Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 12thMan;924128It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. [/quote
some of the "history" of how Obamacare became law:
The American Spectator : Obamacare's Hideous History, Recounted
quote]And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept. |
Obamacare as it was written (and unread by many in Congress) is certainly no conservative "concept". You can point to Romneycare, however the law that passed in MA was with (8) over-ridded Romney vetos. For those that are interested in the differences in Romneycare vs. Obamacare here's a good link:
The American Spectator : Obamacare vs. Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference
The court killing the Commerce Clause argument was HUGE and absolutely necessary to curtailing an already out of control, over-regulatory, federal gov't. Here's Roberts' opinion, and while I'm no fan of Obamacare being upheld as a constitutional tax, I'l take that loss while the SCOTUS curtails the federal gov'ts expansion of power.
"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely
because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to
regulate commerce, not to
compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”