President Obama said the new health care law would be a good thing, that it would be paid for and deficit neutral. Yet a large majority of the American people don’t think so according to the newest Rasmussen poll.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters nationwide believe repeal of the recently passed health care law will be good for the economy.The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% believe repeal will be bad for the economy. Twelve percent (12%) say it will have no impact, and eight percent (8%) are not sure.
From the moment it was passed, a majority of voters around the country have wanted to see the health care law repealed.
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans believe repeal would be good for the economy, while 59% of Democrats believe it would be bad. Among those not affiliated with either political party, 47% believe repeal would be good for the economy, and 29% believe it would be bad.
1* If the health care bill is repealed would that be good for the economy, bad for the economy or would it have no impact on the economy?
Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility
Talk about being clueless, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) insisted that the new health care law she voted for last month does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance, despite language in the law that plainly says otherwise.
At an April 5 town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale, a constituent asked Wasserman Shultz where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. She responded that the new health care law did not require individuals to buy health insurance.
In a written statement to CNSNews.com on Wednesday, her press secretary, Jonathan Beeton, said it was true that the health care law did not mandate that individuals buy health insurance and that Wasserman Schultz stood by her assertion at the townhall meeting.
“We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance,” Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting.
“Yes, this is accurate,” Beeton said in his statement to CNSNews.com. “You have a choice of insuring yourself with affordable coverage, or paying an assessment that will offset the burden you place on other insured Americans and taxpayers by not being insured.”
Judge Andrew Napolitano says President Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform “have a pretty strong case” and are likely to prevail.
President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform “have a pretty strong case” and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president’s healthcare reforms amount to “commandeering” the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.
“The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments,” Napolitano says. “Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.
“That’s called commandeering the legislature,” he says. “That’s the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That’s prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”
Napolitano tells Newsmax that the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic.
“The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can’t simply move in there,” Napolitano says. “And the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they’re doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.
Other issues that Napolitano addressed during the wide-ranging interview:
* He believes American is in danger of becoming “a fascist country,” which he defines as “private ownership, but government control.” He adds, “The government doesn’t have the money to own anything. But it has the force and the threat of violence to control just about anything it wants. That will rapidly expand under President Obama, unless and until the midterm elections give us a midterm correction – which everyone seems to think, and I’m in that group, is about to come our way.
* Napolitano believes the federal government lacks the legal authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. The Congress [is] ordering human beings to purchase something that they might not want, might not need, might not be able to afford, and might not want — that’s never happened in our history before,” Napolitano says. “My gut tells me that too is unconstitutional, because the Congress doesn’t have that kind of power under the Constitution.”
* The sweetheart deals in the healthcare reform bill used that persuaded Democrats to vote for it – the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gatorade Exception and others – create “a very unique and tricky constitutional problem” for Democrats, because they treat citizens differently based on which state they live in, running afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection clause according to Napolitano. “So these bennies or bribes, whatever you want, or horse trading as it used to be called, clearly violate equal protection by forcing people in the other states to pay the bills of the states that don’t have to pay what the rest of us do,” Napolitano says.
* Exempting union members from the so-called “Cadillac tax” on expensive health insurance policies, while imposing that tax on other citizens, is outright discrimination according to Napolitano. “The government cannot draw a bright line, with fidelity to the Constitution and the law, on the one side of which everybody pays, and the other side of which some people pay. It can’t say, ‘Here’s a tax, but we’re only going to apply it to nonunion people. Here’s a tax, and we’re only going to apply it to graduates of Ivy League institutions.’ The Constitution does not permit that type of discrimination.”
* Politicians from both parties routinely disregard the Constitutional limits imposed on them by the nation’s founding document, Napolitano says. “The problem with the Constitution is not any structural problem,” says Napolitano. “The problem with the constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don’t take their oath seriously. For example, just a month ago in interviewing Congressman Jim Clyburn, who’s the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House, I said to him, Congressman Clyburn, can you tell me where in the Constitution the Congress is authorized to regulate healthcare? He said, ‘Judge, most of what we do down here,’ referring to Washington, ‘is not authorized by the Constitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution we’re prohibited from regulating healthcare.’ Napolitano says that reflects a misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually is. “He’s turning the Constitution on its head, because Congress is not a general legislature,” he says. “It was not created in order to right every wrong. It exists only to legislate in the 17 specific, discrete, unique areas where the Constitution has given it power. All other areas of human area are reserved for the states.”
* Napolitano says that members of Congress infringe on Constitutional rights because they fail to recognize its basis. “They reject Jefferson’s argument, in the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator, therefore they’re natural rights, therefore they can’t be legislated away,” Napolitano says. “They think they can legislate on any activity, regulate any behavior, tax any person or thing, as long as the politics will let them survive. They’re wrong, and with this healthcare legislation, they may be proven wrong, in a very direct and in-your-face way.”
Catch the entire interview in the video provided by Newsmax:
Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility
Tim Cahill is the state treasurer of Massachusetts and is currently running as an independent for governor. Mr Cahill has summed up the effects of RomneyCare, “I can speak with authority about the Massachusetts pilot program. It has been a fiscal train wreck.”
White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod hailed the Massachusetts health-care program as “the template” for the national health-care reform legislation the president signed into law earlier this week.
That should be cause for serious concern about this law’s ability to improve our health-care system at an affordable cost.
As state treasurer, I can speak with authority about the Massachusetts pilot program.
It has been a fiscal train wreck.
The universal insurance coverage we adopted in 2006 was projected to cost taxpayers $88 million a year.
However, since this program was adopted in 2006, our health-care costs have in total exceeded $4 billion.
The cost of Massachusetts’ plan has blown a hole in the Commonwealth’s budget.
Just last Thursday, Gov. Deval Patrick’s office announced a $294 million shortfall related to health-care costs.
If not for federal Medicaid reimbursements and commitments from Washington to prop up this plan, Massachusetts would be broke.
The only reason MassCare has survived is that we have been repeatedly bailed out by the federal government.
But that raises the question: Who will bail America out if we implement a similar program?
With 62 percent wanting Republicans to keep the fight up against the health care reform law, Obama with his smug arrogance challenged the GOP to “go for it” and try to repeal his new health care law, saying Thursday they should “Go for it” and see how well they fare with voters.
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) – President Barack Obama mocked Republicans’ campaign to try to repeal his new health care law, saying Thursday they should “Go for it” and see how well they fare with voters.
“Be my guest,” Obama said in prepared remarks for the first of many appearances around the country to sell the overhaul to voters before the fall congressional elections. “I welcome that fight. Because I don’t believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver’s seat.”
With emotions raw around the nation over the party-line vote to approve the nearly $1 trillion, 10-year law, Obama took the opposition to task for “fear-mongering and overheated rhetoric.”
“If you turn on the news, you’ll see that those same folks are still shouting about how the world will end because we passed this bill,” said Obama, appearing before thousands in this college town where he first, as a presidential candidate three years ago, unveiled his health care proposals. The White House released the text of his speech in advance.
No Republican lawmakers voted for the overhaul, a sweeping package that will change how almost every American will receive and pay for medical treatment. Many in the GOP are predicting it will prove devastating in November for the Democrats who voted for it.
Perhaps Obama is underestimating the anger of the American people. Kind of difficult to gage the mood of the country when every appearance he makes is staged with Obama supporters. There will be hell to pay in November as Obama and the statist Democrats feel the full wrath of the voters.
This morning, Congressman Mike Pence spoke directly to the concerns of vandalism and bigotry toward the Democrats who voted for ObamaCare. I wish there were more men and women like Rep. Mike Pence. Please watch the video clip and read the text below:
“…that is no excuse for bigotry, threats or acts of vandalism and I condemn such things in the strongest possible terms. People who engage in such acts undermine our cause and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
“But I also rise to condemn the efforts to smear millions of law abiding Americans who oppose ObamaCare by associating them and their principled opposition with these criminal acts.
“The American people have every right to oppose this government takeover of health care without being lumped in with bigots and vandals by liberals in Congress and in the mainstream press.
“I say to my countrymen:
“End the threats.
“End the vandalism.
“And let’s also end the smears of law-abiding citizens exercising their first amendment right to speech and peaceable assembly.”
The only way to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare is at the ballot box this November. In the meanwhile, democrat politicians need to stop the smear campaign against ordinary Americans who are opposed to the government take-over of the worlds greatest health care system!
Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility
When Steny Hoyer was confronted by Jason Mattera why Americans will be taxed for not having health care, the statist democrat from Maryland could not give an answer.
Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) refuses to apologize for his “baby killer” comment on the House floor.
(The Hill)While the Texas Republican said he didn’t mean to direct his jeer at Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), he still believes that “this bill was a baby killer.”
“I don’t apologize for speaking what I thought was the truth. I believe this bill was a baby killer,” Neugebauer told Fox News’s Sean Hannity last night.
“The fact that some thought I was speaking about Congressman Stupak, that was what I apologized to him about. But I’m not going to ever apologize for expressing my feelings on something as important as this piece of legislation,” he added.
Neugebauer’s comments seem to contradict an earlier statement he issued, in which he said that “the House chamber is a place of decorum and respect” and acknowledged that “the timing and tone of my comment last night was inappropriate.”
Kudos to Rep. Randy Neugebauer for sticking with and taking up for the unborn!
Promoting Limited Government,Constitutional Rights and Personal Responsibility