We the people told you the Congress and the President - overwhelmingly - that we didn't want your health care bill, but you wouldn't listen. You passed it anyway.
Virginia has already voted to assert their state's right and not participate in the mandatory insurance program.
Yesterday. Missouri voted 3-1 the same way, not allowing it for their citizens either.
Soon Oklahoma and Florida will vote to prohibit it also.
How you gonna pay for this monstrosity when there's no revenue?
You might want to go ahead and repeal it now - or you can wait until January for your replacements to do it.
───
For more information on my coaching and educational programs and services, visit my website stevehoffacker.com, or go to my other blog homesalesinsights.com for additional sales tips, insights, and commentary. Listen to my free podcast messages at Steve Hoffacker's Happenings.
Steve Hoffacker - Consultant, Coach, Author, Blogger, Photographer, Motivator, Teacher, & Strategist - for Realtors, Real Estate Sales Professionals, Home Builders, New Home Salespeople, Entrepreneurs, Small Business Owners, and Independent Sales Representatives.
Photography displayed is original composition and artistic expression of Steve Hoffacker, and as such is copyrighted. Photos are as taken and have not been cropped, edited, or enhanced in anyway.
Steve, It’s crazy isn’t it? I will never understand how or why these things happen. Like putting a band-aid on a severed artery.
So - we are going down the nullification route again, I see. Apparently you didn't pay attention to history class.
Didn't the Civil War teach folks that nullification and the whole theory of states rights was a load of crap?
What don't people get about federal laws trumping anything that a state wants to do? Why don't you get that states cannot voluntarily decide not to abide by federal laws? Talk about a colossal waste of money...tying up the courts with frivolous lawsuits...your money would be better spent attempting to throw out those congressmen and women who did support health care reform...good luck with that....
I wonder if this regime will end up filing lawsuits against all of the states that vote against the Obamacare? Talk about audacity!
Steve - I don't think there will be enough to overcome a white house veto of any repeals. But, it certainly can be severely modified.
Didn't Florida vote to deny funding for it but governor Crist vetoed the bill? That's what I recall. My insurance rates just went up again. Doesn't seem like Obamacare is lowering the rates at all.
Kathleen,
Health Care happened because the Progressives wanted it - they have wanted it for nearly a century. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid made it happen - turning their backs on the American people. :)
Steve
William,
The only reason the fedeal government exists is because the states allow it. The 9th and 10th Amendments give the states and the people supreme power. :)
Steve
Jon,
They have already demonstrated that they like the lawsuit - against Arizona. :)
Steve
Massachusetts already has mandatory health care for all residents and things seem to be going well there. I have always had insurance through my company so it will not effect me but my fiancee is paying through the nose for 80% coverage..she pays 10x more than me per month and gets 80% coverage and I get 100% coverage. I should hope that Obamacare would lower her cost but its going to raise it. This means that she will pay what, 20x more than me for worse care? Ridiculous.
Mike,
Congress can attach a repeal to one of the President's "must have" bills. :)
Steve
Rob,
Seems like we did vote for something like that, but there is no way insurance rates can go down. :)
Steve
Joe,
Massachusetts health care - depends on who you talk to. Employers providing health care is not a right. We'd all be better off if they didn't do it. BTW, your employer contribution to your health insurance is now W-2 taxable income. How 'bout that? :)
Steve
Woohoo! This is just the beginning of the people's revolt against socialistic policies that give the feds more power!! It makes me smile!
Massachusettes healthcare reform has proven to be a bust. Keep reading...
"MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.
What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.
The state's plan flunks on all counts.
* First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry.
* Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs.
* Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.
* Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable
* Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance
Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care...was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world."
Another article:
"Like the bill that President Obama signed on Sunday, the 2006 Massachusetts plan was sold to voters on the now-familiar promise that it would reduce costs and lower unnecessary emergency room visits. That's not what happened.
Since the bill became law, the state's total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent
According to Cahill, Massachusetts is still afloat thanks only to generous federal subsidies, Medicaid waivers and gobs of recent stimulus money. "I'm worried that now that this national plan has passed, some of that federal money will start drying up"
http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/skyrocketing-massachusetts-health-costs-could-foreshadow-high-price-of-obamacare/#ixzz0vfALWLjK
Congratulations this post is now featured in the Silent Majority Group of Active Rain.
Georgia,
Thanks for sharing those points. We must bring this down. Whenever a tax increase is coupled with "reduced costs" everyone should see that for the absolute lie that it is and run the other way. :)
Steve
Nick,
Thank you. :)
Steve
Steve - Interesting post. It is definatily creating lots of emotions. I am going to stand on the sidelines and watch for a bit. I love America, and our ability to question anything. Good job on doing what you believe!
Steve - Interesting post. It is definatily creating lots of emotions. I am going to stand on the sidelines and watch for a bit. I love America, and our ability to question anything. Good job on doing what you believe!
Steve - Interesting post. It is definatily creating lots of emotions. I am going to stand on the sidelines and watch for a bit. I love America, and our ability to question anything. Good job on doing what you believe!
Steve - Interesting post. It is definatily creating lots of emotions. I am going to stand on the sidelines and watch for a bit. I love America, and our ability to question anything. Good job on doing what you believe!
Steve - Interesting post. It is definatily creating lots of emotions. I am going to stand on the sidelines and watch for a bit. I love America, and our ability to question anything. Good job on doing what you believe!
Steve, you state: "The only reason the fede[r]al government exists is because the states allow it. The 9th and 10th Amendments give the states and the people supreme power. :)"
If that were the case, then the Civil War would never have happened, and we would be in separate countries right now. Heck, I might not even be accorded the opportunity to speak on the same level with you.
What the 9th Amendment does is simply acknowledge that any powers/rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people; the 10th Amendment leaves the door open for the expression of rights that have not been delineated by the Bill or Rights or the Constitution explicitly. Hence the ability of the Supreme Court, for example, to find a right to privacy which is the lynchpin for the Roe vs. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The 9th and 10th Amendments do not reverse Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution, which declares the Constitution, and all laws of the U.S. national government as supreme law in the land.
What we have is a federal government which has done something that some people do not agree with. Enough of those people are in charge of various state governments to do a 1828 Redux (re South Carolina and the Tariff of Abominations) and a 1860 Redux (re seccession). While I know that the states aren't stupid enough to try a Civil War repeat, issuing nullification edicts (which is exactly what the state governments that you mentioned have done) heads us down the same slope.
Apparently the saying is true: those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it....
Isn't it ironic that the Democratic Partydoesn't believe in majority rule... which is the definition of demacracy?
Chris,
Thanks. Like it or not, this health care bill will impact everyone - and Realtors in a big way. We need to be outspoken - otherwise it will appear we agree with this program. :)
Steve
William,
The Supreme Court originally only met for 6 weeks and did so in the basement. It is not up to the Supremem Court or any court to make up things as they go along. Refer back to the 9th and 10th Aendments you cite so well. :)
Steve
Lane,
And the premise of their party's origin. :)
Steve
The legislators who WANTED and PUSHED this are either 1) not running for re-election again; 2) are heavy into ethics charges; 3) have lost their primary challenge IN THEIR OWN state; 4) are double digit points behind their conservative car dealer challenger * WHEW!!!
Steve, you said "The Supreme Court originally only met for 6 weeks and did so in the basement. It is not up to the Supreme Court or any court to make up things as they go along. Refer back to the 9th and 10th A[m]endments you cite so well. :)"
One - what is the point about where the Supreme Court originally met and for how long? I fail to see the relevance.
Two - Make up things? If you are refering to what I referenced re: right to privacy, that is documented case law. The ability of the courts to interpret the law, and apply the different parts of the Constitution as the need has arisen over the last two hundred and twenty-one years, is what has made the Constitution a living document.
You have failed to adequately or effectively counter the major premises of my statements in the last comment I made, Steve. The 9th and 10th Amendments still do not nullify and void Article 6, Section 2.
And I thought I had a few more weeks before I had to don my teacher's hat. Apparently not....
As a Republic we can vote out the representatives who are not doing their jobs, which is to represent the will of the people in their states. The other day I heard that this administration wants to change us to a true Democracy where the majority rule. Given that the heavily populated Northeast and West Coast states are predominately liberal leaning this would effectively take away any voice of the smaller populated conservative leaning states. The whole dynamics of our voting system would change. If this is true we have more to worry about than arguing over whats in the Constitution, we won't have one to debate.
Has anyone else heard anything about this idea. I know it's easy to think something like this could not happen but in todays political environment, who knows?
Steve...hopefully more states get their heads out of the sand and do the same. Time is running out!
Wallace,
Many of them are not accountable for their actions, but many are paying at the polls. :)
Steve
William,
What is Article 6, Section 2? Are we talking about the Constitution? If so, Article 6 has no sections.
Case law is what gives jurists the right to make things up. This power was never granted and it is not in the Constitution. A decision made erroneoulsy in the past can impact a future decision - this is what is wrong with case law. :)
Steve
Lois,
I had not heard this, but it sounds like another power play by the Administration. :)
Steve
William,
There currently are 21 states that are following Bill McCollum's lead to sue the federal government over this. :)
Steve