Posted on 07/18/2017 8:40:53 AM PDT by Rockitz
This is mute now.
From ZeroHedge:
“Well that did not take long. Somewhat unsurprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s new proposal to simply repeal Obamacare is already dead after GOP Senators Susan Collins, Shelley Moore Capito and Lisa Murkowski said Tuesday they’ll oppose a repeal of the Affordable Care Act.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-18/seante-gop-lacks-votes-obamacare-repeal
Because the Republicans repealed their insurance. You don't think the Democrats aren't salivating at the thought of running on that issue?
Add RETROACTIVE REFUND of lost Premiums and lost Deductibles. Refund all lost insurance payments. People are hurting from big govt takings.
And Obamacare NO REPEAL has
o thrown millions off healthcare
o killed thousands in hospitals
o hurts Grandmother and children
And FULL REPEAL saved many lives.
Why do you want to hurt so many people?? Why are you liberals so callous and hurtful to others??
Furthermore, the states will once again be in charge of medicaid and that means that there will an immediate wrangling over money turned over to the states and the adequacy of that money to cover medicaid as it is now constituted. That will lead to pressure on Congress to cut medicaid (as has been planned).
Bottom line, by the repeal of Obamacare without a replacement plan, Congress will have lit a bomb that, when it goes off, will p!ss off a lot of voters and this will create an immediate desire for them to find a solution to the collapsing insurance market.
All this said, it is possible that, if the state boundaries on the selling of insurance are eliminated at the same time Obamacare is repealed, the free market may actually save the day.
I am sure I have overlooked many details, but this is my quick response.
I agree 100%, but how they would get the medicaid genie back in the bottle is anyone’s guess.
Thank you!! It’s what you promised for 7 years; do it.
If it is an immediate replacement. With the two year delay in implementation that people seem to be talking about then the can is only being kicked down the road a ways and the free market can't work it's replacement.
Furthermore, the states will once again be in charge of medicaid and that means that there will an immediate wrangling over money turned over to the states and the adequacy of that money to cover medicaid as it is now constituted. That will lead to pressure on Congress to cut medicaid (as has been planned).
One of the major reasons why the Republicans couldn't get 50 votes to begin with. Why do you think that will change?
Bottom line, by the repeal of Obamacare without a replacement plan, Congress will have lit a bomb that, when it goes off, will p!ss off a lot of voters and this will create an immediate desire for them to find a solution to the collapsing insurance market.
Desire on the part of half. So far as the Democrats are concerned, the GOP broke it and they aren't going to help them fix it. They would much rather use it as a campaign issue, like the Republicans did with Obamacare.
All this said, it is possible that, if the state boundaries on the selling of insurance are eliminated at the same time Obamacare is repealed, the free market may actually save the day.
That won't make any difference.
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
From related threads …
Patriots are reminded that regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about Obamacare and the Obamacare insurance mandate, these justices, the RINO-controlled Senate, and the corrupt media likely don’t want voters to find out that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had already clarified that the states have never given the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare.
This is evidenced by the excerpts below from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices, and Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker.
Regarding Obama’s justices bluffing that the Obamacare insurance mandate is constitutional for example, consider the fifth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia. In that case the Court clarified that the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers does not include regulating insurance contracts, regardless if the parties negotiating the contract are domiciled in different states.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"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.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
"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 [emphases 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
"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.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the swamp imo, it is actually up to patriots to drain the swamp in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
You’re right. Most RATs are that evil.
California plus certain sanctuary cities in other states must all be CUT OFF FEDERAL FUNDS PERIOD. Let them pay for these SOB’s. Frankly, the Federal Gov. has no business in healthcare other then active duty military, Medicare, VA,TRICARE, and CHAMPVA. Each state and their insurance commissioner should run it’s own healthcare and each state must pay for it’s own GOV employee plan plus “the damn freeloaders they allow.” The FED. Gov has USURPED TOO MUCH POWER FROM THE STATES. Each state should have a VOTE for what the CITIZENS want.
If we do not cover preexisting over 1/3 will be TOO DAMN OBESE for any individual policy.
I didn’t remember so I did a quicky review of these cases.
And its no wonder that I didn’t remember. The case opinions are a pile of sophistry imo, the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers now wrongly muddied by politically correct Supreme Court case precedent.
At this point in time, I have not found any references in the cases that you referenced to the excerpts that I posted.
I’m of the opinion that the post-FDR era law schools are basically ignoring constitutional history before FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wrongly (imo) decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor in 1942.
More specifically, although I have seen token references in post-Wickard cases to cases where previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified the fed’s constitutionally limited powers, it seems that the water now falls off of the edge of the state sovereignty-ignoring Supreme Court’s “flat earth” interpretations of the Constitution in cases decided after Wickard which test the fed’s limited powers.
Finally, regarding the integrity of the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution, please consider the following.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.
"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.
Now if he could learn the phrase “They will let it fail” instead of “we will let it fail”. That would probably be a good thing for him.
Thanks for the Jefferson quotes/facts. Jefferson damn sure knew about Muslims, too. There is no way Jefferson would have allowed any person who practices the Muslim religion, one that emphasizes lying to non Muslims, to enter America. Jefferson knew the lying first hand after paying the ransom. The representative from the Barbary Coast to France told Jefferson their practice of lying to his face after they started capturing ships and taking slaves again. This eventually led to the marines and Tripoli.
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.