You can always order a paternaty test to make sure...
I’m ordering one for myself...I need to make sure...
But the process is lined out in that chart Kevin Brady (R-Texas) displayed last year to map out the healthcare system that is now being implemented...
I should know if they are my momma and daddy by 2025 or so...
There is a little bit of a backlog clogging the system already...
;-)
They don’t want to be your Mommy and Daddy.
They want to be your foster home.
Regarding the governments health care bill.......I have a big problem trying to sort out how the government is going to control the cost of health insurance and tell them they can only charge a given amount per month, when it can cost them about $5000 a day in a hospital. It just doesn’t make any sense. Unless of course they don’t let you go to the hospital. I’m not that worried about the cost of my doctor.My doctor’s office call is about $80/visit. I was in the hospital for a day and a half and the cost was $15,000, plus the cost for visiting doctors, that I didn’t even know or request. The cost for them was about another $3000.
We never hear about the government looking into the amount a hospital charges Vs insurance. The whole thing needs to be brought together some how. You can’t just look at insurance and forget the costs of hospitals. It isn’t fair to the insurance companies. I’m not saying they don’t over charge but we need to look at the whole picture.
Great piece. If this monstrosity is allowed to stand it means that our liberties are at the whim of congressional majorities, and that the principles of federalism are a dead letter.
Our own Springfield Reformer had a great idea. Here is the post again:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2482502/posts?page=15#15
I’m looking into the possibility of getting a religious exemption for every prolifer in the country. The exemption language attempts to limit exemptions to a few, specific religious groups, probably because they have a long history (50+ years) of conscientious objection on other issues.
However, showing preference toward one religion to the exclusion of others is a classic case of de facto establishment of a religion, thus invoking an Establishment Clause violation. Standing would be immediate, because taxpayer standing, while denied in almost every other kind of case, is available in the right kind of Establishment Clause case. The exception fits.
Therefore, they can’t restrict it to Amish, Christian Science, etc., but would have to allow anyone with a demonstrable conviction that they cannot fund the murder of the unborn, which this bill certainly can be shown to require.
And if about half the country is prolife, and if we all opt out, the little boat called Obamacare loses all it’s fuel and under its own weight sinks forever out of sight.
Just a thought. And I’m thinking it could be a class action setup. We could get millions of people signed on. It could be the best kind of fun.
15 posted on Monday, March 29, 2010 2:48:41 PM by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
“Constitution? We don’ need no stinkin’ Constitution!”
BTTT!
Its simpler than all that. Contrary to Fed. outlaw creation, the US Constitution created a nation gov. of limited power. All powers not enumerated therein, were left to the states and or the people. Of COURSE those seeking gov. takeover of our republic used the General Welfare clause to create HealthCare and many other unlaws in the past hundred years.
The General Welfare clause dictates how any acts from the enumerated Fed. powers are to be implimented, not a grand usurpation of the limits of Fed. power. Duh.
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
— James Madison
What is the status on the AG lawsuits or any pending private lawsuits? Is SCOTUS just sitting on their hands for the next 2-4 years before they will even “possibly” review the lawsuits? Personally I have no expectation that SCOTUS will rule against this gross miscarriage of our U.S. constitution. I think that only secession by 12-14 states will be the only solution to quickly bring this monstrosity to a head!
Me either, I’m 61 and don’t need a nanny, a mommy or daddy! Especially a pimple faced 25 year old government employee who has NEVER been to Medical School!
If the Congress has the power to compel a consumer to purchase Health Insurance, they ALSO have the power to force PROVIDERS (doctors) to sell their services.
Somebody came with a great point on a previous thread (I don’t have time to find it right now). But he said that the “individual mandate” is unconstitutional because the Commerce Clause does not prohibit one from NOT engaging in commerce. Therefore one can’t be force to buy Obamacare if one doesn’t want to.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. "
More here.