An Idiot At MIT Knows Nothing About the United States Constitution.
Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 8:03PM Mike Allen / The Politico: MIT analysis backs Obama
A new analysis by a leading MIT economist provides new ammunition for Democrats as the Senate begins formally debating the historic health-reform bill being pushed by President Barack Obama.
The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today's typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs.
So Democrats will argue that under the Senate bill, Americans would pay less for more.
The new document arms Democrats with a response to the contention of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that the bill would mean “higher premiums, higher taxes, and massive cuts to Medicare.” [...]
Let's just COMPLETELY disregard the United States Constitution, OK? Let's. I don't give a rat's ass who pays for how much or when or where. The federal government, according to the United States Constitution, has no place in ANY federal health care plan and that includes Socialist Security, by the way. That includes the plethora of PPO, HMO and other kind of a "program" the federal government started. Period. Please show me within the USC where a federal health care is provided for and I will quit talking about it. Try it.
The Snooper Report. Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (4)
It would be nice if, instead of brushing off the question (whether fed govt healthcare is constitutionally compliant) - or simply ignoring it, these jackasses would answer the question.
They won't because they don't understand.
This is why, with respect snooper, the Founders did not leave questions of whether an action was compliant with either the Executive or the Legislative Branches - they know they would be elected politicians who would say and do anything for a vote.
That is why the judiciary has the power of judicial review. Even before Marbury - it's implicit. Otherwise, you'd get what we see above, politicians not paying a blind bit of difference to the Constitution - with nothing to stop them.
ps, I just found out Sotomayor has been made an honourary bencher of my Inn. I'll try to get a snap and send it to you if she ever comes here! lol
Judicial review as set forth by a nut with his black robes on is in fact unconstitutional. Read the constitution to see for yourself what is and isn't constitutional for SCOTUS. It's that simple. The USC is in fact exactly the way it needs to be. The problem? The "judiciary" says it doesn't go far enough. Too bad. It is what it is and if our elected cockroaches would actually adhere to the Document as written, 95% of our "problems self-induced" would vanish.
I am having more and more difficulty listening to the elected cockroaches and their herdsmen in Black Robes INFORMING the public when the USC gives a 100% different view.
Screw the "judiciary".
Amen Mark. They ignore it for multiple reasons but primarily because the amendment process must be initiated to make additions or changes to the Constitution. That has no political expediency for them.
It's much easier for the bastards to ignore the Constitution. Besides, how many people in this country know anything about the Constitution? If the people did and spoke up, the government couldn't get away with half of what they do.
Half? It's more like 90% of their CRAP in DC is in fact unconstitutional, judicial review discounted.