Make Democrats Own ObamaCare

“You bet I voted for that bill. I’m proud I did it!” yelled Russ Feingold at a Wisconsin campaign stop in 2010. That pride—in ObamaCare—lost the three-term Democratic senator his job. Now his party’s ownership of the health-care law may once again decide the Senate.

ObamaCare is roaring back as a political liability to Democrats in a way not seen since that 2010 wave election. Right in time for this fall’s presidential contest, insurers are bailing out of the government system, leaving millions of voters with dwindling options and skyrocketing premiums. ObamaCare was always destined to crack up, but there is something notable that it comes precisely as so much control of Washington is up for grabs.

There's a lot of Democrat amnesia when it comes to O/Care Congressional voter history.

MEMORY LANE---As far back as 2008, at the presidential debate in Nashville, Democrat candidate Obama advanced his signature plan that was ultimately enacted (by an historic straight Democrat party-line vote) into the "Affordable Care Act:"

QUOTING OBAMA: "No. 1, let me just repeat, if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it. All I’m going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. You’ll still have choice of doctor.”

Repeated over and over by every loyal Democrat---- conning Americans into believing they'd also be saving $2500.00 on healthcare costs.

========================================================

LOCK-STEPPING DEMOCRAT PARTY LOYALTY NOT SEEN SINCE 1930-40's ERA EUROPE.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-Nev.): “In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8642, 8/3/09)

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: “We believe — and we stand by this — if you like your current health insurance plan, you will be able to keep it, plain and simple, straightforward.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6401, 6/10/09)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “If you like your insurance, you keep it.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/29/09)

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-Wash.): “Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it.” (Sen. Murray, Congressional Record, S.6400, 6/10/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-Mont.): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-Iowa): “One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term ‘grandfathered plans.’ If you have a plan you like — existing policies — you can keep them. … we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in.” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.7675-6, 9/29/10)

THEN-REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-Wis.): “Under the bill, if you like the insurance you have now, you may keep it and it will improve.” (Rep. Baldwin, Press Release, 3/18/10)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-Alaska): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.” (Sen. Begich, Townhall Event, 7/27/09)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-Colo.): “We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you.” (Sen. Bennet, Press Release, 6/11/09)

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-Calif.): “So we Democrats want people to be able to keep the health care they have. And the answer to that is choice of plans. And in the exchange, we’re going to have lots of different plans, and people will be able to keep the health care coverage they need and they want.” (Sen. Boxer, Press Release, 2/8/11)

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-Ohio): “Our Democrat bill says if you have health insurance and you like it, you can keep it…”(Sen. Brown, Congressional Record, S.12612, 12/7/09)

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-Md.): “For the people of Maryland, this bill will provide a rational way in which they can maintain their existing coverage…” (Sen. Cardin, Congressional Record, S.13798, 12/23/09)

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-Pa.): “I also believe this Democrat legislation and the bill we are going to send to President Obama this fall will also have secure choices. If you like what you have, you like the plan you have, you can keep it. It is not going to change.” (Sen. Casey, Congressional Record, S.8070, 7/24/09)

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-N.C.): ‘People who have insurance they’re happy with can keep it’ “We need to support the private insurance industry so that people who have insurance they’re happy with can keep it while also providing a backstop option for people without access to affordable coverage.” (“Republicans Vent As Other Compromise Plans Get Aired,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, 6/18/09)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-La.): “If you like the insurance that you have, you’ll be able to keep it.” (MSNBC’s Hardball, 12/16/09)

SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-Vt.): “[I]f you like the insurance you now have, keep the insurance you have.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 10/22/09)

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-N.J.): “If you like what you have, you get to keep it” “Menendez is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which is expected to release a bill later this week. He stressed that consumers who are satisfied with their plans won’t have to change. ‘If you like what you have, you get to keep it,’ he said.” (“Health Care Plan Would Help N.J., Menendez Says,” The Record, 6/19/09)

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-Oreg.): “[E]nsuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it” “The HELP Committee bill sets forward a historic Democrat plan that will, for the first time in American history, give every American access to affordable health coverage, reduce costs, and increase choice, while ensuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it.” (Sen. Merkley, Press Release, 7/15/09)

SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-Md.): “It means that if you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it.” (Sen. Mikulski, Press Release, 12/24/09)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-W.Va.): “I want people to know, the President’s promise that if you like the coverage you have today you can keep it is a pledge we intend to keep.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 9/23/09)

SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.): “If you like the insurance you have, you can choose to keep it.” (Sen. Reed, Town Hall Event, 6/25/09)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.): “‘If you have coverage you like, you can keep it,’ says Sen. Sanders.” (“Sick And Wrong,” Rolling Stone, 4/5/10)

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.): ‘if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it’ “My understanding … is that … if you have health coverage that you like you can keep it. As I said, you may have missed my remarks at the beginning of the call, but one of the things I that I said as a requirement that I have for supporting a Democrat bill is that if you have health coverage that you like you should be able to keep that. …under every scenario that I’ve seen, if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it.” (Sen. Shaheen, “Health Care Questions From Across New Hampshire,” Accessed 11/13/13)

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-Mich.): “As someone who has a large number of large employers in my state, one of the things I appreciate about the Democrat chairman’s remark is — is the grandfathering provisions, the fact that the people in my state, 60 percent of whom have insurance, are going to be able to keep it. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. That’s a strong commitment. It’s clear in the bill … I appreciate the strong commitment on your part and the president to make sure that if you have your insurance you can keep it. That’s the bottom line for me.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/24/09)

SEN. JON TESTER (D-Mont.): “‘If you like your coverage, you’ll be able to keep it,’ Tester said, adding that if Medicare changes, it will only become stronger”. (“Tester In Baker To Discuss Health Care,” The Fallon County Times, 11/20/09)

SEN. TOM UDALL (D-N.Mex.): “Some worried reform would alter their current coverage. It won’t. If you like your current plan, you can keep it.” (“What I Learned: About Health Care Reform This Summer, By Your Lawmakers In Congress,” Albuquerque Journal, 9/8/09)

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-R.I.): “..it honors President Obama’s programs and the promise of all of the Presidential candidates that if you like the plan you have, you get to keep it. You are not forced out of anything.” (Sen. Whitehouse, Congressional Record, S.8668, 8/3/09)

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) the 60th vote on Obamacare: "people who are happy with their current plan, wouldn't need to change it."
FRANKEN YOUTUBE SOUND BITE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCZmAYYNz8Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCZmAYYNz8I

=====================================================

Twenty-nine Democrats who voted for it (including Landrieu who pocketed a bundle to vote for it) were ousted in the last midterm Democrat Demolition Derby.

GRUBER: O/CARE DEPENDED ON CITIZENRY'S STUPIDITY TO PASS
Mononymous1/Wordpress ^ | 11/14/2014 | Mononymous1 / FR Posted by mononymous

O/Care architect Gruber’s admission that passage of Obamacare depended on the “stupidity” of the American public should come as no surprise to anyone; the man should be applauded for his candor. Examining the answers to the following questions would suggest that he was and is absolutely right. It is the dependency on the existence of these people that have kept the Democrat party in power; it is their base, it is to whom they appeal and the rest of us, while living in this country, simply pay the price for their voting habits. So:

(1) how did “hope and change” work

(2) how did President Obama, after promising to “transform” and “redistribute,” win in 2008

(3) in spite of his government’s record, how did he win a second term in 2012

(4) why did the “war on women” work; how did “binders full of women” get to be more important than Benghazi in 2012

(5) what else would explain the herd mentality of entire groups of people (journalists, minorities, etc.) that drives them to vote for Democrat candidates, repeatedly and with the same outcomes

(6) related to item 5, what else but the belief that there exists mass stupidity among her largely black audience would drive Michelle Obama to tell them in the lead up to the last election, “And that’s my message to voters, this isn’t about Barack, it’s not about person on that ballot– its about you. And for most of the people we are talking to, a Democratic ticket is the clear ticket that we should be voting on, regardless of who said what or did this– that shouldn’t even come into the equation.” In other words, blindly do what I say.

(7) what else would explain the rise to Speakership of Nancy Pelosi

(8) how did Michael Moore and those of his ilk become rich (9) what possible reason is there for the existence of TMZ, Access Hollywood, Entertainment Tonight and assorted gossip magazines, e.g., “People,” etc.

(10) related to item (9) what else drives the obsession with celebrities, including sports figures and yes, in general, sports. Relatedly, why do grown men wear “Jeter” or “Manning” or whomever else apparel?

(11) what audience is there for the mindless and utter crap that is broadcasted on daytime television

(12) why do advertisements for products with the words “actor portrayal” clearly indicated work

(13) what else drives young women in NYC to wear jeans/pants of a particular shade of blue or for that matter, what makes any person a fashion, trend or any kind of follower

(14) days before the 2014 elections, why did a video of a woman being “catcalled” become viral and receive coverage over a broad spectrum of the media

(15) what else would enable the rackets of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

(16) why is it that the greatest country in the world cannot have elections without fraud, glitches and voter IDs when we demand the same across the globe with Jimmy Carter as observer

(17) why is Hillary Clinton qualified to be POTUS? That’s right, we have lowered the bar and the “glass ceiling” with it but the fact that she will now be touted as the most “experienced” candidate – probably in the history of the republic, no less – by the very same people who gave us a president with absolutely no experience at running anything, is yet another sign of the level of stupidity Democrats can count on.

(18) why else would people cede their power for decades to the government and the media

(19) what has enabled the states to cede their power the federal government

(20) why does the global warming/climate change hoax continue to perpetuate? How many Prof. Gruber’s are involved?

(21) why is President Obama able to distance himself from all the scandals that have plagued his administration

(22) on what foundation was the Occupy Wall Street operation built

(23) Why do anti-war protesters become latent during Democrat presidencies

(24) Why are there people who still believe that the federal government can do anything efficiently or effectively except through coercion?

This list can go on but we have a general sense of what’s going on here. The final question, however, is this:

(25) why does it seem that folks are more outraged about Prof. Gruber’s confessions than they were about “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” and all the other failed promises of the abominable law?

In light of the professor’s revelations, the most relevant question to ask is, “what did the President know and when did he know it?” The evidence suggests that the President was fully aware and an active participant in the fraud being perpetuated on the American people; this is where the real outrage should be directed. But, what is anyone going to do about it?

"“You bet I voted for that bill. I’m proud I did it!” yelled Russ Feingold at a Wisconsin campaign stop in 2010."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, please consider the following.

Low-information, misguided former Senator Russ Feingold is another example why the ill-conceived 17th Amendment should never have been ratified.

More specifically, federal senators should have known that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had repeatedly clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts below from the writings of state sovereignty-respecting justices clarify that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to legislatively address intrastate healthcare issues.

From related threads …

Considering the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]" - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss." - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress." - Linder v. United States, 1925.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. ...” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

So what unconstitutional Obamacare actually did was to show how corrupt all three branches of the unconstitutionally big federal government are, the feds wrongly ignoring securing the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state supermajority before establishing Obamacare.

Remember in November !

Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs as evidenced by unconstitutional Obamacare.

Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

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.