Here's the grounds that will make the mandate unconstitutional

NEVER BEFORE has the "commerce powers" claus been used to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a PRIVATE COMPANY.

That should do it.

that many of the uninsured realize that most of them will now have to BUY health insurance on exchanges and PAY anywhere between 3% and 9.8% (based on income) for that health insurance.....

an individual making 14,000 a year will now HAVE TO PAY 3% of that $14,000 for health insurance.

an individual making $44,000 a year will now HAVE TO PAY 9.8% of that $44,000 for health insurance.

a family of four making $29,000 a year will now HAVE TO PAY 3% of that $29,000 for health insurance.

a family of four making $88,000 a year will now HAVE TO PAY 9.8% of that $88,000 for health insurance.

How will they react?

C. L. Otter, Idaho, secedes his state from mandatory health care. OTTO became the first governor to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue Congress if it passes health care legislation that requires residents to buy insurance.

37 states already have some form of pending legislation.

That's the reason the mandatory part of the bill doesn't take effect for a long time. These democratic congresspeople know that people will forget and move on, and they will if they have jobs and the economy is good. Anger only last awhile before a new anger comes along!!!And the old one is forgotten.

Guess one will have to look at other social programs that our governent has enacted to see that MOST projections are usually not even in the ballpark 10 or so years latter. ie....medicare

I don't see where the article makes any claim as to that. It only states that "we have studied government health care in other countries, and the results include much higher taxes, slower economic growth and worse medical care."

Did you read (consider) only the last paragraph?

MARCH 21, 2010
The Doctors of the House

House Democrats last night passed President Obama's federal takeover of the U.S. health-care system, and the ticker tape media parade is already underway. So this hour of liberal political victory is a good time to adapt the "Pottery Barn" rule that Colin Powell once invoked on Iraq: You break it, you own it.

This week's votes don't end our health-care debates. By making medical care a subsidiary of Washington, they guarantee such debates will never end. And by ramming the vote through Congress on a narrow partisan majority, and against so much popular opposition, Democrats have taken responsibility for what comes next—to insurance premiums, government spending, doctor shortages and the quality of care. They are now the rulers of American medicine.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats have sold this takeover by promising that multiple benefits will follow: huge new subsidies for the middle class; lower insurance premiums for consumers, especially those in the individual market; vast reductions in the federal budget deficit and in overall health-care spending; a more competitive U.S. economy as business health-care costs decline; no reductions in Medicare benefits; and above all, in Mr. Obama's words, that "if you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan."

We think all of this except the subsidies will turn out to be illusory, as most of the American public seems intuitively to understand. As recently as Friday, Caterpillar Inc. announced that ObamaCare will increase its health-care costs by $100 million in the first year alone, due to a stray provision about the tax treatment of retiree benefits. This will not be the only such unhappy surprise.

While the subsidies don't start until 2014, many of the new taxes and insurance mandates will take effect within six months. The first result will be turmoil in the insurance industry, as small insurers in particular find it impossible to make money under the new rules. A wave of consolidation is likely, and so are higher premiums as insurers absorb the cost of new benefits and the mandate to take all comers.

Liberals will try to blame insurers once again, but the public shouldn't be fooled. WellPoint, Aetna and the rest are from now on going to be public utilities, essentially creatures of Congress and the Health and Human Services Department. When prices rise and quality and choice suffer, the fault will lie with ObamaCare.

While liberal Democrats are fulfilling their dream of a cradle-to-grave entitlement, their swing-district colleagues will pay the electoral price. Those on the fence fell in line out of party loyalty or in response to some bribe, and to show the party could govern. But even then Speaker Nancy Pelosi could only get 85% of her caucus and had to make promises that are sure to prove ephemeral.

Most prominently, she won over Michigan's Bart Stupak and other anti-abortion Democrats with an executive order from Mr. Obama that will supposedly prevent public funds from subsidizing abortions. The wording of the order seems to do nothing more than the language of the Senate bill that Mr. Stupak had previously said he couldn't support, and of course such an order can be revoked whenever it is politically convenient to do so.

We have never understood why pro-lifers consider abortion funding more morally significant than the rationing of care for cancer patients or at the end of life that will inevitably result from this bill. But in any case Democratic pro-lifers sold themselves for a song, as they usually do.

Then there are the self-styled "deficit hawks" like Jim Cooper of Tennessee. These alleged scourges of government debt faced the most important fiscal vote of their careers and chose to endorse a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement. They did so knowing that the White House has already promised to restore some $250 billion in reimbursement cuts for doctors that were included in yesterday's bill to make the deficit numbers look good. Watch for these Democrats to pivot immediately and again demand "tough choices" on spending—and especially tax increases—but this vote has squandered whatever credibility they had left.

Mrs. Pelosi did at least abandon, albeit under pressure, the "deem and pass" strategy that would have passed the legislation without a vote on the actual Senate language. We and many others criticized that ruse early last week, and the House decision to drop it exposes the likes of Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and other analysts who are always willing to defend the indefensible when Democrats are doing it.

All of this means the Senate's Christmas Eve bill is ready for Mr. Obama's signature, though only because rank-and-file House Members also passed a bill of amendments that will now go back to the Senate under "reconciliation" rules that require only 50 votes. Those amendments almost certainly contravene the plain rules of reconciliation, and the goal for Senate Republicans should be to defeat this second "fix-it" bill. It's notable that Democrats didn't show yesterday for a meeting with the Senate parliamentarian to consider GOP challenges, no doubt because they fear some of them might be upheld.

Though it's hard to believe, the original Senate bill is marginally less harmful than the "fixed" version, not least because the middle-class insurance subsidies are less costly and it would avert the giant new payroll tax. That's the White House increase in the Medicare portion of the payroll tax to 3.8% that Democrats cooked up at the last minute and would apply to the investment income of taxpayers making more than $200,000.

If the reconciliation bill goes down, Big Labor and its Democratic clients would be forced to swallow a larger excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, and it would also forestall the private student-loan takeover that Democrats included as a sweetener. In other words, they'd be forced to eat the sausage they themselves made as they have abused Congressional procedure to push ObamaCare into law.

We also can't mark this day without noting that it couldn't have happened without the complicity of America's biggest health-care lobbies, including Big Pharma, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the Business Roundtable and such individual companies as Wal-Mart. They hope to get more customers, or to reduce their own costs, but in the end they have merely made themselves more vulnerable to the gilded clutches of the political class.

While the passage of ObamaCare marks a liberal triumph, its impact will play out over many years. We fought this bill so vigorously because we have studied government health care in other countries, and the results include much higher taxes, slower economic growth and worse medical care. As for the politics, the first verdict arrives in November.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775504575135881813148208.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

The dems will be neutered in november....

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Less than 24 hours after the House of Representatives gave final approval to a sweeping overhaul of healthcare, attorneys general from several states on Monday said they will sue to block the plan on constitutional grounds.

Republican attorneys general in 11 states warned that lawsuits will be filed to stop the federal government overstepping its constitutional powers and usurping states' sovereignty.

States are concerned the burden of providing healthcare will fall on them without enough federal support.

Ten of the attorneys general plan to band together in a collective lawsuit on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

"To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation," said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in a statement.

The Republican attorney generals say the reforms infringe on state powers under the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who plans to file a lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. The bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance, he added.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

In addition to the pending lawsuits, bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. But the actual enactment of the bill by President Barack Obama could spur more movement on the measures by state lawmakers.

As is the case on the Congressional level, partisan politics is in play on the state level, where no anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican candidate running for governor, said the mandate would cost Florida at least $1.6 billion in Medicaid alone.

All states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs that are expected to rise under the reform, including 100 percent federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016.

Medicaid is the healthcare program for the poor jointly administered by the states and federal government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100322/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_states

That makes it even worse....now you HAVE TO BUY a product a private industry sells!!! Or be Fined....

This event will consume the Obama presidency much like the Iraqi war consumed Bush's.

Remember those 5 insurers that made 12.2 billion in profit that Obama has attacked as the biggest problem for the rise in health insurance premiums....they are dancing in the street because they now KNOW that they will be able to snap up all the small insurers that will no longer be able to compete. Watch for merger after merger.....coming soon. And when your premiums GO DOWN and you have the SAME coverage let me know.

Here's what happened on Wall Street this morning....

The Morgan Stanley Healthcare Payor Index gained 2.3 percent. WellCare Health Plans Inc rose 3.3 percent to $31.73.

Folks, you have been conned by Obama, again.

And for you 30 million people that now must buy insurance....open your wallet....did you actually think you were going to get it totally free?

Did they really....or did they vote against the last eight years starting with their frustration over 911 and the two wars that
that lead to?

Look to Wall street tomorrow for the answers....if stocks dive, you will have your answer. Businesses will put off any new hiring. If stocks go up, you will know you have been conned. If insurer stocks dive, you will see changes to your health insurance from the insurers that poor Congress never could have anticipated. If insurer stocks go up, you will know you have been conned.

Either way...it won't be good news.

So, When Do We Stop Spending Our Children's Money?


March 3, 2010

If you ever get into a bad fix financially, you may reach a point where you are forced to quit spending. You can reach that point while you still have a roof over your head and food in the refrigerator, or you can wait until you go to jail for writing bad checks, or until you are forced to move out of your house to a spot under a bridge.

Right now, our country still has options, and the Senate decided to do something about our spending a couple of weeks ago. The Senate decided that, from now on, all spending would be paid for, rather than pulling out the nation's credit card. Novel concept.

So, this past week that same Senate decided to pass a $10 billion dollar spending bill, but rather than finding some place in our government to cut programs to off-set this spending, they decided to pull out that credit card again. Old habits are hard to break.

Well, Republican Senator, Jim Bunning of Kentucky decided he would object to this spending, and, due to Senate rules, that put a stop to the whole thing.

There is a way the Senate could get around Bunning's objection, but that would mean Senators would have to vote to use that credit card again. They would have to vote on that just after having voted to put that credit card away. Senators don't like votes like that, especially during an election year.

So, what is the Senate doing? They are laying the total blame on Senator Bunning, making him the bad guy, and saying that everything bad that happens because this bill isn't passing is his fault.

What is Bunning's answer about not adding to our deficit? "If not now, when?"

Bunning is asking the Senate if we are not going to stop spending our children's and grandchildren's money now, when are we going to stop? After this bill? After the next bill? Every time the Senate decides to go back to spending more borrowed money, our country gets closer to losing the few spending options were have left,

Right now, were are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on interest for the money our government has already spent. We can already project the day when we will be spending a trillion dollars to pay the interest on our debt. But, so what? Who cares? The Senate of today won't be making that payment, but our children's Senate will be.

http://james-glaser.com/2010/p20100303.html

Say what about the civil rights act -

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 originally passed in the House by 290-130. Cloture was achieved in the Senate by a vote of 71-29, and the Senate then passed its version of the legislation 73-27. The House took up the Senate bill and passed it 289-126. Substantial majorities of both parties supported the legislation at every stage.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/health_care_isnt_like_civil_ri.html


I REPEAT - If the bill was a GOOD BILL, a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT along with a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS wouldn' have ALL THIS EFFORT AND CIRCUMVERSION OF PROCESS FOR IT TO PASS.