You do know that the road to feudalism includes relieving the serfs of their landholdings and returning them to the ownership and control of the feudal lords, who will allow the serfs to sharecrop, if they’re lucky…

More likely serfs will just exist at the sufferance of the lorded gentry.

California, like the rest of the USA is becoming Mexico — a deeply impoverished state where a tiny cabal of wealthy lord over a dirt poor, ignorant, unemployed, desperate and hopeless population.

Why? So the 1% can have slaves. That’s right. Slaves. No more wages, no more benefits. Just work in exchange for a bowl of rice.

Heckuva job.

Obama is a stooge for banks and big pharma. Rescheduling marijuana would destroy the money laundering scheme they have had in place for the last 80 years — how else do you think the banks have managed to keep their Ponziconomy going????

Big pharma views marijuana as competition.
So does big textile.
and many other industries that hemp can provide competition for… all ILLEGAL, thanks to the folks who really run this country..

the BANKS.

This is a good start, David, but the punchline is it is a threat to state sovereignty itself!!!

By hopelessly entangling title in one illegal transaction after another, bypassing state mechanisms in place to transfer and quiet title legally, and in accordance with state law, as is necessary given that we are talking about land that literally belongs to the state itself and its residents, the banksters have created a situation that cries out for a uniform solution.

Only.. the federal government has no authority or jurisdiction to resolve the issue of title in sovereign states. Should it attempt to do so we will have the makings of a real live revolution as the federal government will inevitably attempt to assert jurisdiction and control veiled by an “effort” to “fix” this mess.

The states will have to sort this out one by one and resist any effort to federalize a solution.

These fuckers should all be in jail.

Well, what do you expect in a country where health care is provided on a for profit basis?

lol.

The banksters have decided Mitt is their man. Watch as they groove POTUS to him in another in a series of….

S T O L E N
E L E C T I O N S,
USA

YHIHF

The banksters have decided Mitt is their man. Watch as they groove POTUS to him in another in a series of….

S T O L E N E L E C T I O N S, USA

YHIHF

It isn’t “judicial intervention” for judges to review a law that in their view appears to give an unprecedented interpretation to existing federal powers — here, the commerce clause.

The commerce clause has been recognized to authorize Congress to regulate ongoing interstate commerce and to promote same, by regulating suppliers of products and services in commerce.

However never before has the Commerce clause been used by congress to force consumers into the stream of commerce and to engage in a given commercial transaction.

Naturally before endorsing such an unprecedented reach of Congressional authority, the Court should and must explore the limits of such power. This is because constitutional law is not made on an ad hoc basis (forgetting the horrible Bush v Gore) and once extended, federal power does NOT get retracted.

Every lobby on Earth will be rushing to Congress seeking its cooperation in enacting similar mandates, and only a fool would believe that this is a power, once granted, that will NOT be abused. As it is US congressmen are so easily bought, it isn’t impossible to envision a slew of legislation in the future, each forcing a different purchase on hapless citizens.

Apart from the unprecedented reading of the commerce clause, this legislation if upheld, would also, for the first time, permit Congress to assume authority over your discretionary income, despite the fact that the constitution specifically confines, restricts and limits Congress’ ability to spend your money, to levying and collecting taxes for the purpose of raising revenue to be expended for the common good and general welfare.

So far from being “interventionists” the judges SCOTUS are simply doing what they are supposed to do — which is — to review the law for constitutional firmity. In the case of the ACA there are many exceptional reasons to overturn it — the most glaring being that it is an unwarranted, unnecessary and improper expansion of Congressional power.

Let us hope that common sense prevails and the Court reins in this unprecedented, unnecessary and potentially disastrous overreach by Congress on the extent of its Commerce authority. Congress may regulate and promote commerce, but there is nothing in the constitution that even suggests it may force commerce into existence by requiring consumers to buy it.

And please stop with the car insurance thing. No one is required to buy car insurance. People ARE required to demonstrate financial responsibility if they drive and have an accident. One way to demonstrate financial responsibility is to buy insurance; you can also post a bond of max limits (in CA. it’s 30k at 10% =3k about the cost of annual car insurance) or if you happen to have 30k lying about you can put it in a trust.

It’s financial responsibility that is mandated, not buying car insurance… Sheesh.

The legislation is defended on the ground that so many un or underinsured people die or go bankrupt paying for medical care. But the medical care that causes these horrible results is for CATASTROPHIC INJURY OR ILLNESS.

The policy required under the ACA does NOT cover Catastrophic injury or illness. It is a standard annual policy with a maximum annual limit of 100k per insured and a stop loss of 1,000,000.00 over the lifetime of the insured (that’s YOU)

The ACA does NOT require insurers to pay for any medical costs or services IN EXCESS of this limit. In other words, despite having a federally mandated consumer pool of 100% of American citizens, the insurers are NOT required to pay for catastrophic injury or illness care.

So what does the ACA actually do?

Makes a wholebuncha munny for for profit insurance carriers.

Makes a mediocre insurance policy standard for everyone.

It’s a steaming pile of legislative shit and if Congress really wants to provide health care to Americans it can just fucking do that.

Nationalize health services;
or
Single payer

NOW.

The mandate must go. It is a reeking turd and a total abuse of the Commerce that can and if history is any teacher, will get out of hand.

Single Payer or
Nationalize Health Care.

oh frank, I never thought the draft constitutional. it was, at best, indentured servitude and a claim of ownership of your sovereign self, by the government. add to that that military involvement in vietnam also was unconstitutional in that it was an act of war NOT authorized by congress (ultimately whitewashed by calling it *giggle* a police action.

So, I considered the draft a most egregious and illegal usurpation of the sovereign self. Add to that the for-profit motive behind all wars (seriously we’re spreading “democracy?” Hahaha *doubles over with laughter* *wipes tears from her eyes* yeah, yeah right…and I’m … the Queen of Sheba) and the intentional waste of tens of thousands of lives, most of whom are and will always be, civilians; this brutal herd thinning, culling, if you will, of the brown and yellow and black people of the world, the destruction of young lives…

constitutional?

Yeah, if things that are constitutional include the flagrantly illegal acts by unauthorized branches of government.

OI ACA

can’t spel

Jon the argument that the mandate is justified because the market (for health care) is all-inclusive is flawed, because in fact, the so-called market for health care is NOT all-inclusive. Unless you’re gonna tell me that people who never get sick are in the health care market. Or Christian Scientists. Or others who don’t for whatever reason, believe in, trust, or like doctors or conventional medicine.

Since the ADA doesn’t address or provide for insurance coverage for so-called unconventional treatments, the foundational premise supporting this misguided legislative turd is demonstrably erroneous.

Moreover, most people self-treat the majority of illnesses and injuries because most illnesses and injuries are minor and do not require professional medical care. I suppose we could torture, then beat logic to death and, applying Lochner and Wickard, force people who would just treat their colds with Day Care and minor cuts with Band Aids into the professional “health care” market but surely the absurdity of such a position is clear.

How then can Congress regulate the absence of commerce? Once you admit that even ONE exception to the so-called “all-inclusive” universe of “everyone” then you have to concede that therefore, there is nothing unique whatsoever about the “market” for “health care.”

Even less logical is the quantum non sequitur that insurance will provide health care. But I’ve covered that elsewhere.

Peace.

Sorry should have qualified it to confine the comment to in the context of the stated policy/purpose of the ADA, they are talking about health care services provided by health care professionals which include doctors and nurses and hospital care.

I agree with you that there are many other practitioners/renderers of health services but that is not what they are talking about when they refer to “everyone” being in the “market for health care.”

Look. The administration rested its entire argument on two premises, both demonstrably false:

1. EVERYONE in the country, either now or inevitably in the future will become a health care customer. Uninsured people who become catastrophically injured or ill foist the cost of their care on all of us (duh — that’s what it means to live in a civilized nation where burdens and benefits are shared).
2. Requiring everyone (presumably the “everyone” that is comprising the total existing and future market for “health care”) is an appropriate way to share the cost of those who can’t afford health care.

RESPONSE:

1. “Everyone” will eventually be in the market for health care. LIE. People who don’t get sick will never be “in the market” for health care. Nor will people who do not go to doctors, for instance, Christian Scientists and people who simply don’t like doctors. Since the entire foundation of Congress’ inexcusable, illogical and unprecedented overreach by Commerce is that health care is something EVERYONE will need and, as shown, that is simply not the case, then there is no reason to treat this effort by Congress to subsidize the private for profit insurance industry by mandate.

2. Buying insurance DOES NOT necessarily mean you will get the health care you need. If the health care you need isn’t covered by your insurance policy, you will have to buy it yourself. The minimum coverage mandated by the ADA will pay for doctor visits, minor surgeries and maternity care (including an up to 2 day hospital stay — just so you know most C sections require 3-4 days). The policy mandated by the ADA DOES NOT FURNISH: (a) extended hospital care; (b) catastrophic care or (c) catastrophic trauma/post trauma care. Bottom line, forcing everyone to buy this policy will not remedy the problem described in #1 above, to wit: the uninsured are a burden on society. Guess what? Even people WITH insurance often find themselves bankrupted by medical bills. Between claims denials, deductibles, policy limits and the ultimate weapon, STOP LOSS, the point at which the carrier simply will NOT pay one more cent, you can STILL GO BROKE PAYING MEDICAL BILLS EVEN IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE.

I would remind all of you: DOCTORS and NURSES and health care professionals provide HEALTH CARE. Insurance companies sell insurance. Insurance SOMETIMES pays for health care, sometimes not.

It is obvious from oral argument that the Administration’s impetus for supporting this legislation is a desire to fix the MARKET and NOT to provide health care to citizens.

If that were the case, we would either nationalize health service like Great Britain did, or establish a common revenue funded by tax contributions, which money is then used to pay between 2-3% for administrative costs ( as opposed to 10-15% costs PLUS of private insurers; bloated executive salaries and bonuses included, PLUS and most importantly, stockholder dividends– leaving only a tiny fraction of your premium dollars to be spent actually paying for your healthcare). The public payer fund by contrast, can spend 97+ cents on every dollar ACTUALLY PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE SERVICES.

We could even give such a public payer a name… I dunno.. uhm… Medicare?

Finally, if NOT buying something is Commerce, then there isn’t anything that isn’t Commerce and, by and through the Commerce clause, the US government becomes a government of unlimited power.

The ADA MUST fail.

Nationalize health services or expand Medicare. Either or both would be entirely constitutional and wouldn’t require acute mental gymnastics, torturing logic or language to justify such legislation.

And your claim will be denied because you insured after the peril. Your point?

Why does anyone need health insurance? Why can’t the United States provide its people with affordable health care like EVERY civilized nation on the planet?

Because health insurance is a for-profit business. Congress has tried to subsidize it through the ACA. Hopefully SCOTUS will dial that misstep back.

Nationalize health care. Then watch the cost of health care miraculously become affordable to all.

Oh, and btw, those of you who think it’s just great that everyone will have to buy insurance under ACA: There is NO provision in ACA WHATSOEVER to control, oversee, administer or have any input on premiums charged.

There is NO provision in ACA WHATSOEVER to control, oversee, administer or have any input on premiums charged.

It is a MYTH that insurers don’t offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. In my state, it is ILLEGAL for a health insurance carrier to deny anyone coverage because of a health condition. HOWEVER, health insurers can charge WHATEVER THEY WANT for people with pre-existing conditions.

This will NOT CHANGE under ACA. If you think it will, you need to reread the act. Ordinarily when a public agency deputizes or authorizes a private company to act under color of its authority, the private entity assumes all the characteristics of the public agency; to wit; accountability, control, oversight and public administration.

But, the ACA is a blank check written on YOUR and MY bank account to the insurance industry. I give it six months before the abuse starts. Wait and see how your “minimum limits” policy ends up costing you as much as Cobra coverage. Mark these words, peeps, it’s just a matter of time.