Unconstitutional-Health-Care takes your individual rights away!

by stableman
December 5th, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Filed under: Health, Politics

OK, look at what actually happened.

You should be disappointed with the behavior of all those elected officials who are supposed to be “representing the interest” of the population.

Few, congressional members even read the bill, but voted for it just the same. (Verified-information link below)

Nancy Pelosi was quoted; (verified-info-link) see for yourself.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”

Nancy Pelosi remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties. (Shows how she thinks!)

Obama Health Care was a “cheap-shot” for the us citizens by attaching it to another legislative package and “pushing it through” so very quickly!!!

That is why the recent election took so many democrats "out-of-power" and to loose a lot of seat-positions, etc.

Voters did not understand the health care reform law, were not given a chance to discover it's content or even see a full length copy!

How can anyone think this was appropriate behavior for all of our elected Democrats. It was a Democratic controlled vote and received a great-push from Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi.

It clearly shows how terrible politics has become in US when elected officials do not listen to the people and when Democrats think they can make Health Care laws for us without our approval.

More trouble has been discovered with this Health Care Law.

The “Joint Economic Committee” explained that one problem is the direct impact of tax on this “health insurance,” effective in 2014.

The tax will be passed through to consumers in the form of higher costs ($$$) and premiums. (Verified-information link below)

• It increases health costs. This so-called fee on insurance companies would be passed on to consumers, directly increasing the cost of health insurance for tens of millions of Americans and contravening Congress's stated intention that its legislation will reduce health insurance costs.

• It increases taxes. Because this "fee" is effectively an insurance premium tax imposed on policies purchased by half of all Americans, it violates President Barack Obama's repeated promise that most Americans, or at least those with incomes below $250,000, would not see their taxes increased in any way, shape, or form.

• It creates new inequities. Because it would apply to policies purchased from insurers but not to employer self-insured health plans, this insurance premium tax would create new inequities by disadvantaging one source of health insurance coverage relative to another source of coverage, thus creating winners and losers based on where people happen to work.

• It is disingenuous. Labeling these provisions a "fee" imposed on insurance companies is designed to give the impression that it affects only a politically disfavored interest group. In reality, however, since the legislation specifies that it will be apportioned based on each insurer's premium revenues, it would function exactly like a direct insurance premium tax paid by consumers.

• It creates perverse incentives. This tax would apply to those who have purchased health insurance, with the proceeds funding subsidies for those who have not purchased such coverage.

• It distorts markets. The tax would apply to both an insurance company's premium revenue and its revenue from providing "administrative services" (such as claims processing) to employer and union self-insured plans. However, a vendor that provides self-insured plans with administrative services but does not sell health insurance would not be subject to the tax. Thus, self-insured employers would have a financial incentive to prefer "third-party administrators" that are not insurance companies when contracting for administrative services for their plans.

• It expands federal power. This insurance premium tax would create a new, permanent federal tax that could, and likely would, be increased by Congress in future years as the growth in new government spending in the legislation outstrips the growth of revenues to fund that spending.

Federal legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all the major health-care reform plans now being considered in Washington. Such a mandate, however, would expand the federal government’s authority over individual Americans to an unprecedented degree. It is also profoundly unconstitutional.

States are fighting back.
My State is Florida.

The Florida legislature voted to place a state “constitutional amendment” on the ballot that would ban any laws that compel someone to “participate in any health care system.” It requires a 60 percent vote to succeed.

The legislation is modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced in 42 states.

Find out what is happening in your State today.
Do you know?

Rate this Article

Flag this Article

Miscategorized Spam Inappropriate

Submit a Critique

Critiques

Show Oldest First

on March 28th, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Stableman has it exactly right. But I think it is even worse. Judge Vinson ruled the law unconstitutional. The lawless Obama Administration continued to implement it. The Administration filed a completely dishonest request for clarification of the ruling - what part of unconstitutional did they fail to understand? Judge Vinson issued a stay of his decision, on the condition that the Administration file its appeal within seven days. The appeal of Judge Vinson's decision will be heard on May 7, so the legal process continues and the lawless Obama Administration continues to force this tyranny down our throats.

Consider this: Speak Boehner cannot seem to bring himself to deny $105 billion of implementation funds to the Obama regime. Is the House Republican leadership just a lawless as the regime?

on January 24th, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Shall01 there one thing that you seem to miss. One can simply choose not to drive. Then there would be no requirement for said insurance. What about freedom of choice? If I choose what level I believe is proper for Me what gives the government the right to mandate another level or fine me? Now some of our elected officials state that Constitution gives them the power under the "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Just like the health care bill they must not have read the Constitution either because thats in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. And on a side note I wouldn't mind see auto insurance not be required unless you have a lean against the auto. Think about it...your betting that you will have a accident. Now what gives the government the right to say I have to little insurance or punish me (taxing the fuck out of me) for having a so called "Cadillac policy?" I'm sorry I have never bought into that greater good bullshit. just you wait till all those taxes in that bill kick in.

shall01 on January 21st, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Geeze Stableman..your still on here ranting huh? Health care insurance takes away your individual rights??? Really?? Guess we should do away with auto insurance also...right??? That takes away my rights and force me to pay for something I don't feel I should have to. Tell me stableman..how do these differ?