Obamacare easily survives supreme court

[Redsoxticket]

The individual tax deduction on the tax returns will be eliminated without showing proof of insurance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Zimmy, what I said was everyone should pay taxes no matter what
salary they make, meaning Fed and State income taxes, the largest
of the taxes we pay.
That way on April 15th they would be aware of the $$ they pay and
more interested in Govt spending so they keep more of what
they earn. Otherwise they could care less.

Many who pay income taxes now are Wowed by their refunds due to deductions
and EIC tax credits rather than even know how much they paid.

On another note it would be a good idea to have tax day on Nov 1st before elections to have fresh in our minds what we are paying before voting.

[zimmy]

Justplugit: most of those who don't pay the income tax part of it feel the pain in many ways. All of the other taxes have much more impact on their bottom line than it does on other people. Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them?

Oh yeah, because you think they don't feel the effects of taxes... like the poor guy who still has an after tax income of $1,000,000 does?

[zimmy]

read this article, Justplugit, especially pages 2 and 3. Maybe you will find it interesting. One thing the tax yellers seem to forget is that rich guys get richer when that bottom 50% has some money in their pockets to spend to spur the economy. This recession is being held back by the lack of spending in the middle and bottom half of the economy. The wealthy stil have their Bush tax cuts and it han't trickled down.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/surpr...ry?id=14681815

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Justplugit: most of those who don't pay the income tax part of it feel the pain in many ways. All of the other taxes have much more impact on their bottom line than it does on other people. Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them?

Oh yeah, because you think they don't feel the effects of taxes... like the poor guy who still has an after tax income of $1,000,000 does?

"Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them? "

You are missing (or dodging) the point.

49% of those who file pay zero federal income tax. I'm not concerned about the married couple making $18,000 a year,,,because there aren't many of those. I'm concerned about everyone in the top third of those who pay no taxes.

Zimmy, HLF of those who worek pay zero income tax. I couldn't find out what the income threshold is to pay no tax. But if 49% pay no tax, that means that someone making just below the average income, pay no taxes.

That is insane. I have no problem with the poorest of the poor paying no federal income tag. I have huge issues with 49% not paying federal incoime tax. That is not fair.

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy, you also dodged another question...you asked why conservatives lie and call the penalty a tax? I asked you if Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are lying conservatives, since they are also calling it a tax?

Your response? Hmmm?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, you also dodged another question...you asked why conservatives lie and call the penalty a tax? I asked you if Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are lying conservatives, since they are also calling it a tax?

Your response? Hmmm?

Did they?
I thought they decided it was OK as it was under Commerce Clause?
Roberts used the Tax angle to come to his assertion.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only tax that matters. Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.[15] In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (see Figure 2).[16]"

Some might find this link interesting, especially those who are duped into the idea that no federal income taxes equates they don't pay taxes.

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

It is generally understood by those who say half the folks don't pay any taxes refers to the federal income tax. Or, as you say, "do you think people are really that stupid" to believe the no taxes stuff? But the article seems to be duping us with the separation of federal income taxes from "payroll taxes." The income tax IS a payroll tax. Further, the largest federal payroll tax other than the income tax, social security tax, is actually an income tax since the money collected goes into the general fund and is spent in the same manner as the supposedly different income tax. The scam is that the tax is an investment for retirement and everybody who contributes, regardless of "income," pays the same rate for this investment. Except that after a specified amount at the higher income level no more money can be invested because the return would be too great for the fedgov to pay back and would seem "unfair." So, yeah, those who pay social security tax do pay federal income tax. And this entitles them to a "pension" paid from the general fund contributed to by all income tax payers, some who pay higher rates than others. And defining income tax as other than a payroll tax attributes to the notion that some pay a greater percentage of their income to payroll taxes than higher income folks.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Justplugit: most of those who don't pay the income tax part of it feel the pain in many ways. All of the other taxes have much more impact on their bottom line than it does on other people. Think of how gas taxes or sales taxes impacts a married couple making less than 18,000 a year. You want the feds to take more money from them?

Oh yeah, because you think they don't feel the effects of taxes... like the poor guy who still has an after tax income of $1,000,000 does?

Where the hell are they driving on a married couple income of 18K ??

Walmart?

Question?? If they are using their EBT card to purchase stuff, who's paying the sales tax now??

[detbuch]

Back to the subject of this thread? I would like to ask Spence, Likwid, Paul S, Zimmy, in particular, or anyone else on this forum, in general, the following seven questions:

Were you under the impression that the federal Congress had unlimited or undefined powers of taxation before this decision?

If not, do you believe that it now "constitutionally" has unlimited power of taxation?

Did you believe that the Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress unlimited power to regulate individual behavior?

If not, would Scotus validation of the HCB under Commerce Clause power to regulate inactivity have given Congress unlimited power to regulate behavior?

Finally, does it matter to you if Congress has constitutional power to regulate all of your behavior?

And, if not, do you believe that it is irrational to worry that it might, so having those powers is no threat since it would never do so?

And, if the decision gives Congress unlimited power to tax you, is it irrational to worry about such power, since it will only use it for the benefit of society?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You want the feds to take more money from them?
l

No, I just want them to become aware and take an interest in who the big spending
politicians are, either party, and how spending affects them personally.

I would say very few pople, whatever their income, rich or poor, know how much they are paying in taxes outside their Fed and State income taxes.

Like I say, nothing gets a persons attention better then having a horse in
the hunt.

Back to the thread like Detbuch just said.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Did they?
I thought they decided it was OK as it was under Commerce Clause?
Roberts used the Tax angle to come to his assertion.

Jim, I don't see your posts except when quoted, so don't expect a response. Rockhound is right, Sotomayor and Ginsberg were going to pass it based on commerce law.The majority opinion written by Roberts said THE MANDATE can be upheld as a tax. I was specifically referring to the cons calling the entire bill a tax. The other 4 conservative judges said it isn't a tax, by the way. I really don't care either way. It is semantics. If a person who chooses not to have insurance pays penalty or a bit more in taxes to cover the cost we get stuck with when they go to the ER for a cold, so be it.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

No, I just want them to become aware and take an interest in who the big spending
politicians are, either party, and how spending affects them personally.

.

I agree. That is why I find "Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $81.7 billion from 1995-2011" or the $10-50 billion annual fossil fuel subsidies to be pretty ridiculous. The mandate is estimated come in at about $2 to 3 billion per year and only applies to people who go uninsured. The cons typically love those big business subsidies. They also proposed those health mandates. But now that it was passed under Obama it is the end of the world. Horse hockey.

[scottw]

Showing results for “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” Stuart Butler- Heritage Foundation, 1989
Search instead for “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” Stewart Butler- Heritage Foundation, 1989


No results containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or ... - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

•Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
•Try different keywords.
•Try more general keywords.
•Try fewer keywords.

No results found for “ If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance... Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” Stuart Butler- Heritage Foundation, 1989.


Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate ? USATODAY.com


And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."

My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

If a person who chooses not to have insurance pays penalty or a bit more in taxes to cover the cost we get stuck with when they go to the ER for a cold, so be it.

How about, instead of rewriting the Constitution by, via Robert's decision, giving the fedgov an unspecified general power to tax that didn't previously exist in the Constitution, thus giving the government unlimited power of taxation--how about, instead, the person without insurance just PAYS THE BILL.

[zimmy]

"Although an individual is 50 percent more likely to have a car accident in a year than to be hospitalized, the average bill for a hospitalization is over two and a half times higher than the average loss for a car accident. And, while the bill for a single hospitalization is about the same as the loss from an average house fire, a person is ten times more likely to be hospitalized than to experience a house fire."
"On average, uninsured families can only afford to pay in full for about 12% of the admissions to hospital (hospitalizations) they might experience. Even uninsured families with incomes above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) can afford to pay in full for only 37% of their hospitalizations. "

The Value of Health Insurance:#^& Few of the Uninsured Have Adequate Resources to Pay Potential Hospital Bills

[scottw]

The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[rphud]

DPM is likely the most intelligent guy to ever be in government. We could use a few (or 100) in the senate right now.

That all being said, with the health legislation as it is right now and the economy as it is right now (and likely will be for a while), do you really think we can afford this all right now? I think not.

Something to control costs needs to come first, like maybe tort reform and other.

Good. bad or otherwise, I am thinking the economy is way too close to the edge for the government to be changing things up too much right now. Looks like most businesses are sitting on the hiring sidelines waiting for the music to stop. It's not like they aren't making any money. Profits seem to be at an all time high for a lot if not most.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by rphud

That all being said, with the health legislation as it is right now and the economy as it is right now (and likely will be for a while), do you really think we can afford this all right now? I think not.

Something to control costs needs to come first, like maybe tort reform and other.

That makes sense.

Recently I heard Tom Price MD, Rep Ga. speak on HC. Being a physician
and knowing the the ins and outs of medicine he made a lot of sense.
The 3 things he mentioned were Coverage, Insurance and Waste.

Coverage for all citizens through Tax Policy, tax deductions, tax credits similar to a 401 K and individual/ company/ plans.

Insurance, can become affordable by Tort Reform and allowing competitive Insurance across state lines.

Waste is around $600 because of the practice of defensive medicine.

Imo, the reason for the large increases in HC over the years is the need for Docs to
order every new test there is before diagnosis to prevent lawsuits. I bet there are
very few people over 65 that don't belong to the CAT Scan or MRI Club.
Limiting the lawsuites would go a long way in reducing costs and do away
with the high cost of Malpractice Ins. that is passed along to the patient.

All these things just make sense to do before a massive HC plan, that we
can't afford, is put in place. Anybody disagree?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"Although an individual is 50 percent more likely to have a car accident in a year than to be hospitalized, the average bill for a hospitalization is over two and a half times higher than the average loss for a car accident. And, while the bill for a single hospitalization is about the same as the loss from an average house fire, a person is ten times more likely to be hospitalized than to experience a house fire."
"On average, uninsured families can only afford to pay in full for about 12% of the admissions to hospital (hospitalizations) they might experience. Even uninsured families with incomes above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) can afford to pay in full for only 37% of their hospitalizations. "

The Value of Health Insurance:#^& Few of the Uninsured Have Adequate Resources to Pay Potential Hospital Bills

Your article does not go into the reasons for the high costs, especially the most fundamental reasons. If most do not have sufficient assets to pay for a single hospitalization, how could the hospitals afford to stay in business? Big pockets of insurance or government are motives to raise prices to levels single payers cannot afford. Simply mandating that everyone is insured does nothing to relieve us of the higher costs, but may actually fuel the rise in prices and destroys one of the reasons to buy insurance--to have an advantage over those uninsured.

If most people were not "insured," would hospital costs be so high that they could not afford to access medical care? Or would innovative entrepeneurs seize the opportunity to tap the available market of that majority "uninsured" to provide "affordable" health care? And this applies to the entire "economy"--the competitive free market versus the planned, mandated, gvt. intruded market. The high and rising costs of life have much to do with gvt. regs, mandates, and redistribution, with market forces adjusting, thereby constantly inflating the price of life, but leaving the lower end of "earners" further behind as their power to adjust is weak, thus leading to more gvt. intrusion, and further rising costs and market adjustments, and a greater expansion of the number of those on the lower end and the ensuing greater need for government intrusion and redistribution.

I know it sounds brutal, but more free market and less government "works" better in keeping life "affordable" to a greater number of people. And the greater the government intrusion and regulation of prices and distribution, the larger the number of comparatively "poor" who depend on the government largesse and regulation and the greater the need for the unending cycle of government expansion--which can only lead to collapse or some form of dictatorship.

If, under the current cycle (in which charities actually pay for 80% of the costs "passed on" to others for the medical care of the uninsured) we insist that the uninsured pay for their care out of pocket or, as your article notes, "take out further loans, or sell their house or other non-financial assets to pay some of these costs," would that not motivate those, who are able, to buy insurance? And, if we just can't stand the idea of charities paying most of the cost of the rest, how about some gvt. programs (preferrably States) to pay for them rather than destroying the Constitution?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I agree. That is why I find "Corn Subsidies** in the United States totaled $81.7 billion from 1995-2011" or the $10-50 billion annual fossil fuel subsidies to be pretty ridiculous. The mandate is estimated come in at about $2 to 3 billion per year and only applies to people who go uninsured. The cons typically love those big business subsidies. They also proposed those health mandates. But now that it was passed under Obama it is the end of the world. Horse hockey.

you can thank FDR for providing Congress with the power to do these "ridiculous" things

Things came to a head in the New Deal, when Congress imposed a tax on food and fiber processors and used those tax dollars to provide benefits to farmers. Though in U.S. v. Butler (1936) the court adopted a more expansive view of the taxing power—allowing Congress to tax and spend for the "general welfare" beyond the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution—it still held the ends had to be "general" and not transfer payments from one group to another. After President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937, it accepted such transfer payments in Mulford v. Smith (1939), so long as the taxes were paid into the general treasury and not earmarked for farmers.

Paul Moreno: A Short History of Congress's Power to Tax - WSJ.com

In United States v. Butler (1936), the Supreme Court invalidated the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Justice Owen Roberts, writing for himself and five other justices, held that the AAA "invade[d] the reserved rights of the states" by endeavoring "to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government." Specifically, the Court held that the AAA violated the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Assuming that Congress could not directly compel farmers to reduce acreage or cull livestock, the Court held that Congress "may not indirectly accomplish those ends by taxing and spending to purchase compliance."
.................................................. .......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...-presidential/

In November 1936 voters gave Roosevelt a second overwhelming mandate at the polls. His New Deal policies, constitutional or not, had put millions of Americans back to work and given people hope. Now, mandate in hand, FDR would move to challenge the Supreme Court threat to the New Deal.

On February 5, 1937, with little or no warning, FDR announced what would become known as his "court packing" plan. Citing the inability of the federal courts to deal with an overwhelming caseload, he proposed judicial reforms, including the addition of one justice to the Supreme Court for every one who did not retire by age 70-1/2, with a maximum five justices added.

It was an uncharacteristic political mistake for the usually astute Roosevelt. His plan to influence the Court provoked outrage nationwide. Many perceived it as an attempt to rig the American judiciary system and give the executive branch almost dictatorial power. In a public speech in March, Roosevelt managed to turn American opinion his way, but when the Supreme Court reported that it had no problem keeping up with its caseload, support for his plan declined.

As Roosevelt worked on behalf of his "court-packing" plan, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor several times, further weakening the President's arguments for court reform. On March 29, the Court upheld a Washington State minimum wage law. In May, the Court upheld the Social Security Act. When Joseph Robinson, Roosevelt's last significant ally in the court-packing scheme died in July, the plan died too.

The attempt to influence the Supreme Court was one of the worst episodes of Roosevelt's presidential career

.................................................. ....

Emboldened by the apparent change in the Supreme Court's attitude toward the constitutionality of the New Deal, Congress passed a second Agricultural Adjustment Act, designated as the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Rather than using the proceeds from taxes on processors to motivate farmers to lower production in exchange for benefit payments, the 1938 act applied marketing quotas and overproduction penalties directly.

In Mulford v. Smith (1939), the Supreme Court upheld the 1938 act with little fanfare. Even though the marketing quotas imposed by the 1938 act intruded far more aggressively into the agricultural economy than the processing taxes at issue in the 1933 act, Mulford found no fault in the 1938 act. Just three years earlier the 1933 act had been condemned as an unconstitutional stratagem by the federal government to interfere in agricultural markets. Yet the ruling in Mulford blessed the 1938 act as a program "intended to foster, protect and conserve [interstate] commerce."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your article does not go into the reasons for the high costs, especially the most fundamental reasons. And, if we just can't stand the idea of charities paying most of the cost of the rest, how about some gvt. programs (preferrably States) to pay for them rather than destroying the Constitution?

of course it doesn't when you believe that you can use the power of government to require participation, require the level benefits and all that they must include, set the price for those benefits including designating certain free benefits that must be provided(and probably require they be used...or else) and those that can be denied, arbitrarily tax and penalize based on your need to "provide" and maintain the bureaucracy that is doing the providing.....what do the actual costs and the drivers of those costs matter? you have the power to control everything....don't you?

The Dream of Command Economics - By Yuval Levin - The Corner - National Review Online

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

of course it doesn't when you believe that you can use the power of government to require participation, require the level benefits and all that they must include, set the price for those benefits including designating certain free benefits that must be provided(and probably require they be used...or else) and those that can be denied, arbitrarily tax and penalize based on your need to "provide" and maintain the bureaucracy that is doing the providing.....what do the actual costs and the drivers of those costs matter? you have the power to control everything....don't you?

The Dream of Command Economics - By Yuval Levin - The Corner - National Review Online

Yes, the fedgov now has the power to control everything, granted by the rewriting of the Constitution, not by Congress through ammendment or convention as prescribed by that Constitution, but by judicial "interpretation." Though, how could honest interpretation of a document conclude something that does not exist in the document and is opposite of what it intended? By learned scholars of the document, not by ignorant amateurs?

There is a tradition in all sorts of scholarship to change little things in original texts to make them "better"--more up to date, more understandable, more relevant, to improve even if by some sly little change of word or meaning that more suits the taste of the sholar than what he considers imperfect text. What follows are more "improvements" by others, even on the previous alterations. This might kindly be looked on as "evolution' of the document. If done with honest revrence to the original text, it rarely becomes a mutation that utterly destroys it. When that occurs, it was intention not evolution.

We have been deceived. The "interpretations" of our Constitution were not honest. Nor was there in the Constitution a mechanism to "interpret" the words as if they were a foreign language. Nor was there an expressed means to "interpret" what the words mean as though they changed meaning with every review. There is no article or provision to "interpret" with varying degrees of scrutiny, nor to expand original meaning to make it elastic so that powers denied become powers granted. Interpretation largely is to determine if the Constitutioin is applicable, and, if so, to apply it. The great difficulties in "interpretation" have mostly been in trying to make the Constitution bend to fit legislation, to make constitutional that which is not.

Which is what Roberts has done with the HCB. Which is what progressive jurisprudence has been doing for 80 years. The Constitution has become the elastic man that can touch all bases while remaining on first and create home runs out of errors. It is a fictitious and ungainly mutation of a once elegant expression of government of, by, and for the people, into a cumbersome, unpredictable license to rule the people.

And I am genuinely curious to know if those who approve of this new Constitution understand what has happened? The HCB and the massive fedgov bureacracy with all its programs and regulations can be repealed, but how do we fix the damage to the Constitution? Do we care? Do we truly believe what has happened is for the best? I ask Spence, likwid, Paul S, and Zimmy, once again:

Were you under the impression that Congress had unlimited powers of taxation before this decision?

If not, do you believe that it now does?

Did you believe that the Interstate Commerce Clause gave Congress unlimited power to regulate individual behaviour?

And, if not, would SCOTUS validation of the HCB under commerce clause power have given Congress unlimited power to regualate behavior?

Does it matter to you if Congress has the power to regulate all your behavior or has unlimited power to tax you?

[scottw]

the Progressive agenda has been moved forward for most of the last century through lies, distortions, threats and thuggery and always at some cost to our Constitutional Guarantees and Protections and through the misuse of power by elected and unelected(appointed) officials each who swear to uphold and defend the Constitution...this healthcare "reform" is no excepton if you consider the way in which it was passed....they justify, in their minds, doing the wrong(Un-Constitutional) thing by claiming that they are doing the "right thing"(increasing government dependence on one of their many social programs in an expression of "compassion") which appears to be the goal of nearly every major Progressive Agenda Point and implementing them always seems to require tricks, deception and excessive political pressure....you'd think that if you are doing the "right" thing it would be self-evident and not require such thuggery and the Constitution would not be such a frequent obstacle for you.....

the people that you mentioned will not answer questions of Constitutionality because I believe, like the officials who swear to uphold the Constitution and then trample it or seek to find ways around it in order to establish their agenda, the have little or no regard for the Constitution, it is evident from their comments that the fancy themselves above all of that and certainly not bound because their ideaology is far superior to....well...anything that has existed to date......not altogether different from a cult.....they place their leaders "philosopher kings" on high pedestals and regardless of how flawed(have you seen their "leaders"?), dangerous or overinflated their sense of self(and who can blame them because they are truly worshipped) might be, they can do no wrong and are to be defended regardless, because the ideaology that they share is more important than anything else(right, wrong, Constitutionality) and the source where each draws their own sense of self-importance, entitlement and feeling of superiority over and quite often, disdain for those with "lesser views"....if their idols, leaders or fellow thinkers fall...then so do they and their precious ideaology, better to go off a cliff (see Europe) than give up on the Utopian Dream....sadly, the Constitution suffers and will continue to until we go off the cliff and it can be replaced with whatever the Progressives have in mind(which no doubt includes many thousands of pages or regulations and taxes and fees), the early Progressives leaned heavily facist(some would say the European facist leaned heavily American Progressive, some form of mutual admiration society at the least) particularly regarding the Italian version in terms of mingling state and private enterprise, go read the words of Mussolini regarding these matters and his state visions and arguments and let me now if anything sounds familiar to you...we continue to move toward one contrived form of statism or another...or perhaps, Americans might wake up and fight for the Constitutional Guarantees and Protections that are our birthright..................

just as FDR was emboldened by re-election, this President would be frightening with a new mandate

[scottw]

Vote Results: House Passes Obamacare

The final vote tally for the Senate version of President Obama's health care reform legislation in the House was 219-212, with 34 Democrats joining all Republicans in opposition.

The key takeaway for opposition groups is that Speaker Pelosi needed to make a last-day deal with Rep. Bart Stupak and his small group of pro-life Democrats in order to achieve passage. That deal came in the form of an executive order from the White House



House repeals Obamacare 244-185

The Hill: The House voted again Wednesday to repeal the 2010 healthcare reform law. Members approved the bill in a 244-185 vote, after five hours of debate that stretched over two days. As expected, just a handful of Democrats supported the GOP repeal bill. Five Democrats, Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.) and Mike Ross (Ark.), sided with Republicans in the final vote.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ReleaseID=1774

July 12, 2012 - American Voters Say Health Care Law Is A Tax Hike, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Want Arizona-Type Immigration Law In Their State


The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a tax hike, American voters say 55 - 36 percent, but in a mixed message, voters agree 48 - 45 percent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the law, while they say 49 - 43 percent that the U.S. Congress should repeal it, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.


RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Repeal of Health Care Law: Favor/Oppose