Does anyone know if there is such a clause?
If there is it probably is still unconstitutional. Without it there is no doubt.
This bill is mostly made up of the phrase
“at the discretion of the Secretary [of Health and Human Services”.
This is why they didn’t bother reading it. All they needed to know what who gets to decide.
Weather it is there or not, unconstitutional or not, I think that there is a valid case to be made of influence peddling.
I am sure that some statue under RICO applies since the majority of the recipients of the clauses are Obama supporters.
Remember he did the same thing with the car dealerships when he took over GM? Most of the dealerships that got waivers were democratic supporters.
We need a serious congressional investigation into this corruption. That’s all it is pure and simple is corruption. Chicago politics on a national scale.
The big problem is that Congress didn't actually write a law in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. What they wrote was almost 2000 grants of authority to various federal officials (some existing, some new positions) to do whatever they want and call it law.
ken5050 wrote:
I'm surprised that it has taken this long for this issue to be to recognized. I had started to assume that there was simply a waiver clause built into Obamacare and of course that might still be the case.
Does anyone know if there is such a clause?
If there is it probably is still unconstitutional. Without it there is no doubt.
The law consists mainly of phrases like, "The Secretary may develop guidelines ... ," "The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to ... ," and "the Secretary shall develop standards ... ."
The truly evil parts of this law are yet to be written. They will be written by people who are unelected and do not have to answer to the voters. And then, Congress when they run for re-election in 2012 can say, "I didn't vote for that!!!"