Posted on 07/09/2012 9:22:27 PM PDT by Nachum
The House will hold five hours of debate on Tuesday and Wednesday on legislation that would completely repeal the 2010 healthcare law, which is being called up by Republicans in light of the Supreme Court's decision that the individual health insurance mandate is constitutional. The House Rules Committee approved a rule late Monday setting out the lengthy debate on a bill that is expected to pass with Republican support, but very little if any Democratic support. The Repeal of Obamacare Act, H.R. 6079, was formally introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Harry Reid will refuse to let it come up for a vote in the Senate.
To get to Obama, it would have to pass the Dem-controlled Senate. Harry will table it there.
” If people don’t want to pay the prices that the hospital charges then either go somewhere else or find a witch doctor.”
Brilliant, naps!
How stupid of me. I didn’t realize you could walk into a hospital with a broken rib and ask for the hospital’s price list to see what they charge for fixing a broken rib. And if you don’t like the price, you can drive to a hospital down the street and see what that hospital charges for a broken rib. That way you drive, compare and shop broken rib care at hospitals throughout the city.
You’re a genius. I never thought of price comparison shopping for a broken rib.
If those prices are unsatisfactory, you can go find a witch doctor to sprinkle toad hair and fix you up.
Brilliant! naps.
Sometimes, I wonder why I hang around here and listen to morons.
“Too true, this all just political theater. If they were serious they would impeach Roberts.”
And if so-called conservatives were serious about taking back this country, they’d get organized. The Founders organized Committees of Safety. Conservatives have organized nothing. But it’s always safe to pound on a keyboard and bitch.
“And if so-called conservatives were serious about taking back this country, they’d get organized....”
They’ve tried a few times but usually they either loose steam or get taken over by the establishment republicans. The tea-party is just the latest example, started out good then got taken over and now is pretty much worthless as a force for change. Problem is people or at least the majority don’t really want to go back to a limited government, they like what they’re getting and vote accordingly so all that is left for those that don’t like the program is to sit and bitch about it ;)
ThugCare is all he has.
That's the whole point of the vote! They want to use the issue for their Congressional races, and that's fine with me! Make the Democrats and RINOs who support the legislation DEFEND their votes to the American People.
Sorry. Wasn't ignoring you - I do have a life other than Free Republic...
There are several pages in the decision where Justice Roberts discusses the individual mandate and how the Congress does not have the power to regulate non-activity. Within those arguments are footnotes of Justice Ginsberg's dissent such as this little nugget: 4 JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “at the time the Constitution was framed, to ‘regulate’ meant, among other things, to require action.” Post, at 23 (citing Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F. 3d 1, 16 (CADC 2011); brackets and some internal quotation marks omitted). But to reach this conclusion, the case cited by JUSTICE GINSBURG relied on a dictionary in which “[t]o order; to command” was the fifth-alternative definition of “to direct,” which was itself the second-alternative definition of “to regulate.” See Seven-Sky, supra, at 16 (citing S. Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1773) (reprinted 1978)). It is unlikely that the Framers had such an obscure meaning in mind whenthey used the word “regulate.” Far more commonly, “[t]o regulate”meant “[t]o adjust by rule or method,” which presupposes something to adjust. 2 Johnson, supra, at 1619; see also Gibbons, 9 Wheat., at 196 (defining the commerce power as the power “to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed”).
And this: 6In an attempt to recast the individual mandate as a regulation of commercial activity, JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “[a]n individualwho opts not to purchase insurance from a private insurer can be seen as actively selecting another form of insurance: self-insurance.” Post, at 26. But “self-insurance” is, in this context, nothing more than a description of the failure to purchase insurance. Individuals are no more “activ[e] in the self-insurance market” when they fail to purchase insurance, ibid., than they are active in the “rest” market when doing nothing.
Justice Roberts clearly takes issue with her arguments. Ginsberg is desperate to justify the individual mandate and Roberts is not having it.
It may be semantics, but Roberts gets around his distaste for the individual mandate by referring to it as a tax, and it's clear in his writing that he believes Congress does not have the power to force activity.
Unfortunately, it makes no difference what he chooses to call it regarding it's effect on us. The way I read it, the Affordable Health Care Act was deemed Constitutional by calling the funding mechanism a tax, not by declaring the individual mandate Constitutional.
How fortunate for you. So even if "the way you read it" isn't "the way it's supposed to be read" then you're always going to be right, aren't you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.