FUNNY: Rep. Weiner (D-NY) And Obamacare Waivers

Wonder what you would find if you frisked US Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Obamacare?

Answer: Steven Crowder breaks it down.

Haha.

Although Steven Crowder uses humor to address the serious issues facing our country, the Obamacare waiver problem is bigger than you might think. Explain this to me: Why are the same people (liberals and organized labor unions) that fought for Obamacare now seeking to be exempt from it?

The Heritage Foundation reports:

The answer, of course, is that if everybody could escape from government-designed health insurance, then everybody would. And besides, the HHS Web site explains, “Annual limits waivers are temporary.  In 2014 annual dollar limits will be prohibited and mini-med plans will no longer be necessary.” Viola. Since they’re prohibited, nobody will want them anymore.

The Daily Caller reports:

To date, the Obama administration has issued more than a thousand health care waivers to organizations desiring a year-long exemption from the law’s coverage requirement.

“Democrats continue to tout the benefits of the health care reform, yet some of their biggest political contributors such as labor unions are filing for waivers,” said Ensign. “The more than one thousand waivers that have already been granted should send a strong signal of how economically damaging this law is, and now more than ever we need to work toward full repeal.”

Luckily for you, conservative groups have put together a website where you can fill out a form to ask the Department of Health and Human Services for your own Obamacare wavier. Click here to visit WheresMYWaiver.com.

Read Full Post »

House Votes Next Week To Block Obamacare Funds

House Speaker John Boehner and the House Republicans to the rescue!

Reuters reports:

The House of Representatives will vote to block funding for President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare overhaul when it takes up a budget plan it will consider next week, House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said on Tuesday.

“I expect to see one way or other the product coming out of the House to speak to that and to preclude any funding to be used for that,” Cantor said at a news conference, referring to an effort to block implementation of the health-care law.

So far, the Republican majority in the US House of Representatives have been doing a wonderful job. Unfortunately, it will probably not pass the US Senate. Either way, let’s hope they will keep up the great work!

Read Full Post »

Obama Flashback: Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional

Wonder what you would find if you frisked then-Senator Obama’s appearance on Ellen DeGeneres’ daytime talk show in February 2008?

Answer: He used the exact same argument that Judge Robert Vinson used to overturn Obama’s health care overhaul legislation.

Clearly President Obama doesn’t believe his signature health care legislation is constitutional:

She’s have the government force every individual to buy insurance, and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance.  It’s that they can’t afford it …

Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody buy a house, and that, you know, and that would solve, you know, the problem of homelessness.  It doesn’t.

Also, then-Senator Obama made the same argument on CNN:

OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

Here is Judge Robert Vinson’s reference to Obama’s argument in his opinion overturning Obamacare:

The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not.

Oops!

It is clear this president only cares about his own far-left agenda and does not care about our US Constitution. Some Constitutional scholar he is… Pff.

Read Full Post »

South Dakota Bill Would Require Everyone To Buy A Gun

If the federal government can force someone to purchase health insurance based solely on citizenship and on being alive, then why can’t state lawmakers force their citizens to purchase a firearm?

Well, that’s the reasoning behind a new bill being introduced in South Dakota. ArgusLeader.com reports:

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

The measure is known as an act “to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others.”

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors 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.

Although these lawmakers are only proposing this bill to make a point about health care, they do have a case to be made. As I stated above, if the government can force us to buy a product or service, such as a health insurance policy, what is to stop politicians from forcing us to buy a gun?

Also, I have noticed other blogs worry about the strategy of bringing guns and the 2nd Amendment into the Obamacare discussion, but I don’t think the panic is necessary. Is it possible these lawmakers are bringing up the “guns-for-everybody” argument, because it is something that scares liberals just as much as socialized health care scares conservatives?

Anyways, the technical side of the argument can be found here.

Read Full Post »

BREAKING: Federal Judge Declares Obamacare Unconstitutional!

Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional and “must be declared void” in full.

The American Spectator reports:

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson on Monday became the second federal judge to declare the national health care law’s individual mandate unconstitutional.

The decision concerns the lawsuit based in Florida and involving 26 states, and follows a similar decision last month in the suit based in Virginia.

But Vinson’s decision went a step further than the Virginia ruling by not only declaring that the mandate was unconstitutional, but striking down the rest of the law as a result.

As enacted, the law did not include what’s known as a “severability clause,” which specifies that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest of the law stands.  Those challenging the law have argued that as a result, the whole law should be struck down, too.  While U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson of Richmond declined to do so, Vinson argued that, “because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

The Obama administration has launched an appeal in the Virginia suit, and is expected to do so in the Florida-based suit as well, likely setting the stage for an eventual showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can read the ruling here.

VICTORY! This is a critical milestone, but the fight against Obamacare is far from over. There are over a dozen more lawsuits filed in different states and it will be the US Supreme Court who will ultimately make the final decision. Either way, today is a great day for our United States’ Constitution.

My case of the Mondays is officially gone.

Read Full Post »

Sebelius Compares Obamacare To Buying Televisions

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius?

Answer: She believes health insurance is similar to buying televisions.

Huh?

CNS News reports:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius defended the new health care law’s mandate requiring people to purchase insurance, comparing the buying of health insurance to buying televisions.

People access health care regardless of whether they have insurance, said Sebelius on Friday. “What they’re choosing not to do is actually pay for those services,” she said.

“[I]f I don’t have a 27-inch TV for the Super Bowl, I can’t demand on the day of the Super Bowl that somebody deliver that TV because I have a right to it. On the other hand, if I don’t have insurance, I come through the door of an emergency room and get treated and get cared for, and somebody else picks up the tab,” said Sebelius.

Very interesting… I have heard the Obama administration (including Ms. Sebelius) and other liberals compare health insurance to auto insurance, but that argument has been debunked numerous times.

Buying TV’s? Really? Now they are just getting desperate.

Side-Note: A Florida judge could declare Obamacare unconstitutional today. If so, it will definitely cure my case of the Mondays.

Read Full Post »

US House Votes To Repeal Obamacare 245 to 189

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the United States House of Representatives today?

Answer: The Republican-led House easily passed legislation to repeal Obamacare!

Politico reports:

House Republicans passed a bill to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care plan Wednesday, taking their first major step toward rolling back the massive overhaul that has dominated the American political landscape for almost two years.

The vote was 245 to 189, and unanimous GOP support gave the vote the same partisan feel of the March vote to pass the law, underscoring once again the hardened political lines of the health care debate. Only three Democrats backed the repeal, a smaller number than Republicans had once predicted.

The bill will head next to the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised to block it. If it did receive a vote, the repeal bill would be unlikely to draw support from even a majority of senators. Even so, House Republican leaders have challenged Reid to give the bill a vote since Democrats, who control the chamber, have little to fear.

Political pundits have repeatedly said that H.R. 2 (the repeal of Obamacare) will not make it through the Senate. Granted, the odds are extremely slim, but it is not impossible. There is a way to get it on the Senate calendar:

• Republican Senators need to use Senate Rule 14 and object to the second reading of the bill. By doing this, the bill will “hold at the desk” and sit on the Senate calendar which could be brought up for debate at any point during the next two years.
• Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) will not proceed with the bill, Republican Senators can use Senate Rule 22 to commence debate on H.R. 2 if they have held the bill at the desk. By doing this, it would bring up a cloture vote, but Republicans will not have the 13 Senate Democrats to break the filibuster. Instead, it would force Democrats, who cried about the filibuster and obstructionism for the past couple years, to engage in a real filibuster. In the end, this would be exciting to witness.

Ultimately, full repeal of Obamacare will depend on the courts. If a number of federal courts declare parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, then there will be more incentive for Democrat Senators to vote for repeal. Also, as Hot Air points out, “if the GOP regains a Senate majority in 2012, they could conceivably use reconciliation to break a Democratic filibuster and push a repeal bill through.”

It will be tough to do, but full repeal must be done!

On a side-note, watch Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) slap House Democrats with a giant dose of reality and common sense:

Beeeeeeeeautiful!

Read Full Post »

Boehner (R) Plans Vote To Repeal Obamacare

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the new 112th Congress?

Answer: Republicans will bring up a healthcare repeal measure.

The New York Times reports:

Soon after the 112th Congress convenes Wednesday, Republicans in the House plan to make good on a campaign promise that helped vault many new members to victory: voting to repeal President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The vote, which Republican leaders pledged would occur before the president’s State of the Union address later this month, is intended both to appeal to the Tea Party-influenced factions of the House Republican base and to emphasize the muscle of the new party in power. But it could also produce an unintended consequence: a chance for Democrats once again to try their case in support of the health care overhaul before the American public.

First of all, the repeal effort will more than likely fail, but it will show the American people that the new Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives is down to play hardball.

Secondly, I love the New York Times’ wishful thinking. I don’t know where these so-called journalists – Jennifer Steinhauer and Robert Pear - have been, but President Obama’s health care overhaul is still (and will always be) unpopular. After all, a majority of the Democrats that ran for reelection back in November ran away from their so-called “historic” health care reform accomplishment.

What makes these journalists think that the American people will suddenly embrace the hijacking of one-sixth of our economy? Oh yeah… I forgot that these are the same political ideologues that believe it’s a ”messaging” problem when it comes to health care reform. I don’t know about the New Yorks Times, but I find these to be great reasons to hate it:

• It contains unconstitutional mandates… Don’t want to buy health insurance? To bad! Congress will penalize you.
• A new trillion dollar entitlement program that will put our country further into debt.
• Loaded with new taxes that will harm the America people, including the middle class.
• It will ultimately increase health care costs.
• Corrupt, special deals were made behind closed doors in order to get it passed. Does the term “Cornhusker Kickback” come to mind?
• It’s predicted to overwhelm emergency rooms.
• It could end affordable health insurance for students and increase their premiums.
• It will destroy medical technology and innovation.
• 40% of doctors may quit because of Obamacare.

You get the picture… Bring on the repeal vote!

*UPDATE* – January 3, 2011 – 10:12 PM.

Bill Kristol – from The Weekly Standard – reports:

I’m told the Speaker’s office is about to announce that the House Rules Committee will meet on Thursday, and that a rule to consider the repeal of Obamacare will be brought to the House floor on Friday.  The House will then vote on the repeal of Obamacare on Wednesday, January 12. In order to comply with the new transparency rules, the repeal legislation will be posted tonight, available here.

I was waiting to post this update on my blog until the legislation was posted online. Well folks, it is here! Introducing The Job-Killing Health Care Law and Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Click here to read the official legislation.

Props to US Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) for coming up with that straight-to-the-point name for the legislation!

Read Full Post »

Debunking The Auto-Insurance/Obamacare Comparison

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post?

Answer: More proof that liberals have the hardest time understanding why the government can mandate one type of insurance and not another.

Here is their op-ed where they continue to bring up the same ol’ debunked argument:

Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.

If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.

The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.

Apparently the mind of liberal doesn’t allow for the common sense comparison between auto-insurance and Obamacare to seep in. If the Democrats are capable of understanding and passing a 2,000+ page piece legislation (which is debatable), then why can’t they understand the distinct differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare?

First of all, auto-insurance places requirements on the voluntary act of driving and not on life itself. Second, there is a difference between the powers of the federal and state governments – shocker, right? Thirdly, auto-insurance requirements are limited to individuals that choose to drive on public roads (private property is off limits). Lastly, auto-insurance only covers injuries to others, not yourself. If you still don’t see the differences between auto-insurance and Obamacare, Ed Morrissey – from Hot Air – put together a good article that explains it in further detail:

Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing.  It’s not applicable at all.  Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles.  Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property.  People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.

There are other problems with this analogy as well.  Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs.  Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation.  That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.

Also, auto insurance is priced to risk.  If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft.  If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver.  Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses.   Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums.  Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness.  That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.

Debunked once again.

Read Full Post »

Obamacare Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional!

Wonder what you would find if you frisked President Obama’s health-care reform bill today?

Answer: The bill’s individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional!

Bloomberg reports:

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, today rule that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, which was to become effective in 2014, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid.

“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage — it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate,” wrote Hudson, who was appointed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush in 2002.

The ruling is the government’s first loss in a series of challenges to the law mounted in federal courts in Virginia, Michigan and Florida, where 20 states have joined an effort to have the statute thrown out. Constitutional scholars said unless Congress changes the law, its fate on appeal will probably hinge on the views of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Victory! This is a critical milestone, but the fight against Obama-care is far from over. Either way, today is a great day for our United States’ Constitution.

Read Full Post »