Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts' Trojan Horse
self | 10/19/2013 | LS

Posted on 10/19/2013 9:01:26 AM PDT by LS

Few people are as unpopular on the right at Chief Justice John Roberts. He is viewed as having legitimized Obamacare. But did he?

My understanding of the "leiu" (the law, according to Inspector Clouseau) is that for a suit to have merit there must first be a harm. Keep that in mind.

Matt Sissel currently has a suit against Health and Human Services on appeal claiming that Obamacare, since it was ruled a "tax," in fact violates the Constitution's origination clause that all tax bills must originate in the House. According to Andrew Kostler at the Heritage Foundation, the concept has merit.

The difficulty, he argues, is that often courts don't want to get into the legislative one-upsmanship. However, Sissel's case will come up for review soon.

According to Kostler, the Origination Clause was breached. It was first introduced on in the House as a resolution called the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009." The House passed that measure, but the Senate used it as a vehicle for a health-care overhaul. The House bill in the Senate was "gutted almost entirely" and retitled the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," passed in 2009.

If the appeals court rules in Sissel's favor, he could obtain an injunction.

Personally, I think a real case will await the first imposition of a real tax penalty or fine in January which would generate a new, possibly stronger case. If that occurs, Roberts could very well have been admonishing conservatives to get on the stick when he said that it wasn't the Court's job to correct bad legislation and may have been winking and nodding a message: "you have the means right now to stop this once I deemed it a tax and no one objected."

It will be interesting to see where this path leads.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; FReeper Editorial; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: blackmail; house; johnroberts; obamacare; roberts; scotus; senate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

1 posted on 10/19/2013 9:01:26 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LS

Supreme Court, eh? What a sick joke.


2 posted on 10/19/2013 9:07:58 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

It’s not a penalty. It’s not even a tax. What the Dems will argue is that it’s really something new— a Tenalty or a Pax, and Roberts will OK that, too....


3 posted on 10/19/2013 9:10:03 AM PDT by freebilly (Creepy and the Ass Crackers....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

“..when he said that it wasn’t the Court’s job to correct bad legislation...”

:::::::::::::::

Well, it is the Court’s job to nullify bad legislation if it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It remains the opinion of MANY Constitutional scholars that Obamacare is indeed unconstitutional in its penalizing/taxing of Americans as it is written. So Roberts became an “enabler” for Obamacare and he will carry that scar for life. The details are much more complex, but that kind of sums it up.


4 posted on 10/19/2013 9:12:49 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

I am for any action that can slow or stop this. That said, I think Roberts acted out of fear or intimidation to create that ruling. Like most in Washington the Supremes live in the bubble and he either fell to public or private pressures that the court should avoid political decisions. In other words, he abandoned his personal beliefs and changed his vote for reasons outside the constitution. Did he leave open opportunity for other challenges? Possibly, but i don’t see his decision as any clever attempt to help constitutional conservatives. He had a chance to do that and specifically decided not to. Allowing Obamacare to exist in whole because it is a tax...a tax levied if one does not buy a product of the govenrment’s choosing...is a horrible precident to set. An historically bad decision on his behalf.


5 posted on 10/19/2013 9:13:21 AM PDT by ilgipper (Obama is proving that very bad ideas can be wrapped up in pretty words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

If what Roberts tried to do was some screwy tactic he such crapped in our mess kit.


6 posted on 10/19/2013 9:14:25 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

It doesn’t really matter. Roberts will write an argument not brought by either side to up hold this obamanation. We’re long past turning this around through the normal channels.


7 posted on 10/19/2013 9:15:30 AM PDT by Yogafist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LS

I’m off the opinion that if ACA rightfully is removed, it will not be because of Roberts, but in spite of Roberts.


8 posted on 10/19/2013 9:15:47 AM PDT by CriticalJ (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.. But then I repeat myself. MT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

FU Roberts.....The Father of “RobertsCare”.


9 posted on 10/19/2013 9:16:21 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Department Of Rationalization Department.


10 posted on 10/19/2013 9:17:32 AM PDT by Iron Munro (When a killer screams 'Allahu Akbar' you don't need to be mystified about a motive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

You mean a ‘supremely’ bad joke...

Those federal employees in black robes uphold the constitution against their appointing masters like the constitution against their appointing masters like a life long vegetarian eats meat. Rarely if ever and it always makes them sick.


11 posted on 10/19/2013 9:18:32 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LS

Last I saw, the 0bamacare exchanges are online, if only in a crappy way consistent with how the government generally does business.

The damn thing is being funded.

The taxes it imposes are still being collected.

Insurance companies are dropping policies.

Full time jobs are being converted to part time jobs.

The quality of health care is falling because health care providers are cutting staff.

The law is still on the books.

I fail to see any favors the Chief Justice did for us in allowing this patently unconstitutional power grab to remain in force and effect.


12 posted on 10/19/2013 9:20:58 AM PDT by henkster (Communists never negotiate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
IIRC, the only Justice that signed on to Roberts' opinion making it a tax was Roberts. Even Breyer and Kagan, et al, couldn't bring themselves to concur with his opinion.

Accordingly, other than an "explanation" as to why Roberts changed direction in mid-strean, I wonder if the "individual mandate as tax" opinion has any legal standing, at all.

13 posted on 10/19/2013 9:21:56 AM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Excellent point.

In any case, it would take years to get Obamacare back up to the Supreme Court again, and then Roberts would think up some other reason for voting with the liberals.

The most probable explanation for what he did is that he was blackmailed. Perhaps, as several sources have suggested, because his adoption of his Irish children was questionably legal, and he risks losing them if he offends The One.


14 posted on 10/19/2013 9:25:43 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Bottom line is he still voted with them.....the rest is just noise.


15 posted on 10/19/2013 9:29:10 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LS
Good morning.

In the future there will be a conservative president with conservative majorities in Congress. When that happens a bill should be passed requiring everyone in the country to buy a firearm. Then sell all of the M16, M4s to the populace.

Same thing as 0bamacare.

The democRATs/progressives/Marxists/liberals heads would explode. Kinda like the movie Scanners.

5.56mm

16 posted on 10/19/2013 9:29:46 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yogafist

“It doesn’t really matter. Roberts will write an argument not brought by either side to up hold this obamanation. We’re long past turning this around through the normal channels.”

It really is amazing how often the Federal court does that to justify their appointing master’s power, and whatever other edits they happen to want to impose.

Some lawyers claim there is “reasoning” behind the convoluted madness they usually call “opinions”, but of course they say you have to have a law degree just to find it. A problem that is itself a bit reminisces of the times of the original Martin Luther in his Protestant Reformation against the corruption of the Catholic church.

The only difference is we can read the plain English(not Latin) Federal Constitution and we know what they say is totally bunk.

Its not written traitor John!

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html


17 posted on 10/19/2013 9:30:29 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: henkster; Cringing Negativism Network

Haha but fellow freeper (the village Marxist) Cringing Negativism Network has been posting all week how he is actually in favor of Obamacare. He thinks it’s great law and is necessary for the ‘greater good’ of our community.

What a turd huh?


18 posted on 10/19/2013 9:31:27 AM PDT by tatown ("So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LS

Roberts should be impeached for his decision. Impeach him and see where the cards fall. My guess is he’ll make a deal for himself by turning on some small frys.


19 posted on 10/19/2013 9:31:46 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
"Marxist" got capitalized again. "Clinton" does too. Darn autocorrect spell check.

5.56mm

20 posted on 10/19/2013 9:32:12 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LS

Whatever ‘they’ have on Roberts would make for some interesting reading.


21 posted on 10/19/2013 9:34:31 AM PDT by JPG (Yes We Can morphs into Make It Hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Can’t see anything coming from the origination argument:
“...“Having become an enrolled and duly authenticated act of Congress, it is not for the court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill.” Rainey v.
United States, 232 U.S. 310, 317 (1914); see also United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385,
410 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment).2”
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

It’s hilarious to hear them argue that it’s not a tax!

It’s a huge hidden tax: in increased premiums- which tax is both collected and disbursed by exchanges and insurance agencies, and, of course, the penalties.


22 posted on 10/19/2013 9:37:11 AM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
The Obamacare train wreck will soon be affecting even the low information voters. Dear Leader told them they could keep their current insurance plan and doctor, have the premiums for their Cadillac health plan cost less than $100 per month, get free birth control and have their toe nails trimmed at the Mayo Clinic for $1.98.

They are now losing their employer sponsored health plans if not having their jobs cut to part time or gone entirely. They are finding their choice of doctors or even hospitals is being limited. Their private insurance has skyrocketed in cost with ridiculous deductibles. They cannot get to the Obamacare webs site and if they do they get more sticker shock and have their private information compromised. If they say that the insurance is not worth the cost they get a little surprise from the IRS next year.

So few people are signing up that the financial failure of the Exchanges is almost assured without massive new government subsidies. A year from now Obamacare will be a heap on the ground and one would hope even the low information voters might finally have a clue. However the MSM media will, like their counter parts in North Korea, be trumpeting Obamacare's success, the triumph of the Dear Leader and blaming all of the failures on external forces like the GOP.

23 posted on 10/19/2013 9:44:02 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
Ah, the fiendishly clever John Roberts. So clever, he managed to fool Thomas, Scalia et al.

PS - pllttt!

24 posted on 10/19/2013 9:51:41 AM PDT by Ken H (First rule of gun safety - have a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Words ... Words ...Words ...Words ...Words ... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... My esteemed colleague .. BLAH BLAH BLAH ... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... Of COURSE I’ll yield time ... Words ...Words ...Words ...


25 posted on 10/19/2013 9:52:23 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof .... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

I’ve thought that was Roberts’ intent since the ruling came down. “You made a mess; I’m giving you a way to fix it if you are smart enough to figure it out.”


26 posted on 10/19/2013 9:53:08 AM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Robert’s rewrote the law from the bench with the most specious legal gymnastics conceivable to call the unconstitutional imposition of a penalty under the Commerce Clause a tax in the first place.

If a man can stretch that far, I don’t see him having any problems doing away with the Origination clause. The Constitution means nothing to him.

Robert’s got what does mean something to him: Flattering coverage in the Slimes and the Compost.


27 posted on 10/19/2013 9:53:42 AM PDT by mojito (Zero, our Nero.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
“You made a mess; I’m giving you a way to fix it if you are smart enough to figure it out.”

That's a reach.

28 posted on 10/19/2013 9:53:59 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Yes, with the pirate Roberts, who is wholly lacking in integrity, it is the subPreme Court now.


29 posted on 10/19/2013 10:01:54 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

“I’ve thought that was Roberts’ intent since the ruling came down. “You made a mess; I’m giving you a way to fix it if you are smart enough to figure it out.””

If that is the case then John would appear to be suffering form the delusion that politicians are an intelligence sort, able to maneuver in steep political battle with each-other.

But that of course is a harmless delusion compared to the original delusion regarding the nature of his job, the death-toll of which is already 40 million + counted in just one edit.

The truth is it doesn’t matter if Congress & the president “made a mess”, the point is they did not and can NEVER be allowed to have this power over the people and their states! That is the whole propose of the Federal Constitution. What they have done with that power messy, unwise, or imprudent is by no means your matter to judge.

But John Roberts has already proven himself to be an injustice just like the majority of his hand picked federal ‘colleges’.
I guess in retrospect we shouldn’t really expect anything else from theses Federal Employees, they are after all Hand picked by the very government they have hypocritically (and unconstitutionally I might note) claimed the exclusive right to sit in judgement of.

The mouth in this case has a 200+ year history of rarely biting the hand that feeds it.

Those who subscribe to their judgement on exclusive their own employees, not only disregard the oath, but the very concept of Federal Constitutional law.


30 posted on 10/19/2013 10:14:16 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

“I’ve thought that was Roberts’ intent since the ruling came down. “You made a mess; I’m giving you a way to fix it if you are smart enough to figure it out.””

If that is the case then John would appear to be suffering form the delusion that politicians are an intelligence sort, able to maneuver in steep political battle with each-other.

But that of course is a harmless delusion compared to the original delusion regarding the nature of his job, the death-toll of which is already 40 million + counted in just one edit.

The truth is it doesn’t matter if Congress & the president “made a mess”, the point is they did not and can NEVER be allowed to have this power over the people and their states! That is the whole propose of the Federal Constitution. What they have done with that power messy, unwise, or imprudent is by no means your matter to judge.

But John Roberts has already proven himself to be an injustice just like the majority of his hand picked federal ‘colleges’.
I guess in retrospect we shouldn’t really expect anything else from theses Federal Employees, they are after all Hand picked by the very government they have hypocritically (and unconstitutionally I might note) claimed the exclusive right to sit in judgement of.

The mouth in this case has a 200+ year history of rarely biting the hand that feeds it.

Those who subscribe to theses Employees ‘exclusive’ judgement over their own employers, not only disregard the oath, but the very concept of Federal Constitutional law which cannot be enforced by those who benefit from its disregard.


31 posted on 10/19/2013 10:19:16 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LS

There is also the equal protection angle. Obama has extended waivers to some Americans and not to others. The law does not apply equally. I don’t know why that hasn’t been brought up.


32 posted on 10/19/2013 10:22:41 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

Tilting at windmills..... trying to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear

John Roberts....traitor


33 posted on 10/19/2013 10:24:49 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
For whatever it's worth:
"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes." - Abraham Lincoln

34 posted on 10/19/2013 10:31:26 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

NOT one person is signed up in the Oregon Healthcare Exchange...and the state got millions from Obama for it....


35 posted on 10/19/2013 10:32:09 AM PDT by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LS

“The stench from the bench is making me clench.” - Michael Savage

He could have coined it specifically for the robed goon Roberts.


36 posted on 10/19/2013 10:41:38 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
There is also the equal protection angle. Obama has extended waivers to some Americans and not to others. The law does not apply equally. I don’t know why that hasn’t been brought up.

My take is that the Court could (but probably won't) find the law's uneven application a violation of the EP Clause. However, that would just change how the law should be applied. The Act itself would still be constitutional, at least in the eyes of Roberts' Court.

disclaimer - not a lawyer, never taken a law class.

37 posted on 10/19/2013 10:56:31 AM PDT by Ken H (First rule of gun safety - have a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: okie01

That is one of the points that I have never understood.

9 members on the Supreme Court.
Many of their ruling are split , but they all have required a majority
Roberts passed this thing with a majority of One.

WTF happened, and is it legal itself?


38 posted on 10/19/2013 11:03:24 AM PDT by Venturer (Keep Obama and you aint seen nothing yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LS

It’s 100% unConstitutional. Only in the DC bubble, do they think it matters. The joke is on them when no one signs up for this crap. Roberts should be swinging from the nearest lamppost.


39 posted on 10/19/2013 11:08:46 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
I’ve thought that was Roberts’ intent since the ruling came down. “You made a mess; I’m giving you a way to fix it if you are smart enough to figure it out.”

Who knows? Maybe they did blackmail him into supporting it but he planted a poison pill by calling it a tax.

40 posted on 10/19/2013 11:39:58 AM PDT by TangoLimaSierra (To win the country back, we need to be as mean as the Libs say we are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LS

If Roberts was trying to send a message or a clue why didn’t he just write it into his decision or just come out and say it? So what, in 5 years when the country can no longer function he’s going to come out and say, “hey if only you would have read between the lines or been a brilliant legal mind you could have stopped this”? B.S., he screwed us!


41 posted on 10/19/2013 11:41:42 AM PDT by snippy_about_it
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

I wonder if his rope-a-dope act was related to his photo being taken with a briefcase going into the Vatican Bank on Malta. I think this is what was shown on the internet. At least somewhere in the files of the net there is a photo.


42 posted on 10/19/2013 12:01:18 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
I’ve thought that was Roberts’ intent since the ruling came down. “You made a mess; I’m giving you a way to fix it if you are smart enough to figure it out.”

I'm with you on that, especially if the "tax" argument wasn't brought up in the Supreme Court hearings.

Question to those more familiar with what happened in those hearings ...

Was the taz aspect brought up in the hearings?

43 posted on 10/19/2013 12:07:21 PM PDT by OldNavyVet ("Learn from science that you must doubt the experts" ... Richard Feynman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: snippy_about_it
If Roberts was trying to send a message or a clue why didn’t he just write it into his decision or just come out and say it? So what, in 5 years when the country can no longer function he’s going to come out and say, “hey if only you would have read between the lines or been a brilliant legal mind you could have stopped this”? B.S., he screwed us!

Spot on. Wiser, uncorrupted minds simply voted to flush the obvious Obamaturd.

44 posted on 10/19/2013 12:11:25 PM PDT by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LS

Roberts could have ruled against Obama care based on the 10th Amendment but instead supposedly ruled against it and allowed it to be implemented while throwing out the 10th. What kind of logic is that?


45 posted on 10/19/2013 12:15:35 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

How old are those kids now? When does the threat become useless?

I remember the NY slimes came out with a piece about Robert’s kids a few months before the ruling. It must have been the shot across the bow, he horse’s head in his bed... “sell out the entire country or lose your kids”.

No profile in courage for him.


46 posted on 10/19/2013 12:31:39 PM PDT by Aria ( 2008 & 2012 weren't elections - they were coup d'etats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Roberts would just vote with the libs again. His legacy means more to him than the Constitution.


47 posted on 10/19/2013 12:31:51 PM PDT by Askwhy5times (http://bluegrasspundit.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Askwhy5times

I strongly believe Robert’s legacy is very dependent on his personal situation including money. The guy was conditioned to supporting the ‘new world order’.


48 posted on 10/19/2013 12:38:12 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LS
Follow the link embedded in this post that was sent to me for a 3-page Forbes review of pending Supreme Court cases that remain that challenge Obamacare.

Of note is the first case in this review that tests the Origination Clause. They are unclear as to whether the Court would consider this a "technicality" or would scuttle the whole thing over it.

On the one hand, the Senate took a bill that originated by Charlie Rangel in the House, but gutted it entirely and replaced it with Obamacare. On the other hand, if the Court doesn't uphold the spirit of the Origination Clause, they are effectively removing the power of the purse from the House forever more.

So the question is, is John Roberts up to the task of spliting that hair? Will he be seen as overturning Obama's "signature" transformational law on a technicality now, when he had the opportunity to stop it previously on much surer ground?

-PJ

49 posted on 10/19/2013 12:41:50 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly
The opt-out "tax" is extortion to free people who can afford to do so from Obamacare. They'll subsidize the federal program while developing a network of alternatives out of the system.

I wonder which system will have the best medical professionals and more options being made available to patients.

50 posted on 10/19/2013 12:44:43 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson