OBAMAS BILL FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL

1. 60

   politicsdayleeposted 15 years ago

   OBAMAS BILL FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL
   Obama & Dems bill found to be illegal
   More than 100 law suits have been filed against this unconstitutional health care bill, The States and the people are fighting back. dems call it a glitch , but the fact is it must go back to rewritten and be singed again. And of course it will. The dems will not stop untill they are voted out with their leader pelosi, just one more indication the dems will partake in illegal activty to transform this country into somthing the people do not wish it to become.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Poppa Bluesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Actually the bill has not yet been challenged. What you're talking about is the reconciliation package now being considered. This is a package of "fixes" that the House wanted to fix the senate bill which the President signed into law on Tuesday. Apparently the education loan provision violates a congressional rule and needs to be re-worded and then sent back to the house to be voted on again. They only need 51 votes to pass it under reconciliation.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         politicsdayleeposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         vote them out nov

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Doug Hughesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly right, Poppa.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I doubt Obama or anyone will even listen, even if they threaten to throw him and Pelosi in jail.
      
      Ya know why?---because he and she and the rest of the Cabinet will just come up with another smokescreen to occupy everyone's time.
      That, or Obama will find some way to twist things around and claim discrimination.  I noticed he said he dedicated the health care bill to his mother who fought with insurance companies while dying of cancer.  Honorable intent or excuse?  Who knows with him.  But in the case it's really because he's compassionate about sick people, he could've tried to reform the system including insurance companies and medical prices and in other ways like getting rid of fraud and crap.  Instead, he's simply telling us how our money has to be spent.

      replyreport
2. 65

   Arthur Fontesposted 15 years ago

   If it is not deemed illegal.
   
   Then Healthcare will be considered a right.
   
   31 million people will file lawsuits if they do not have access to healthcare the day it is put into law.
   
   The coverage will not start for three years.
   
   That is a three year violation of the right to healthcare.
   
   Messy business.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      politicsdayleeposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      yep its gonna be ping pong till we vote them out in nov.

      replyreport
3. 69

   MikeNVposted 15 years ago

   There is a lot of work to be done.  We need to wait and see what happens.
   
   There will be plenty of lawsuits and plenty of manuevering.
   
   The Democrats still have the ability to put in their versions of "fix".
   
   The real issue will be if it is Constitutionally legal to FORCE people to buy insurance.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      From what I've read that's quite a long shot.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      politicsdayleeposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      yes I have my fix thats gonna happin in nov.

      replyreport
4. 81

   habeeposted 15 years ago

   I agree, Mr. Deeds. I don't think the SCOTUS will want to get involved.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      When somebody calls me Mr. it makes me feel incredibly ancient. Ralph would be fine.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Doug Hughesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         It's the beard,  Ralph.
         I disagree, Habee.  I think the Supreme Court is VERY eager to hear the cases. The first round will probably not go all the way, because the states haven't got  a leg to stand on. The issue of the constitutionality of the 'mandate' won't be heard until AFTER  the  'mandate' goes into effect - which is 2014, and makes it 2015 or '16 when the SC rules on the only issue  in question. The reason I conceed it's in question is because there isn't strong precedent - it's relatively new territory worthy of consideration by the SC.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            That picture is my grandfather!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               politicsdayleeposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               that's a good pic Ralph
               tell Paw Paw hello
               I miss my Paw Paw He taught me a lot of construction skills!

               replyreport