colonists called them “The Intolerable Acts.”

What we have all just witnessed in the debate over health care reform, in substance and in process violates our first principles, takes away our independence and undermines the very rule of law. If left standing, this law places us evermore firmly on the course of becoming a heavily centralized European-style nation, stifled by government run health care and ruled more by bureaucrats than elected legislatures. This is not “progress” but the revival of a failed, undemocratic, and illiberal form of statism.


These acts are intolerable.


In 1763, with the British victory over France in the Seven Years’ War (which began in North America as the French and Indian War), Great Britain controlled—in addition to the thirteen American colonies— New France (Canada), Spanish Florida, and all the lands east of the Mississippi River. It also had massive debts, incurred in large part in the defense of that empire, and so the English Parliament looked for the first time to the American colonies as a source of revenue.


The American Revenue Act (sometimes called the Sugar Act) expanded various import and export duties and created additional courts and collection mechanisms to strictly enforce trade laws. Then parliament went a step further and passed the first direct tax levied on America, requiring all newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, and official documents—even decks of playing cards!—to have stamps (hence it was called the Stamp Act, which was passed 245 years ago today, March 22nd) to show payment of taxes.


The colonists—who by this point were very used to their independence and Britain’s benign oversight of their affairs—were none too pleased with the new imperial policies. Colonial merchants instinctively began a movement to boycott British goods, and a new group called the Sons of Liberty was formed to foment and organize opposition. Several legislatures called for united action, and nine colonies sent delegates to a Stamp Act Congress in New York in October 1765.


The American Revolution began as a tax revolt. But it is important to understand from the start that the debate was never really over the amount of taxation (the taxes were actually quite low) but the process by which the British government imposed and enforced these taxes. As loyal colonists, the Americans had long recognized parliament’s authority to legislate for the empire generally, as with colonial trade, but they had always maintained that the power to tax was a legislative power reserved to their own assemblies rather than a distant legislature in London. You’ll remember their slogan: no taxation without representation.


In making this argument, the colonials were objecting to being deprived of an important historic right: The English Bill of Rights of 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without legislative consent, and since the colonists had no representation in parliament they complained that the taxes violated their traditional rights.


The British ended up repealing the tax, but in the Declaratory Act of 1766 they flatly rejected the Americans’ general argument by asserting that parliament was absolutely sovereign and retained full power to make laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” To the British, “no taxation without representation” was indeed a well-established right, but it was understood to mean no taxation without the approval of the British Parliament. And, they argued, it never literally meant—not for the Americans and not even for the overwhelming majority of British citizens—representation in that body. The colonists, like all British subjects, enjoyed “virtual representation” of their interests by the aristocrats that voted in and controlled parliament.


To the Americans, this was as absurd as it was unacceptable. Their commonsense notion of consent required actual representation—elected representatives of the governed making laws. So the declaration of the Stamp Act Congress—the first statement of the united colonies—argues that because the colonists were “entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain,” no taxes could be imposed without colonial consent. And since as a practical matter they couldn’t participate in a parliament thousands of miles away, the Americans concluded that this authority could only be vested in their local legislatures.
In 1767, the British government passed a new series of revenue measures (called the Townshend Acts) which placed import duties (external taxes) on a number of essential goods including paper, glass, lead, and tea—and once again affirmed the power of British courts to issue undefined and open-ended search warrants (called “writs of assistance”) to enforce the law. Asserting that the sole right of taxation was with the colonial legislature, Virginia proposed a formal agreement among the colonies banning the importation of British goods—a practice that quickly spread to the other local legislatures and cut the colonial import of British goods in half. So parliament eventually repealed those duties, too, except—in order to maintain the principle that it could impose any taxes it wished—for the tax on tea.


It was at Boston in the spring of 1770 that, tensions running high, British soldiers fired on a large crowd of protesters, wounding eleven colonials and killing five. The Boston Massacre, as it was quickly called, marked the final downturn in the relationship between Britain and the American colonies. By late 1772, Samuel Adams and others were creating new Committees of Correspondence that would link together patriot groups in all thirteen colonies and eventually provide the framework for a new government. They would soon form Committees of Safety as well to oversee the local militias and the volunteers who had begun calling themselves Minutemen.
In December 1773, a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded ships of several British merchants and in protest of British colonial policies dumped overboard an estimated £10,000 worth of tea in Boston Harbor. “The die is cast,” reported John Adams. “The people have passed the river and cut away the bridge. Last night three cargoes of tea were emptied into the harbor. This is the grandest event which has ever yet happened since the controversy with Britain opened.”


The British government responded harshly by punishing Massachusetts— closing Boston Harbor, virtually dissolving the Massachusetts Charter, taking control of colonial courts and restricting town meetings, and allowing British troops to be quartered in any home or private building. Richard Henry Lee wrote that these laws were “a most wicked system for destroying the liberty of America.” The American colonists, outraged by these violations of their first principles, their basic rights and the rule of law itself, called them what they were: Intolerable Acts.


In response to these acts, the various Committees of Correspondence banded together and planned a congress of all the colonies to meet in Philadelphia in September 1774. This united resistance gave rise to the Declaration of Independence and, later, to the United States Constitution.


Is it possible that Americans are waking up to the modern state’s long train of abuses and usurpations?


There is something about a nation grounded on principles. Most of the time, American politics is about local issues and those policy questions that top the national agenda. But once in a while, politics is about voters stepping back and taking the longer view based on the fundamental principles of the regime.


The opportunity and the challenge for those that seek to conserve America’s liberating principles is to turn the healthy public sentiment of the moment, which stands against the Left’s agenda of the unlimited state, into a settled and enduring political opinion about the nature and purpose of American constitutional government.


Only with this sure foundation can we go forward as a nation, addressing the great policy questions before us and continuing to secure the blessings of liberty.

[vector7]

No Vaccinations = No Insurance = $1000 FINE

Blackmail insurance. It will be mandatory to have health insurance if you don't take out a policy then you will be fined up to $1000. Here is the catch, to obtain heath insurance you will need to prove your vaccinations are up to date !

Understanding Health Reform
The Governments proposed mandatory health insurance has been the headline of most news media and on most Americans minds these past months. But, there have been many reports, studies and surveys that show Americans will most likely not comply with the mandate of health insurance as reported by the Insurance Research Council.

Most Americans are concerned about how the government office will enforce such a mandate as regulation is only as good as enforcement. Also reported in the recent studies of the Insurance Research Council is that some people are simply irresponsible and look to others to buy their insurance.

With the government proposed order of making it mandatory for all Americans to have health insurance, many wonder about the affordability for the insurance. As the nations unemployment rate rises, more and more people will drop those expenses necessary to make ends meet.

However, under the proposed health reform, those Americans who refuse to purchase health insurance could face monetary penalties. The fines speculated in the health reform bill currently being reviewed by Congress could reach $1,000 for offenders. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that these fines to offenders caught without health insurance could raise billions in dollars over a ten-year period.

What Will Be Considered Mandatory

The Federal Governments proposed mandatory health insurance will mean mandatory vaccinations/immunizations. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) says that for anyone who refuses to keep up-to-date vaccinations, under the new health reform, you will not be able to obtain any health care you may need until immunizations are current.

It was also reported that the new health care reform bill was submitted with a provision that those doctors and hospitals who are not meaningful users of the new reform system will also be faced with fines and penalties. As well as the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be permitted to impose more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.

From the Bill:

111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3962

To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce
the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes.

[vector7]

Next on the agenda is "immigration reform" where they roll out national ID cards with the biological identifier.

Not exactly an implantable chip but an embedded chip on the card.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11424_3-20000798-90.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62H5NX20100319

The UK is getting ready to roll theirs out:



The UK is investing large sums to promote it, as well as Germany, India and Australia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then once cards are in place...

Coverage under Obamacare will require an implantable microchip

There's a pretty starling thing in the bill that 95% of Americans won't like.

Below is language directly from the bill just passed. Get ready for RFID microchips implants. The Obama Health care bill under Class II (Paragraph 1, Section B) specifically includes ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable (p 2,057)."

‘‘National Medical Device Registry
9 ‘‘(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the
11 ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and
12 outcomes data on each device that
13 ‘‘(A) is or has been used in or on a patient; and
14 ‘‘(B) is
15 ‘‘(i) a class III device; or
16 ‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable,
17 life-supporting, or life-sustaining.
18 ‘‘(2) In developing the registry, the Secretary shall,
19 in consultation with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
20 the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
21 Services, the head of the Office of the National Coordi22
nator for Health Information Technology, and the Sec23
retary of Veterans Affairs, determine the best methods
24 for—

Then below is the best part; the “other postmarket device surveillance activities of the Secretary authorized by this bill” (p 1,015)

•HR 4872 RH

1 ‘‘(A) including in the registry, in a manner consistent with subsection (f), appropriate information
3 to identify each device described in paragraph (1) by
4 type, model, and serial number or other unique idenifier;
6 ‘‘(B) validating methods for analyzing patient
7 safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and
8 for linking such data with the information included
9 in the registry as described in subparagraph (A), in10
cluding, to the extent feasible, use of—
11 ‘‘(i) data provided to the Secretary under
12 other provisions of this chapter; and
13 ‘‘(ii) information from public and private
14 sources identified under paragraph (3);
15 ‘‘(C) integrating the activities described in this
16 subsection with—
17 ‘‘(i) activities under paragraph (3) of sec18
tion 505(k) (relating to active postmarket risk
19 identification);
20 ‘‘(ii) activities under paragraph (4) of sec21
tion 505(k) (relating to advanced analysis of
22 drug safety data); and
23 ‘‘(iii) other postmarket device surveillance
24 activities of the Secretary authorized by this

What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? Lets see...

Approved by the FDA, a class II implantable device is a "implantable radio-frequency transponder system for patient identification and health information." The purpose of a class II device is to collect data in medical patients such as "claims data, patient survey data, standardized analytic files that allow for the pooling and analysis of data from disparate data environments, electronic health records, and any other data deemed appropriate by the Secretary."

This sort of device would be implanted in the majority of people who opt to become covered by the public health care option. With the reform of the private insurance companies, who charge outrageous rates, many people will switch their coverage to a more affordable insurance plan.

This means the number of people who choose the public option will increase. This also means the number of people chipped will be plentiful as well. The adults who choose to have a chip implanted are the lucky (yes, lucky) ones in this case. Children who are "born in the United States who at the time of birth is not otherwise covered under acceptable coverage" will be qualified and placed into the CHIP or Children's Health Insurance Program (what a convenient name). With a name like CHIP it would seem consistent to have the chip implanted into a child. Children conceived by parents who are already covered under the public option will more than likely be implanted with a chip by the consent of the parent. Eventually everyone will be implanted with a chip.

And with the price and coverage of the public option being so competitive with the private companies, the private company may not survive.

[vector7]

Barack Obama Finally Has Jobs Bill, 16,000 New IRS Workers Will Be Needed for Obamacare

President Obama to increase the role of the IRS into your personal lives thanks to Obamacare.

The IRS Cometh …

President Barack Obama stated in his State of the Union address that his second year in office would be all about jobs and trying to reduce the national 10% unemployment rate.

However, ever since the SOTU Obama has focused entirely upon his unpopular government run health care plan. WE THE PEOPLE have stated in every poll that the People are against it, yet Obama, Pelosi and Reid have ignored the will of the people and we face a vote today in the House on Obamacare.

WAIT, it looks like President Barack Hussein Obama finally is addressing jobs via the Obamcare plan. The One looks to add 16,500 IRS Agents to enforce Obama care. NICE. Think it’s not about government take over and control folks? What part about the IRS does not reek of government control? So much for HIPAA.

Who honestly believes having the IRS involves in your health care is a good thing? As the Capital One commercials state, which will soon be the IRS/Obamacare slogan … what’s in your wallet?

Today, Rep. Dave Camp and Ways and Means Republicans released a new report detailing how the Democrats’ health care bill vastly expands the responsibilities of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and strengthens the heavy hand of the IRS in dealing with taxpayers.

“If the Democrats’ health care bill becomes law, the IRS could have to hire more than 16,000 additional agents, auditors and other workers just to enforce all the new taxes and penalties,” said Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp (R-MI). “It is a dangerous expansion of the IRS’s power and reach into the lives of virtually every American.”

Highlights of report, which is entitled “The Wrong Prescription: Democrats’ Health Overhaul Dangerously Expands IRS Authority,” include:

• IRS agents verify if you have “acceptable” health care coverage;
• IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,250 or 2 percent of your income (whichever is greater) for failure to prove that you have purchased “minimum essential coverage;”
• IRS can confiscate your tax refund;
• IRS audits are likely to increase;
• IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care program this decade;
• IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans; and
Nearly half of all these new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than 300 percent of poverty ($66,150 for a family of four.)
The Republicans noted that despite all these new mandates on Americans, the Democrats prohibit the IRS from imposing these same taxes and penalties on illegal immigrants.

The full report from The House Ways and Means Committee can be found HERE.

So America, is this the “Hope and Change” you were after? The IRS will now monitor you monthly as to whether you have the type of insurance that is deemed OK by Obama. If not, the IRS will come down on you with all the kindness and user friendly manner that you have come accustomed to.

Taxpayers could be required to buy insurance under President Barack Obama’s reform proposal by 2014 or face penalties of roughly $325 per individual that the IRS would collect.

Assuming it becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform.

Republicans are concerned that such provisions in the Obamacare bill would be a dangerous expansion of the IRS. America, you mean you are OK with having the IRS in charge of whether you do or do not have health care? Because they are just so reasonable to deal with.Subcommittee on Oversight ranking member Charles Boustany (R-La.) said the IRS provision in the bill “dangerously expands, in an ominous way the tentacles of the IRS and it’s reach into every American family,” he said today during a press conference.

“This is a vast expanse of power,” he said.

Boustany said the bill would allow the IRS to confiscate refunds if there are penalties for not buying health care.
Lawmakers have questioned whether the IRS can handle the increased workload to oversee, administer and collect penalties for people who don’t buy health insurance.

“This is increasing tax liability and tax scrutiny,” said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.).

Ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said many Americans have already rejected the call for health care reform for other reasons and an expansion of the IRS should only add to call to “kill the bill.”

[vector7]

Tuesday March 23, 2010
President Signs Health Care Bill into Law, 12 States Immediately Sue

By Kathleen Gilbert

Updated 1:19 pm EST
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President Obama signed into law the hard-won Senate health care bill at a ceremony in the East Room Tuesday morning. Moments later, as promised, twelve state attorneys general had filed federal lawsuits challenging the bill's constitutionality.



The bill, which pro-life leaders call the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade and abortion leaders have praised as a "huge victory," passed in the House of Representatives Sunday night after Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) gave up resisting against the bill's abortion funding.

Stupak, the leader of a group of pro-life Democrats whose vote was crucial to pass the bill, agreed at the last minute to support the bill if President Obama agreed to issue an executive order upholding the Hyde amendment. Stupak ignored warnings from top pro-life organizations that the executive order would not suffice to fix the problems in the bill.

Twelve state attorneys general, from Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington, had vowed to immediately challenge the new health care law in court after it was passed.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Idaho Gov. C.L. Otter have already signed legislation declaring the Senate bill's provision to fine citizens who do not buy health insurance null and void.

“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,” said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a statement this week.

“We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce,” he added.

In addition, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures over 36 states are considering some form of legislative action that would shield citizens from various elements in President Obama’s health care reform legislation.

The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center also filed a federal lawsuit against the bill, on behalf of Michigan citizens who object to being forced to purchase health care coverage, and object to being forced to pay for abortions contrary to their religious beliefs. The group seeks to permanently enjoin enforcement of the new health care legislation.

Developing . . .

* As reported by Lifesitenews.com

[Aplomb]

I don't know how much if anything this has to do with things but I thought I'd make a note of it. There were 3 apparently unconnected elderly men in camoflague jackets and vests in the grocery store shopping for a few food items. One wore a cap mentioning being a vet. None of them appeared to be the homeless types one sees in camo around here, either. Just sayin'. With hardly anyone else in the store, it wasn't hard to miss this "coincidence". Funny thing is my son was with me and he was also in a camo jacket, just because it's in style for teens. So we might have looked linked to them, too. lol

Funnier still was one of those old guys looked really frail, like you could knock him down with a loud shout, but I am pretty darn sure that guy has bigger, um, than the 20ish year old guy who stood not too far away from us.

[vector7]

Jedi mind trick?

Opinions turn favorable on health care plan

Comments 2,317 | Recommend 55

By Susan Page, USA TODAY


President Obama reaches for a pen to sign the health care bill Tuesday. A poll finds increased support for the measure.

WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

LAWSUITS: 13 AGs sue over health bill
HEALTH BILL: How six groups will be affected
BUSINESS: Employers unclear on impact

To be sure, the nation remains divided about the massive legislation that narrowly passed the House late Sunday and was signed by Obama in an emotional East Room ceremony Tuesday morning. The Senate began debate Tuesday afternoon on a package of "fixes" demanded by the House.

The findings are encouraging for the White House and congressional Democrats, who get higher ratings than congressional Republicans for their work on the issue. The poll shows receptive terrain as the White House and advocacy groups launch efforts to sell the plan, including a trip by Obama to Iowa on Thursday.

No one gets overwhelmingly positive ratings on the issue, but Obama fares the best: 46% say his work has been excellent or good; 31% call it poor. Congressional Democrats get an even split: 32% call their efforts good or excellent; 33% poor.

The standing of congressional Republicans is more negative. While 26% rate their work on health care as good or excellent, a larger group, 34%, say it has been poor.

For more results and a look at the demographic breakdown of the poll findings, see Wednesday's USA TODAY.

[vector7]

White House Not Worried About States’ Constitutional Challenge to Health Care

Tuesday, March 23, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. acknowledges applause from fellow House Democrats after signing health reform legislation on Monday, March 22, 2010. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

(CNSNews.com) - At least a dozen states are prepared to sue over the individual mandate in the health care overhaul package passed by the House on Sunday.

The attorneys-general of Virginia, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington all have announced their intent to file legal challenges as soon as the president signs the $1 trillion package that changes the way insurance companies do business.

President Obama plans to sign the bill on Tuesday, flanked by Democrats and other health care allies.

The Obama administration is not concerned about the pending cases, said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. He said the administration’s defense will be based on the regulation of interstate commerce.

“A lot of big pieces of legislation are challenged in some ways,” Gibbs said Monday, adding that he believes some of the challenges will be on legal grounds “that I don’t think will be very successful.”

“Some of the states and some of the players are curious. But there is a pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this,” Gibbs said.

As of last week, the White House said it had not assembled a legal team to defend against the lawsuits. On Monday, however, Gibbs told reporters, “My advice from counsel is that we’ll win.”

The Virginia Legislature already has passed a law that would exempt state residents from the federal mandate.

“The health care reform bill, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia,” Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said. “Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government, but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia’s law should prevail.”

Cuccinelli believes the federal government will argue that its authority derives from its power to regulate interstate commerce.

“We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate,” Cuccinelli continued. “Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do. There has never been a point in our history where the federal government has been given the authority to require citizens to buy goods or services.”

Under the mandate in the bill approved by the House on Sunday, the federal government will require all legal U.S. residents to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. The law also requires all employers to provide health insurance to their employees

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said, “To protect all Texans’ constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation’s founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation.”

Last week, attorneys-general in South Carolina and Florida said they intended to sue over the individual mandate if the health care bill is signed. (See earlier story)

The Commerce Clause would give the federal government authority to impose the mandate, said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform.

“The Commerce Clause of the Constitution does say that people need to meet certain requirements,” DeParle said Monday in the White House press briefing room. “The requirement to have coverage is one of them. So, we’re not concerned about that.”

But two non-partisan government research offices said the constitutionality of the mandate is murky.

A July 24, 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service says, “Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.”

An August 1994 report by the Congressional Budget Office, issued when the Clinton administration was pursuing a health care overhaul, determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Brunning said the current health care legislation blatantly violates the Constitution.

“It tramples on individual liberty and dumps on the states the burden of an unfunded mandate that taxpayers cannot afford,” Brunning said. “If the president signs this constitutionally flawed legislation, we will join with other state attorneys-general to protect the liberty of our citizens and sovereignty of state governments.”

Even before it can be decided in the courts, Republicans in Congress hope to repeal the law.

“Today the work begins to repeal Obamacare and restore the principles of liberty that made America a great nation,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), announcing he will introduce repeal legislation.

“The American people must take their country back by methodically eliminating every vestige of creeping socialism, including socialized medicine. The Pelosi Democrats will pay a price for their overreach.

This fight is far from over.”

[vector7]

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Rush Limbaugh: Elections could end thanks to Obama

'The Constitution has been ripped to shreds, so why is anything safe?'

Posted: March 22, 2010
2:14 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Rush Limbaugh

Talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh today suggested the existence of U.S. elections is now threatened by a move he expects President Obama to pursue – a mass amnesty for illegal aliens – following the passage of his massive health-care reform plan.

"The next big push will be amnesty for ... millions of illegal immigrants who are here," he said on his radio program.
"Obama's gonna need their votes in 2012. The Democrats are going to need their votes in every election from now on – if we have elections, and I'm not joking.
"The Constitution has just been ripped to shreds, so why is anything safe?" he said.

Limbaugh told radio listeners Democrats "must be hounded out of office."

"Every single Democrat who voted for this needs to know, safe district or not, that they are going to be exposed and hassled and chased from office. We now have leftist radicals in charge of your health care decisions rather than doctors. I got up today and I said, "We're hanging by a thread," and there's a difficult balancing act on this program today: Dealing with the reality of what has happened, which can't be candy coated, with the need to fight on. The need to fight on and the urging to fight on must have some substance to it and not just be rhetoric and language and lingo. It has to have some substance behind it, because we really are facing the prospect that our country will never be the same after yesterday, if this stands. It will never be the same, and a majority of the American people understood it.

"They won because they held Congress and the presidency, and therein lies the lesson: We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out. We need to chase them out of town. But we need to do more than that. We need to elect conservatives. If there are Republican primaries, elect conservatives and then defeat the Democrats – every last one of them – and then we start the repeal process."

Limbaugh's comments followed House approval last night of the president's strategy for a government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The legislation includes a requirement that every citizen purchase government-specified health insurance or face financial
penalties.

Already, a long list of challenges are being prepared – from states whose officials say the government doesn't have the authority to issue such demands to activist organizations who say Washington's plan is unconstitutional on a number of levels.

WND reported over the weekend when Democrats in the U.S. House, who needed 216 votes to pass a Senate version of Obama's plans, tallied 219.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., boasted, "We're doing something that ranks with what we did with Social Security or Medicare. This is a day of which we can all be proud."

The approval came after Obama issued an executive order essentially banning the use of federal funds for abortions, even though analysts contend Sunday's decision effectually will be reversed when Obama signs the program into law Tuesday.
Obama's move was to secure the support of a handful of House Democrats who objected to government funding for abortion. Without their support, the proposal would have died.

Promoters of the bill have long touted the millions who will be added to health-care rolls and claimed that long-term, the trillion-dollar bill will eventually lead to deficit reduction.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Critics say that the bill's supporters have used accounting tricks to keep hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses out of the fine print. They cite several strikes against the reform attempt, from the cost of yet another taxpayer-funded entitlement to the general principle that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution – which sets limits on the federal government's powers – is there an authorization to force people to buy the health-insurance program a federal bureaucrat picks out.

Limbaugh said Obama is getting what he wanted – a complete makeover of the U.S. into a country with bureaucratic control over individual lives.

"He has come to divide. He has come to conquer. He hasn't failed. He has succeeded," Limbaugh said. "The Democrat Party has been co-opted and is being led by a far-leftist faction who admire and envy people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro."

Then he explained what be believes Obama's next move will be: padding voter rolls.

"The next thing that's going to happen is a major push for comprehensive immigration reform. It will be called amnesty," said Limbaugh. "None of this should have been a mystery to anybody.

"He will divide this country even further. We can't stop it. We deal with a president who doesn't care how many votes he loses in November," he said.

He also suggested Obama soon will slash the U.S. military, increasing the danger to Americans.

"He's not interested in your freedom, he's interested in taking it," he explained. "The only way that Obama will ever be able to come close to paying for this spending is to practically get rid of the U.S. military.

"He can't wait to slash that and use the money for domestic spending," Limbaugh said. "The days of the United States projecting its power in defense of people in bondage will likely come to an end.

"He will continue his crusade to forever alter this country," he said. "Rome is burning, and instead of putting out the fire, we have too many people looking for a bag of marshmallows."

Republicans in Congress voted in a bloc to oppose the measure that many argue grants the federal government far too much power at far too much of a cost. They blasted the bill during the debate as the "mother of all unfunded mandates."

"The American people know you can't reduce health-care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars.

The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich. "And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."

Tens of thousands of people descended on Washington on Saturday, lining up in circles around the Capitol, in protest of Obama's trillion-dollar plan.

Actor Jon Voight joined the protests and was blunt in his assessment of the plan and of Obama.

"It is a runaway train for him. And he has no way to put on the brakes. It is very clear that he will turn this country into a socialist America and his bullying and his arrogance can't stop," Voight said.

Several states and a multitude of rights organizations have also committed to challenging "Obamacare" in court on issues ranging from the basic unconstitutionality of a requirement to buy health insurance to the secret meetings Obama has held with his supporters such as Planned Parenthood.

WND's monthly magazine Whistleblower spells out strategies Democrats could use to manipulate elections, including universal voter registration, illegal immigrant registration, amnesty, convicted felons voting and planting operatives in America's statehouses.

[vector7]

Health-Care Overhaul Changes to Start Taking Effect This Year

Starting today indoor tanning salons will charge customers a 10 percent tax

Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Shannon Pettypiece and Alex Nussbaum



March 23 (Bloomberg) -- Indoor tanning salons will charge customers a 10 percent tax beginning today in just one of the changes Americans will see as a result of the U.S. health-care overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama.

Insurers will be required by September to begin providing health coverage to kids with pre-existing illnesses and allow parents to keep children younger than 26 on their plans as the clock has begun ticking on many of the law’s provisions.

Medicare recipients will receive a $250 rebate for prescription drugs when they reach a coverage gap called the donut hole if the Senate passes and the president signs companion legislation approved March 21 by the U.S. House.

The $940 billion overhaul subsidizes coverage for uninsured Americans, financed by Medicare cuts to hospitals and fees or taxes on insurers, drugmakers, medical-device companies and Americans earning more than $200,000 a year. Many of the changes in the bill of more than 2,400 pages, such as requiring most people to have health insurance and employers to provide coverage, will take at least two years to go into effect.

“Most of the major public policy changed embodied in the health care reform legislation will become effective only after the next presidential election in 2012,” said Maury Harris, an economist with UBS AG, said in a research report.

High-Risk Pools

Within 90 days, the law will provide immediate access to high-risk insurance plans for people who can’t get insurance because of a pre-existing medical problem, Harris said. These high-risk pools will be funded by $5 billion in federal grants.

Companies led by Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest health insurer, will be banned within six months from dropping a person’s coverage because of severe illness and from limiting lifetime or annual benefits.

Participants in Medicare, the U.S. government’s health coverage for those 65 and older, are expected get a $250 rebate toward prescription drugs once their benefits run out -- a coverage gap know as the “doughnut hole.” The benefit is part of the package of amendments to the legislation now pending in the Senate.

Drugmakers led by New York-based Pfizer Inc. will have to offer discounted drugs to Medicare recipients next year, according to an analysis of the legislation by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Menlo Park, California.

In 2013, individuals whose annual income is more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000 will see an increase in Medicare payroll taxes. Those taxes will also be expanded to cover dividend, interest and other unearned income.

Employer Coverage

In 2014, employers with more than 50 employees will be required to provide health coverage and most people will be required to have health insurance, Harris said in his report.

A tax on high-cost “Cadillac” policies won’t go into effect until 2018. The insurance industry also faces about $60 billion in additional fees under the health bill through 2018, and more beyond, though it was able to postpone the levy until 2014.

By 2019, the bill is expected to have expanded health insurance coverage to 32 million people, according to UBS’s Harris.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department will have two years to set penalties on hospitals with high readmission rates and longer to test new payment systems for Franklin, Tennessee- based Community Health Systems Inc., the largest U.S. chain, and its rivals.

Financial Disclosure

Insurers also will have to reveal how much of members’ premiums they spend on medical care, as opposed to executive salaries or other administrative costs. Next year, they’ll owe a rebate to customers if the insurers spend less than 80 percent on benefits for people in individual or small-group plans.

Starting in 2014, states have their say. The legislation leaves it to them to set up and run the online marketplaces, known as exchanges, where customers will comparison-shop for coverage.

Among other powers, the exchanges will be able to banish plans for premium increases deemed to be unjustified.

The legislation also creates an Independent Payment Advisory Board to suggest cuts in spending by Medicare, the government health program for the elderly and disabled, that could threaten payments for drug and device-makers.

Starting in 2014, the panel’s recommendations would take effect unless federal lawmakers substitute their own reductions.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Nussbaum in New York anussbaum1@bloomberg.net; Shannon Pettypiece in New York spettypiece@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 23, 2010 16:07 EDT

[vector7]

Graham Pushes National I.D. Card

by Roger Hedgecock
03/12/2010



Senator Lindsey Graham, ever the faithful follower of uber-RINO John McCain, scored three RINO initiatives in just one week.

Reminiscent of the "the band's getting back together" scenes from the movie "Blues Brothers", Graham and McCain reached back to the good old days of bipartisan shafting of conservative judicial nominees and offered the Democrats another "Gang of Fourteen"--this time to shaft the public with a bipartisan Obamacare bill.

The offer must have been tempting to the Democrats who remember how "bipartisan leadership" from Graham and McCain spiked conservative guns when the Republicans were in the majority in the Senate. But this time around, the action on Obamacare is in the House. Senate Dems said no -- maybe next time.

Graham tried again.

With the House version of the "cap and trade" global warming tax frozen stiff in the Senate, Graham urged the GOP to stop demonizing climate change.

He told The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that calling climate change into question puts "at risk the party's future with younger people". Graham explained "I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It's a value." Graham called for bipartisan leadership to enact the climate change legislation.

Progressive bloggers seized on these remarks to try to unfreeze "cap and trade" in the Senate--or build support for Obama's alternative plan to have the EPA dictate a "cap and trade" regulation and tax scheme without Senate approval.

Meanwhile, Dem Senator Jay Rockefeller and other Democrats sought to block the EPA move to regulate carbon dioxide as a health hazard (on behalf of the 44% of American electricity generated in coal fired power plants.) Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer also asked Obama to stop stimulus grants for "green power" projects after learning that a wind farm in Texas was owned by a foreign firm and the stimulus money would stimulate jobs in China and Japan where the turbines were made.

So, no new "Gang of Fourteen" on "cap and trade." Graham tried again.

President Obama promised Latino activists a new illegal alien amnesty bill--last year. Mired in the health care "reform" debacle, neither the President nor his party wanted another partisan stand off. Senator Chuck Schumer had promised an immigration "reform" bill by last Thanksgiving but had produced nothing.

Lindsey Graham to the rescue.

Graham and Schumer have been meeting on a "new" bipartisan immigration bill. The President beamed his approval, and the new Gang of Two had a press conference to announce the breakthrough.

The "new" immigration bill includes a "path to citizenship" for illegals, border security, and biometric I.D. cards for every American to insure that only those here legally can get jobs.

Meet the new bill--same as the old bill. Since 1986, Americans have been promised some variation of the three legged stool--amnesty, border protection, employer sanctions. Every time a bill passes, the illegals get the amnesty, the border remains open, and millions more illegally enter the country.

In 2007, the McCain/Kennedy bipartisan Immigration "Reform" bill was supported by the leadership of both parties in Congress and by the President. It contained the same three components. It was defeated because the public "won't be fooled again."

The public was right to be skeptical. Following that bill's defeat, both Bush and Obama failed to control the border (the Boeing "virtual border" is an expensive flop) or verify employment eligibility (e-verify is said to have a 54% failure rate).

Graham says this time will be different. The "path to citizenship" will have to be earned by registering, paying a fine, paying any back taxes, and waiting in line.

Once again--we've had this debate. Many illegals do not want to become citizens. They just want to work and send home some money and go back home when they have enough. Many others are content with the current situation. As illegals, they can escape taxation, get welfare through their U.S. born kids, and still work here. Who needs "citizenship"?

Even worse, the "new" bill will still amnesty all illegals with a "temporary" visa while they are in line for citizenship. This visa removes any incentive to get in that line.

But there is something new and more dangerous in the Graham/Schumer bill.

To ensure that only people legally in the U.S. can work here, the bill will propose a biometric I.D. for EVERY AMERICAN before anybody can get a job.

Graham, apparently too desirous of playing a role in a in his own remake of "Inglorious Basterds", wants you to show him your Papers before you can work in your own country.

Opposition to this tyranny will come from all parts of our divided political spectrum. In a truly free country, the right to work cannot be granted (or withheld) by the government.

Graham wants to solve the problem of 11 million (or more) illegals working here by restricting the right to work of over 300 million who live in the "land of the free" legally. This is the TSA approach. We know who the terrorists are likely to be, but we will pat down and invade the privacy of all airline passengers to show how "fair" we are.

Worse, what does "biometric" mean ? Apparently, this I.D. debate is going on in many other countries as the technology allowing government to monitor our every move gets more feasible.

A biometric card allows government to include a lot of information about you on the card. How long before you must show the card to get health care ? Education ? Or to Vote ? Remember that the Social Security card morphed into an I.D. when proponents in the 1930s called such fears paranoid ?

Graham wants a SS card on steroids. He told the Wall Street Journal, "We've all got Social Security cards. They're just easily tampered with. Make them tamper proof. That's all I'm saying."

Practically speaking, there is no tamper proof card. The same technology that reassures Graham is available to others to tamper with the card and game the system.

This time, Graham's “bipartisanship” is a real threat to liberty.

Graham's RINO tactics will enable the President to turn illegal aliens into documented Democrats. And in the process, hand the Federal Government yet another way to monitor and control our lives.

The real solution is the same as it has always been. Congress must secure the border first, and enforce e-verify. Illegal immigration is a problem caused by Federal non-enforcement of existing law.

Liberal Lindsey Graham is -- like Rahm Emanuel -- trying to use a crisis to political advantage. But unlike the crises Emanuel peddles -- which are concocted -- the immigration crisis is real. And solving it need not be done by shredding the Constitution as Sen. Graham would do.

Why do the good people of South Carolina keep re-electing this guy? For that matter, what’s so wrong with Arizona that they keep inflicting John McCain on us?