Posted on 12/21/2013 10:51:11 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
It seems Nancy Pelosi was wrong when she said "we have to pass" ObamaCare to "find out what's in it." No one may ever know because the White House keeps treating the Affordable Care Act's text as a mere suggestion subject to day-to-day revision. Its latest political retrofit is the most brazen: President Obama is partly suspending the individual mandate.
The White House argued at the Supreme Court that the insurance-purchase mandate was not only constitutional but essential to the law's success, while refusing Republican demands to delay or repeal it...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
No one in EXEMPT-DC cares.
There is no border, no Law, no integrity,
no justice, no honor, and NO MORE DOCUMENTATION
regarding the Tyrant pRes_ _ent.
Since the mandate is a “tax” ... he’s subjecting some people to the tax and waiving it for others. He’s made the law meaningless .... to the extent that America should just ignore it. The severe damage Obama has done by not upholding his oath of office and Congress ignoring his lawlessness ... well, I think Michael Cannon was correct as to where we are headed.
Cannon said:
“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,”
“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,”
“If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”
“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,”
“to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”
That’s really what this boils down to. The “law” can mean anything at anytime for any given amount of time until it’s changed again. Basically, we’re all going to be without insurance at some point.
But, again, this Admin has set the precedent on how this “law” is managed so any future POTUS, D or R, can do whatever they wish with it. Just keep cash on hand for doctor visits and this thing will probably sort itself out.
It is not a matter of flinching — the other two branches of government are in cahoots with him.
Good analysis.
I recently heard a leftist claim the president has sole authority to decide which laws he wants to enforce. I don’t know how that squares with Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec3.html
Obamacare may be written to give the president broad leeway concerning start dates, what is covered, who is covered, etc. Who knows what’s hidden in that massive bill? Nevertheless, the media isn’t holding the president’s feet to the fire on this. The question is simple, “By what specific authority do you alter the terms of Obamacare?”
Unfortunately, the GOP will not restore Constitutional government, even if it retakes the Presidency.
The cat is out of the bag.
“Just keep cash on hand for doctor visits and this thing will probably sort itself out.”
At age 59 the only time I’ve spent more than $6k on medical in one year was for three operations over a lifetime. But the reason they were that expensive is because I did have insurance. In 2000 I spent 20 minutes in surgery, an hour in recover and a total of four hours in the hospital for a routine hernia repair. The cost without insurance was $16k. But because I had a catastrophic care policy there was a “courtesy” reduction of $4k that I would not personally have qualified for. The insurance ultimately paid $8k of which I paid $2,400. In my opinion the entire thing was worth the $2,400. It’s only the laws and insurance that ran the costs up out of sight.
I had two foot surgeries. I had the choice of an outpatient clinic or the hospital. The doctor said the difference was an additional “ten to twenty” thousand to my insurance in the hospital. “But you’re completely covered so you shouldn’t care.” I chose the outpatient surgery. It was infinitely better than being in the hospital.
The problems have nothing to do with people not having insurance. They have to do with some people having it and divorcing payment from the person being served.
I’m no legal eagle but there is something of a precedent kind of thought where if one doesn’t enforce a law then it invalidates it.
Can anyone speak to this and could that take effect?
Example: if one has private property and one allows for years folks to cut across their lawn to reach a public walking path, then, tries to enforce it, they legally can’t enforce it.
Correct. Their actions speak to this, far louder than their simpering words.
“The problems have nothing to do with people not having insurance. They have to do with some people having it and divorcing payment from the person being served.”
You’re 1000% correct. If getting health care were like any other market it would not cost near as much as it does today. If it can be forced largely back to a cash-based market we will all benefit. Obamacare may well do that as an unintended consequence.
This is going to help the economy knowing that this is collapsing like the Death Star.
Pray America is Waking
I believe it was under the “equal protection of the laws” found under the fourteenth amendment of the US Const.
Bump
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.