this is the problem with conservatives, they HATE government--hate it. Every institution of our Federal Constitutional Republic is an abomination of what the "founders" invisioned according to the radical right except for the military. Why join the government if you despise it? Why run for office if all of the instutions of said government are abhorent to you? What would motivate you to improve or better the government if you think it's mere existence is anathema to your "freedom"? Why are any of the latest crop of I-hate-big- government-institutions-and-spending morons still be drawing their fat, tax-payer funded salaries?
FWIW, here's a letter, cosigned by 100 law professors, that explains why "there can be no serious doubt about the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision." http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/pdf/law_professors_ACA.pdf
It would have been more accurate to say, 26 Republican attorneys general joined the lawsuit instead of "26 states". In any case, all they are doing is trying to win some points with their own crowds, this lawsuit is not going anywhere.
Name one thing in my post that you compared to rush Limbaugh that he or any on the far right would disagree with other than giving up their gub'mint salary...thx in advance
The vote is scheduled to take place in the House around 5:30pm(ET) to repeal ObamaCare. Congressman Ron Paul told CNN that though the vote is largely symbolic, "it sends a strong message because [repeal] represents what people are saying." <object width="416" height="374" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2011/01/19/exp.am.intv.chetry.paul.china.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2011/01/19/exp.am.intv.chetry.paul.china.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object> Rep. Justin Amash’s Floor Statement on H.R. 2, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act The Founders were keenly aware of the threat a powerful and overbearing federal government poses to our liberty. With this concern in mind, they wrote a Constitution that created a federal government with limited powers. Later they proposed the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or the people powers not delegated to the federal government. The debate we’re having today goes beyond health care---although there’s no doubt health care coverage is an important and difficult issue. What we’re discussing today goes to the core of our Constitution’s design. It asks Members of Congress whether we take constitutional limits on our power seriously. We have all witnessed everyday Americans’ renewed interest in the Constitution. As they have asked tough questions about the constitutionality of this law, the law’s proponents have tried to dress up their answers in constitutional language. They say Congress’s power to tax upholds this law. But when this law originally was being considered, those same proponents were the first to claim the bill included no new taxes. They try to find support in Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. If forcing Americans to start commerce is the same as regulating existing commerce, it would have been news to the Founders. Finally, grasping at clauses, they claim Congress can do anything that is in the “general welfare” of the country. If this law is constitutional---if Congress has such broad power---our limited federal government will have become limitless---and all without changing our Constitution or the approval of the Americans whom it protects. It is not just for the courts, it is our duty as a Congress to pay attention to the Constitution and its limits on our power. I urge we repeal this unconstitutional law.
Obama Administration Warns That, Like, Probably Half of Everyone Might Lose Their Health Coverage Without ObamaCare, Maybe Here’s Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's latest defense of the administration's health care overhaul: If it were repealed, according to the headline from an HHS press release yesterday, “129 million Americans with a pre-existing condition could be denied coverage.” That’s roughly half of all Americans under 65 who might “be at risk of losing health insurance when they need it most, or be denied coverage altogether,” according to the release. Or maybe it’s a little less. OK, perhaps even a lot less. The release quickly qualifies the headline estimate to indicate that it may be that as few as 50 million Americans—just 19 percent of the non-elderly population, rather than half—under 65 have “some type of pre-existing condition,” which apparently means everything from cancer to high blood pressure. It’s all rather hard to pin down, you see. 50 million. 129 million. It’s somewhere in there. With precision estimates like these, you know they’ve got the goods. Fine. 50 million is still a big number. Should we seriously worry that almost 20 percent of Americans will lose their health coverage without the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Not really. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon points out, a 2001 study by none other than HHS noted that only 1 percent of Americans have ever been denied health coverage for any reason. And according to a just-published study in the health policy journal Health Affairs, “the fraction of nonelderly uninsured persons…who would be rated as actuarially uninsurable is generally estimated to be very small, less than 1 percent of the population.” Meanwhile, as Avik Roy says, if HHS was really determined to solve the problem of coverage denials due to pre-existing conditions, a far better first step would be to de-link health coverage from employment by equalizing the tax treatment of insurance bought by employers and individuals: Once people are buying insurance for themselves, rather than depending upon their employer, their insurance stays with them. If you lose your job or change jobs, your insurance will still be yours, just as your auto insurance and your life insurance stays with you regardless of where you work. And if you have insurance, like most Americans do, the issue about preexisting conditions is irrelevant: If you are sick, your insurance provides the coverage it is meant to provide. Meanwhile, we already have a real-world test of how many individuals are really looking to get coverage from an insurer that will give them a comprehensive market-rate policy despite pre-exisiting conditions. It’s not a perfect measure, but the PPACA created a network of high risk pools designed to serve those individuals between now and 2014, when health insurers selling individual policies through the individual market will be required to take all comers. Congressional Budget Office projections indicated that funding would run out early, and that about 375,000 people would enroll. It’s turned out to be underfunded; New Hampshire, for example, has already burned through the cash that was supposed to last until 2014. But the enrollment has turned out to be, well, a little less than expected. Instead of 375,000 enrollees, the program only has about 8,000—approximately 2 percent of projected enrollment. In response, HHS, in conjunction with state governments, is beefing up its marketing campaign in hopes of finding more enrollees. That’s a little odd, even for Washington, which normally waits for a constituency to build numbers and influence before giving them a handout. But it suggests how few people are actually in the market for that type of coverage. A relatively small percentage of individuals do have medical conditions that make them very expensive to treat, and thus very difficult to insure. But the coverage of half of all non-elderly Americans—or even 20 percent—won’t suddenly go away if the PPACA is repealed.
You are insinuating that conservatives are anarchists. Conservatives are not anti-gov. They certainly tend to be anti big gov, but republicans have proved to be just as supportive of big gov as liberals. You're spouting off a bunch of baseless garbage, just as Rush.
Really? So I need to google quotes for all of the well established conservative thinkers/politicians/pundits that want to: literally abolish the fed dismantle the Department of Education, EPA, IRS, SSA and Medicare and any regulatory body that may impact business or business concerns Shrink government to where it can be drowned in a bathtub, Thanks Grover! Or generally cut and cut and cut till government is stifled to the point of irrelevancy Opposition to ANY tax reform other than cutting taxes simultaneously expanding cuts for the wealthy while holding up legislation at the expense of the middle class tax cuts Do you need me to research this for you or can we agree this typifies, in a VERY large part, the modern conservative movement?
I'm not sure how it is that the actions of the House of Representatives represents the Will of the People but the actions of the Senate does not. We elected both.
I am shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU! That the president and CEO of a libertarian think tank would have such opinions on the new healthcare law.
