Phil Hare, Congressman, "I don't care about the Constitution, the Declaration....

[amicus]

Phil Hare, Congressman, "I don't care about the Constitution, the Declaration....

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

In answer to questions concerning the healthcare legislation, Congressman Phil Hare said: "I don't care about the Constitution or the Declaration of Indepence or the Bill of Rights..."

~~~

I notice that attitude to be prevalent among the far left denizens of the AH. Providing health care to everyone, regardless of the consequences, is more important than the rule of law.

There are a number of legal challenges already in the works as to the Constitutionality of Obamacare, with predictions rife on both sides as to what the judicial decisions will be.

There are calls for the impeachment of State Governors who refuse to join other States in a legal challenge and a 'limited' Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to forbid socialized medicine in the US is being prepared.

The passage of this major piece of legislation which involves nearly twenty percent of the entire US Budget, by Democrats only, without a single Republican vote, is also a precedent setting event.

Still, seven months before the midterm election in which all 435 Representatives and one third of the Senate seats will be elected, there is still contention over what effects the passage of the Bill will have.

Does the Constitution trump Partisan Legislation or not?

Amicus

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here is the videotape:

http://www.zimbio.com/Phil+Hare/articles/TJblYsu1Ki6/Phil+Hare+Don+t+Worry+Constitution+Video

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks, Box, I heard him say "I don't worry about the constitution on this"

As in; "I am sure this bill is constitutional"

In no way does he say that he disregards the constitution.

Amicus, has your nurse changed your underoos yet?

 

[Liar]

I imagine that attitude to be prevalent among the far left denizens of the AH.

There. Fixed that sentence for ya to reflect reality.

 

[amicus]

It is a legitimate question, whether the rule of law overrides the desires of the many for health care to be considered a 'right', to be provided all citizens regardless.

All but a handful on this forum, including Liar, believe that adequate and accessible medical care is or should be an inherent right to any citizen of any country.

It is a moral question to which there seems only one compassionate answer, at least to those of a certain political persuasion.

My question, and that of well over half the nation, is whether or not mandatory insurance enforced by government falls within the province of our laws, the Constitution.

In the eyes of many and the legal opinion of many, neither the Income Tax, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and now the omnibus Obamacare, are within the province of the authorized powers of government.

America has been on a more than one hundred year quest to change, modify, or transform our form of government from a limited one to an expansive, all encompassing provider.

Every increase in the power of government acts to diminish the rights, freedoms and choices of the individual and many, if not most Americans, when the issue to clearly portrayed, choose freedom over the comfort of a Statist society.

Like it or not, I present a valid, if minority view on such things and you would not respond so vehemently if you did not comprehend the basic conflict involved.

Stephen55 refers to himself as a lazy, socialist parasite in jest as a counterpoint to my thesis...I think he does not realize how accurate his own self portrait really is.

Amicus

 

[TE999]

It is a legitimate question, whether the rule of law overrides the desires of the many for health care to be considered a 'right', to be provided all citizens regardless.

All but a handful on this forum, including Liar, believe that adequate and accessible medical care is or should be an inherent right to any citizen of any country.

It is a moral question to which there seems only one compassionate answer, at least to those of a certain political persuasion.

My question, and that of well over half the nation, is whether or not mandatory insurance enforced by government falls within the province of our laws, the Constitution.

In the eyes of many and the legal opinion of many, neither the Income Tax, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and now the omnibus Obamacare, are within the province of the authorized powers of government.

America has been on a more than one hundred year quest to change, modify, or transform our form of government from a limited one to an expansive, all encompassing provider.

Every increase in the power of government acts to diminish the rights, freedoms and choices of the individual and many, if not most Americans, when the issue to clearly portrayed, choose freedom over the comfort of a Statist society.

Like it or not, I present a valid, if minority view on such things and you would not respond so vehemently if you did not comprehend the basic conflict involved.

Stephen55 refers to himself as a lazy, socialist parasite in jest as a counterpoint to my thesis...I think he does not realize how accurate his own self portrait really is.

Amicus

Providing some sort of health insurance/care to everyone who desires it is one thing...requiring everyone to purchase it under penalty of law is quite another. Then it becomes a matter of freedom of choice and it's clearly unConstitutional.

If Obama wants to underwrite the expense to every health insurance company for taking on the uninsurable/high risk applicants with tax dollars, so be it. It would be vastly cheaper than attempting to control the entire health care industry from Washington.

Reducing Medicare benefits to pay for things like this, however, is a cruel snub to the elderly, many of whom only have Medicare as their health care provider. Many physicians with large numbers of Medicare patients will not be able to remain solvent with reduced payments and will refuse Medicare patients or close their practice.

When you have dullards like the congressman this thread is about in charge that should scare any thinking person.

 

[Stella_Omega]

aww, ami, you just don't want to admit that you Lied about what the congressman said.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I wonder about something else. Will Medicaid or the subsidized health insurance pay for abortions? Supposedly, they are specifically excluded but, since abortions are legal and are considered to be medically necessary, will their exclusion invalidate the bill? Is that exclusion Constitutional?

When I worked for Medicaid, over thirty years ago, abortions were covered. I understand they have been excluded since then, but will they be excluded from being paid for by partially subsidized policies?

 

[Smarmy_and_Sappe]

In answer to questions concerning the healthcare legislation, Congressman Phil Hare said: "I don't care about the Constitution or the Declaration of Indepence or the Bill of Rights..."

~~~

I notice that attitude to be prevalent among the far left denizens of the AH. Providing health care to everyone, regardless of the consequences, is more important than the rule of law.

There are a number of legal challenges already in the works as to the Constitutionality of Obamacare, with predictions rife on both sides as to what the judicial decisions will be.

There are calls for the impeachment of State Governors who refuse to join other States in a legal challenge and a 'limited' Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to forbid socialized medicine in the US is being prepared.

The passage of this major piece of legislation which involves nearly twenty percent of the entire US Budget, by Democrats only, without a single Republican vote, is also a precedent setting event.

Still, seven months before the midterm election in which all 435 Representatives and one third of the Senate seats will be elected, there is still contention over what effects the passage of the Bill will have.

Does the Constitution trump Partisan Legislation or not?

Amicus

You're a twit.

We already have socialized medicine in this country, it's called Medicare.

Group medical insurance is a form of socialism. Everyone pools their money, some people get more in benefits than they pay in, and others get less. And the company makes a profit as well.

Exactly what is Obamacare? I'm familiar with Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Health Care, Kaiser Permanente, Gallagher Bassett, but I haven't heard of Obamacare. I don't think the plan is to have government run healthcare.

Yes, health care should be a right. And it should be added to the constitution.

 

[Smarmy_and_Sappe]

I wonder about something else. Will Medicaid or the subsidized health insurance pay for abortions? Supposedly, they are specifically excluded but, since abortions are legal and are considered to be medically necessary, will their exclusion invalidate the bill? Is that exclusion Constitutional?

When I worked for Medicaid, over thirty years ago, abortions were covered. I understand they have been excluded since then, but will they be excluded from being paid for by partially subsidized policies?

Medicaid plans differ from state to state.

The Hyde Amendment, enacted in 1976, denies federal Medicaid coverage of abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment.

My opinion for what it is worth, is that abortions should be legal. The decision should be left up to the woman and her doctor.

I personally don't support abortion as a form of birth control, but I don't believe that any woman should have to conform to what I choose to believe.

 

[Dragonlipz]

aww, ami, you just don't want to admit that you Lied about what the congressman said.

Stella, you should know by now that Komrad Amikus has no use for the truth, it only gets in the way of the fictional world he inhabits: a true FOX Network devotee is the Amikus....
The lies define him and his stunted, infantile world view but the truth would set him free.....
Faced with the choice of spouting hypocrisy or embracing the truth, modern day 'conservatives' always choose to obfuscate and lie. You can't have true convictions and be a conservative these days.
Morality has no place in the FOX conservative agenda as Komrad Amikus demonstrates each time he graces this forum with his odorous opinions.

 

[Dragonlipz]

You're a twit.

We already have socialized medicine in this country, it's called Medicare.

Group medical insurance is a form of socialism. Everyone pools their money, some people get more in benefits than they pay in, and others get less. And the company makes a profit as well.

Exactly what is Obamacare? I'm familiar with Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Health Care, Kaiser Permanente, Gallagher Bassett, but I haven't heard of Obamacare. I don't think the plan is to have government run healthcare.

Yes, health care should be a right. And it should be added to the constitution.

S and S;
Welcome to the forum, but by now you've probably already guessed that Komrad Amikus is an active participant in the 'Socialist' health care provided by our government.
Like a the true 'conservative' hypocrite that he is, he takes his 'handout' without shame or pride. He's a true burden to the rest of us who pay taxes.
A social parasite who feeds at the public trough and then whines about the loss of his freedoms.......
Of course he could refuse to accept the public monies sent to him every month or the Medicare treatments that he enjoys but he'd rather whine about nonsense that is primarily fiction......
It's no much easier to be him when no morality is involved........

 

[Liar]

All but a handful on this forum, including Liar, believe that adequate and accessible medical care is or should be an inherent right to any citizen of any country.

You seem pathologically addicted to telling me what I think.

You are, by the way, wrong.

So please stop trying, you're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Handley_Page]

Amicus, I think you missed off an important bit:-

''I don't worry about the constitution on this to be honest,"

 

[Liar]

I wonder about something else. Will Medicaid or the subsidized health insurance pay for abortions? Supposedly, they are specifically excluded but, since abortions are legal and are considered to be medically necessary, will their exclusion invalidate the bill? Is that exclusion Constitutional?

When I worked for Medicaid, over thirty years ago, abortions were covered. I understand they have been excluded since then, but will they be excluded from being paid for by partially subsidized policies?

Pretty much yes. From what I can tell, the plans you buy with the health insurance subsidy check can not contain abortion coverage, and Medicaid reimbursment doesn't either. Also, no plans sold on the upcoming exchanges will be allowed to offer abortion coverage. (The Hyde amendment however makes exceptions in all those rules for critical abortions due to rape, incest, or life endangerment.)

If you take subsidy monies or buy your insurance on the exchange, the only way to get abortion coverage, is to buy a separate insurance just for that with separate monies on the open market.

 

[Pure]

note

stell ami, you just don't want to admit that you Lied about what the congressman said.

i disagree, stell. amicus did not lie. he simply buys and repeats R'n talking points. this one sentence out of context is virally flying about in cyber-looney space. and anyway, you *know* Obama is planning to abolish the Constitution and make himself Supreme Leader for Life, after rounding up the older folks and putting them into institutions run by 'death committees'.