7:20 p.m., Wednesday, August 4, 2010
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/4/its-now-fact-the-public-hates-obamacare/

Just under a million Missouri voters braved 102-degree heat Tuesday to cast ballots exempting the state's residents from Obamacare mandates. The verdict on the nationalized health care scheme could not have been more clear: More than 71 percent chose to tell the federal government to stop meddling with their personal health care choices.

Missouri state Sen. Jane Cunningham introduced the legislation that placed the Health Care Freedom Act before voters. This act nullifies any statute that attempts to "compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system." Obamacare's defenders insist the federal health care law trumps Proposition C under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which is ironic considering the utter disregard for constitutional authority that went into drafting Obamacare itself. Leftist lawyers are already forum shopping for an activist judge willing to overturn the public will. Even if successful in some courtroom, Tuesday's vote stands as conclusive evidence that Obamacare has already lost in the highest court of all - that of public opinion. As Mrs. Cunningham put it, "Missourians didn't just send a message, they picked up a megaphone and shouted to Washington, D.C., to Congress and Obama."

Not surprisingly, Democrats have been working hard to downplay Tuesday's significance. The only reason the referendum vote was held during the less important primary season is that Democratic state senators used a filibuster threat to keep the measure off the November ballot. In advance of the vote, Democrats claimed that turnout would be meager and the final result not truly representative of the public mood. Their predictions proved unfounded as hundreds of thousands more voters turned out compared to the 2008 primary.

Tuesday's result was also universal. The proposition won handily in 111 of Missouri's 114 counties. As Mrs. Cunningham explained to The Washington Times, the measure's broad appeal came in reaction to the arrogance of Washington officials. "Missourians really felt that the government ignored their voices during the debate on the federal law."

The White House no longer has the luxury of turning a deaf ear to the cries of Obamacare opponents. Twenty-one states have filed suit to block the federal mandates as unconstitutional, with Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli earlier this week racking up a key procedural win on his lawsuit. In addition, anti-Obamacare initiatives will be on the November ballot in Arizona and Oklahoma, giving more people a platform from which they can voice their discontent. Of course, the most effective way to send a message to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would be to evict the politicians who voted for Obamacare and deny the president his Democratic majority on Capitol Hill.

Members of Congress wishing to keep their jobs in November ought to think seriously about repealing the president's misguided power grab.


***************************
6:42 p.m., Monday, August 2, 2010
Update on Virginia's procedural win here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/2/virginia-wins-a-round-vs-obamacare/

On one side lies federal tyranny. On the other side is freedom. Yesterday, federal district Judge Henry E. Hudson favored freedom by keeping alive Virginia's suit to invalidate the law that created Obamacare.

The major substantive thrust of the lawsuit, filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, is that while Congress can regulate actual economic activity in which citizens choose to participate, it cannot force citizens to partake in economic activity by mandating the purchase of health insurance. In short, there are limits on federal power.

By sheer happenstance, the Drudge Report earlier in the day highlighted a video of Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat, telling a recent town meeting, "The federal government can do most anything in this country." Against this notion, Judge Hudson ruled as a preliminary judgment that Virginia's lawsuit "advances a plausible claim with an arguable legal basis." Why? Because "never before has the Commerce Clause and associated Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far." As the judge concluded, "no reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product."

In short, Judge Hudson is insisting that there are, indeed, boundaries beyond which federal power does not "extend." As Mr. Cuccinelli explained yesterday, "This is not [just] about health care but about liberty and the outer reaches of the power of the federal government."

The Obama administration recognizes no real limits. It had moved on four different grounds to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit before even reaching a trial on the merits. "Virginia had to prevail on all four elements to survive the federal government's motion to dismiss," Mr. Cuccinelli said. "The federal government only has to successfully hang its hat on one constitutional power." Yet the motion to dismiss failed on all four counts, and the case continues. For the Obama administration to go oh-for-four at the preliminary stage is a fitting rebuke to its notions that the national government is all-powerful.

"The commonwealth defies the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] to point to any Commerce Clause jurisprudence extending its tentacles to an individual's decision not to engage in economic activity," Judge Hudson wrote. Such defiance is highly appropriate, particularly in cases such as this, in which Mr. Cuccinelli is protecting a state law against individual mandates. On this point, the judge wrote, "the states have a legally protected sovereign interest."

Read that again: A realm exists in which the states, not the federal government, are sovereign. As the 10th Amendment stipulates, "The powers not delegated to the United States ... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Ultimately, it is the people's own individual sovereignty that is threatened by Obamacare. It's that sovereignty that Mr. Cuccinelli is defending against federal tyranny.

Oh. Like this is a SURPRISE ... ? I think not ...

yeah, no surprise

people have supported and opposed the bill since it began

next step will be amending regulations which require hospitals to treat emergency patients who DONT carry insurance or cant pay by debit or credit card at the time of service,,,,

lets see how much better that goes over,,,

That already happens.

Next time you're at the ER, look for the sign that states;
"You will not be refused service because of an inability to pay."

Hospitals are equipped with forms that will exempt patients without the means to pay.

Others like Illegals, get off free.

The ones with Medicare pay out only what Medicare pays. They can't afford the co-pay which isn't required for service anyway.

I'd like to ask, because, there are many folks here without jobs, how do you pay, if you do, for insurance?

I am covered through the VA.






I think I'm hearing the crickets.

I think there was a communication glitch. I realize that CURRENTLY hospitals are REQUIRED to give service to everyone regardless of ability to pay if it is an emergency,,,,,

i was stating, that if people dont want to be mandated to buy insurance, I can see that regulation being changed to require that even in emergency,, people pay the cost upfront or have insurance to cover the costs...


and to answer the question, I was covered under my employer and have gone with no insurance since losing my job,,,about a year now,,,

I didn't even have to read that article. It is not the job of the government to provide health-care to the people. We have a right to "life," it doesn't say "long life," or "healthy life." It could be a mere second or two, or a hundred twenty-five years, but it is not up to the government.

It would also seem to me to be a violation of property rights for the government to "require" a person to give a large part of their paycheck to a private company. If the government wants to levee a tax and use that money for health-care, if voted on by the people, I could understand that. However, forcing me to give my money to a private institution that is "for profit" is unconstitutional. What next, I have to give money to Ford because I may want to by a car in the future?

Don't worry folks, I plan on being the first person arrested for not having health insurance, I'll take this one to court for you.

don't worry, i'm in that line too...i'm not gunna do it.

more likely a fine for not paying the tax,,, I doubt people will be thrown in jail for having no insurance

God Bless Canada

If they try I hope they have life Insurance

well, if we are in jail, it would still be free...

We might disagree on other things, but I'll be in court with you on this one ...

I wanna' be put on the women's ward.