The only way this nation gets dragged into single payer is if the people that populate it are stupid enough to give the progressives another shot at having:
A) Control of the House, a 60+ seat majority in the Senate and the Oval Office A 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress
Seems like it takes at least 30 or 40 years for the populace to forget the shredding of the Constitution that occurs whenever they are foolish enough to do this, so I'm hoping it will be at least that long before we are walking down the single payer path. At that point, my time here will be about over, if not over already, and I will be a spectator to, rather than a participant in, the nation gurgling down the drain of social democracy. There's always the chance that the posterity will learn from the mistakes of their predecessors in the Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Obama eras and we can avoid it forever, but I'm not too hopeful there. The nation has already made the same mistake 3 times with devastating results each time and the 111th Congress and Obama prove that the lesson hasn't been learned yet, so I'm not all that hopeful that the 4th instance will be the final one. Eventually, of course, after the progressives have done to this nation what their marxist ideology has done to every other nation that has embraced it, we'll be starting over after a situation that either mirrors what is happening in Egypt or what happened in the Civil War, but I'll be long gone by then and either sipping cloud champagne cocktails and watching events unfold or giving sustenance to the worms and blissfully unaware of what is happening.
If you believe that one can invent a new meaning and torture that meaning from the original text and intent, I'm certain one can believe that to be true. It is certainly not contained within the language itself and we all know that the language was crafted such that even those without formal education would understand the powers that were being ceded.
Interesting topic Printsmith. We all know that the left understands what the constitution means - because we presume they can read and understand the words like those of us who actually care what the words mean, but lets not overlook the point here....
Those on the left don't care what the words mean, they never did. They have an objective - and to hell with tradition - to hell with liberty - to hell with those words, the words that created the liberty and freedom to build the America that the world used to envy. They want to tear it down, without respect for, what made it great in the first place.
Today's progressive (socialist) movement requires ignorance for the past - especially the words, so they twist and spin, and "torture" meaning that was never intended to be. They know it - and so do we.
And if they (progressives) had any respect at all for this country and the citizens, they would not so blatently invent governmental power from those words that never existed - and they would be able to admit that these health care laws passed last year are unconstitutional.
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -
Thomas Jefferson
Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823
"Aetna will mail letters notifying consumers of the change today, according to the letter. The company will discontinue coverage under existing individual health policies and will no longer have any individual health policies as of Aug. 1, 2012."
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
A group of South Dakota lawmakers has introduced a bill that would require almost everyone in their state to buy a gun once they turn 21.
Turns out it's not a serious attempt. Rather, the lawmakers are trying to make a point about the new health care law -- that an individual mandate is unconstitutional, whether it requires everyone to buy health insurance or, in South Dakota's case, a firearm.
Rep. Hal Wick, one of five co-sponsors, told The Argus Leader newspaper that he expects the bill to fail.
"Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance," he said.
The South Dakota proposal would require anyone over 21 to purchase a firearm by Jan. 1, 2012, provided they are not legally disqualified from owning one. It would extend a six-month grace period for residents who turn 21 after the beginning of 2012.
"Each citizen residing in the state of South Dakota who has attained the age of 21 years shall purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm suitable to their temperament, physical capacity and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense," the bill states.
The proposal comes as a federal judge in Florida rules that the individual mandate in the health care law is unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson ruled Monday that the entire law, as a result, should be declared void.
The opinion is the latest in a string of conflicting rulings which, once resolved, will determine whether the Obama administration can, in fact, force people to buy health insurance. Many expect the Supreme Court to decide the case.
bumper sticker - honk if you will pay my mortgage
"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." attributed to Margaret Thatcher
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson
Funny thing about "Brown vs. Board of Education"... Desegregation was ruled unconstitutional by no less than FIVE (5) separate Federal Appeals Courts, before the five separate desegregation cases were combined into one, and heard before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional, and the rest is history....
Source:
Days before arguments were to be heard in Briggs and Brown, the Supreme Court announced a postponement. Three weeks later, the Court announced that it would also hear the Delaware cases, as well as Davis v. Prince Edward County and the District of Columbia case, Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al.
Significance: The Supreme Court agreed to hear all five of the school desegregation cases collectively. This grouping was significant because it showed school segregation as a national issue, not just a southern one.
So, so far, two Federal courts have ruled that the Affordable Health Care Act, (specifically, the mandated coverage provision), IS Constitutional, and two Federal courts have ruled that it isn't. It's pretty obvious that it's headed for the SCOTUS, probably next year. It ain't over til it's over. (If they had just passed single-payer/universal coverage in the first place, this would all be a moot point, but they tried to do it in pieces to appease the Right... Big mistake....)
LadyJazzer wrote: (If they had just passed single-payer/universal coverage in the first place, this would all be a moot point, but they tried to do it in pieces to appease the Right... Big mistake....)
This overwhelingly large legislation is an attempt to do it in pieces?!?!?!?
You gotta be kidding....
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
From what I was able to find about the history of the Bill, the Republicans submitted a whole slew of amendments, all of which but two, failed. So, there were two GOP Amendments that passed.
There were a whole slew of Democratic amendments that were submitted, and 13 of those passed. So, that's a total of 15 amendments that passed... Since the whole package was not passed as a single un-amended document, NO, I'm "not kidding", and 15 Amendments strikes me as a number of "pieces" that were agreed to before final passage.
But then, you weren't really interested in factual information anyway, were you.....
Not like any other tax VL. It is levied only as a penalty for not participating in private commerce. Normally taxes are levied for participating in commerce, not for failing to participate in it. That means that you can avoid the tax by avoiding the commerce, here that situation is precisely reversed. That is why it is not a tax, it is a penalty. It is not a privilege tax, as Social Security and Medicare are, nor is it an income tax. It is a penalty assessment, therefore it isn't a tax at all, regardless of what the legislation says it is. Had it been set up so that every citizen paid it, whether they purchased insurance or not, then it would have been a tax. But that isn't what they did now, is it.
A 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress
