Constitutional Law

New Challenge to Health Insurance Mandate

|

Today the U.S. Citizens Association, a conservative group in Ohio, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual health insurace mandate. A press release from lead attorney Jonathan Emord sums up the constitutional arguments against the mandate:

The suit challenges the Health Reform Law's mandatory requirement that every uninsured American purchase health insurance. The suit contends that the federal government has no constitutional power to compel citizens to purchase a particular product with after tax dollars.  No such power exists in Article One of the United States Constitution under the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3).  The suit also contends that the mandatory requirement violates the freedom of association protected by the First Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. I) by forcing Americans to obtain unwanted insurance; violates the liberty provision of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (U.S. Const. amend. V) by forcing Americans to buy a product, insurance, that they wish not to buy; and the right to privacy protected as a liberty right under the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments because it compels them to divulge confidential health information to an insurer against their will.

The lawsuit is here (PDF). I criticized the the mandate's crazy constitutional logic in a column last March. More on the mandate here.

NEXT: Why Isn't the Government Hiring Short Sellers?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m no lawyer, but in this layman’s eyes, the suit does seem to have merit.

    1. IANAL either, but I think the legal rebuttal to plaintiffs complaints is:
      So?

      1. Mr. Roberts has his decision, now let him enforce it.

        1. To paraphrase that progressive pragmatic leader Joseph Stalin “How many divisions do the teabaggers have?”

    2. Ditto.
      But then it doesn’t take a lawyer to figure out this mandate to purchase a product at a set price is a price fixing scam benefiting special interests (insurance and
      BigPharma) who don’t want to fairly compete in the free marketplace.

    3. I am also not a climatologist but global warming looks like alot of BS. Mass delusion changes a lot of things.

      1. I am also not a biologist but evolution looks like alot of BS. Mass delusion changes a lot of things.

        (Oh wait, I am a biologist)

        1. I’m not a cosmologist but the Big Bang theory looks like a bunch of horseshit. Mass delusion gives me a lot of power. . .I mean changes a lot of things.

        2. Actually, I suspect that what most non-biologists believe about evolution is alot of BS, no matter which side of the issue they come down on.

          Likewise, I suspect that what most non-climatologists believe about global warming is a lot of BS, no matter which side of the issue they come down on.

  2. Gee, I wonder if, for the 7,554th time, the Libbers are going to carefully ignore the application of the Sixteenth Amendment to this debate.

    I suppose that we are going to be “forced” to buy health insurance because we have to pay higher taxes if we choose to forego it, much as we are “forced” to have a home mortgage, “forced” to buy muni bonds, or “forced” to make deductable contributions to charity.

    Give it a rest, Libbers. Just buy the insurance. Or else don’t, and pay more income tax. I’m wringing the tears out of my hankie for all the lost liberty this entails.

    1. This is the U.S. Citizens Association’s take on your tax argument:

      “The U.S. Citizens Association believes that the new law provides for a tax penalty not authorized by the Constitution. This tax penalty is an illegal direct excise tax on a non-activity. This is not a tax on property or income and as an excise tax it was not apportioned according to the Constitution.”

      Furthermore, would a tax penalty that kicked in if you chose to refuse quarter for a soldier in peacetime, exercising your 3rd Amendment right, be constitutional?

      1. So we “apportion” the tax penalty (whatever that means) and presto, problem solved?

        And yeah, I think the government could give a tax break to landlords who took in soldiers as boarders even with the 3rd Amdendment.

        1. I bet you believe the government could impose a 2000% tax on all firearms, too.

          1. It already does. You can make a sound suppressor/”silencer” for a gun for about ten cents, but the federal government imposes a $200 tax on it (2000%).

            1. I’m looking forward to it Danny, because when our monocle and top hat wearing guy comes in he will force everyone to purchase dead puppies and kittens just for the hell of it, and the precedent given him by this law will make it legal.

              There’s a reason to oppose illegal acts, even if we like them, idiot. Your fair haired boy won’t be in charge forever.

              1. There’s a reason to oppose illegal cats…..

                Where’s that coffee dammit.

        2. Um you do realize that quartering soldiers mean they live in your house for free right? Not, they rent a room in your apartment complex, it’s a big difference.

        3. So we “apportion” the tax penalty (whatever that means)

          It would behoove you to find out what it means before commenting on it – unless, of course, you like coming off as someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      2. theres also some case precident that the tax code cannot be used as the mechanism to enforce legal penalties. If the court looks as the mandate tax as a fine than it doesnt stand. If you allowed this broadly than than means that any activity can be controlled as long as it is enforced through the tax code.

        1. Well, somebody ought to tell the ATF. Congress used its “taxing power” to slap $200 taxes on ‘non-sporting’ guns and it’s held up since the 1930s.

          1. yes because that is a tax on a good. Owning “non sporting guns” is not illegal. Plus that is a tax on a commerical transaction. Being “taxed” for existing is not a commericial transaction.

            1. I “exist” without having a mortgage, so I pay more in taxes than I would with a mortgage. There is no principled difference, and calling every non-kool-aider on this thread a “troll” does not establish such a difference. This goes for you, too, “Jeffersonian.”

              1. Danny|5.12.10 @ 11:32PM|#
                “I “exist” without having a mortgage, so I pay more in taxes than I would with a mortgage.”

                No you don’t. So the argument based on this fallacy is bogus.

          2. So what’s the tax for not owning such a firearm, Danny?

    2. Except of course the people who don’t buy the insurance aren’t paying more taxes. They are being fined with the fine being taken out of their tax refund.

    3. Don’t be facetious. Deductibles aren’t anywhere near the same thing as increases.

      itt you have to buy a home

    4. So Danny can count to 7,554? Hmmm. What a surprise.

    5. Just buy the insurance. Or else don’t, and pay more income tax.

      Just one little problem: The income tax is a tax on taxable income, but the penalty for not buying health insurance is assessed even if one’s taxable income is zero – in fact, even if one has no income of any kind. That pretty much means that it is a direct tax or capitation – a head tax. Or as some would put it, a fee for permission to live. You may be “wringing tears out of your hanky” for the lost liberty, but the way things are going the Feds will soon be wringing your neck ’til you shit nickels, if they are allowed to get away with this kind of crap.

      1. Danny is too fucking stupid to understand this arguement.

    6. And if the government decided to tax you $500 a word for a freedom-of-speech tax on your post that would be perfectly Constitutional as well, wouldn’t it?

  3. Ignoring the troll, I’d just like to make this change: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Obamacare’s individual health insurance mandate. Thank you.

    1. Yup, he owns it.

  4. right to privacy protected as a liberty right under the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments

    Thanks for the plug for the Right to Privacy.

    Scalia and Thomas do hate you for that though (as do all theocrats).

    1. Except that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. It was made up as a justification for the Roe v. Wade decision (among others).

      1. Not even the most liberal of liberals believes in such a right.

      2. Except that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

        Rather there is no explicit “right to privacy” per se in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment implies a right to privacy vis-a-vis the government, and the Ninth says explicitly that not all right are listed in the document.

      3. So where does the constitution say you have total sovereignty over your property?

        You’d think people who believe in maximizing freedom would be happy about finding a right to privacy in the constitution.

        1. So where does the constitution say you have total sovereignty over your property?

          What is in it for you to not be the sovereign of your own property? I know, you couched it in ‘total’ but the practical value of that word has no meaning in how law is actually applied. It is the height of working against your own interest to be in favor of restrictive use of property, given you also own property, and to do so can only mean one is in service of a false conscience given the alternative throughout history has been demonstrably disastrous.

          You’d think people who believe in maximizing freedom would be happy about finding a right to privacy in the constitution.

          Good point. Privacy is implied in the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects’, as is a right to sovereign ownership of one’s property 😉

    2. Privacy can be ensured by strong enforcement of the 4th amendment and property rights. The courts used the Right to Privacy as a way of allowing abortion without setting up precedent in favor of the former.

      1. Who the hell cares about privacy any more?

        As much as I rally against big brother, it falls on deaf ears as people become more comfortable with giving full disclosure to third parties in the land of cloud computing.

        No one seems to care, and I just come across like the old man shaking his fist at the youth.

  5. Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments because it compels them to divulge confidential health information to an insurer against their will.

    Nice. I wonder if the privacy argument could also be used to challenge attempts by the state to regulate private behavior due to health-care expenses.

  6. The Constitution’s “commerce clause” is the stinky, bleeding twat of the revered document.
    It has been used a million times by fuck-ass cockgrabbing politicians and judges to dismantle basic human rights since …. well, since the twat was written.
    And this challenge to it, no matter how judicial, warranted and more, will take it in the ass like every other challenge.
    We’re fucked. America is fucked. Grow a clit and enjoy it.

  7. But they can’t challenge it until the mandate takes effect in 2014 can they?

    I just wonder what kind of frankensteinian monster the republican statists will leave after their mods to the new addition to the welfare state.

  8. In the Thomas More case (which makes similar arguments), the Justice department argues that:

    1. A decision not to purchase health
    coverage is still a commercial
    act because you MIGHT still need
    health coverage and, therefore,
    are just making a decision
    regarding how you’ll pay for the
    needed health care. (This
    implies that every person in the
    United States will absolutely
    use health services every year,
    which certainly hasn’t been the
    case so far…)

    2. It assumes that health coverage
    purchases (which CAN’T be made
    across state lines, since plans
    are offered within specific
    states) are still
    somehow “interstate commerce”.

    Why does the media think the government’s case in these suits is so strong? I don’t see it.

    1. Because “the media” is nothing more than the propaganda arm of “the government”.

  9. I have been perplexed since the beginning of this fiasco why the hell all the emphasis seemed to be on the public option instead of the individual mandate, when the individual mandate seemed to me to clearly be the most offensive part of this big government atrocity. If this thing does not go down in flames, then clearly our constitutional rights are f’ed. The federal government will be able to regulate any facet of human behavior they please under this commerce clause. I will never, ever, buy mandatory health insurance. I may pay the fine for a couple of years, but I will be gone out of the country after that. They will never support this socialist fascism on my dime. I would however spend money for a postage stamp to send a big fuck you post card to Nancy Pelosi and company from whatever ‘other’ 3rd world country I happen to be residing in at the time.

    1. So… where are you going to go that’s more free? “Communist” China, perhaps?

      1. You joke, but really, its not that funny.

    2. For your sake, we sure hope you already have money stashed in your 3rd World Country, because we’ve already seen to it that you won’t be taking any with you from this country. That’s how we roll… we own everything but your ass.

      1. everything but your ass.

        For now.

  10. Really? Really?

    1. Yes, really Biaatchh!

  11. Why so little on the oil spill, fuckheads? Not something you can pin on the government?

    1. Must have missed the clue that this thread is about an oil spill. Can you enlighten us about that?

      1. These threads are so mind numbingly stupid that it hardly matters what they’re about, so go fuck yourself, asshole.

        1. Oh, my mistake oh progressive liberal one, I see you are reduced to name calling and have renounced logical debate, what a surprise.

        2. As opposed to Max’s comments which are so stupid they’re amusing.
          Ha, ha, Max. Stuff the oil spill up your ass.

          1. WHOA RON! Call BP, quick! We need to let them know about Max’s ass. It could absorb all the worlds oil spills for the next 10-15 years at least (based on how he’s able to fit his fat-head all the way up there.)

        3. These threads are so mind numbingly stupid that it hardly matters what they’re about

          Max, eventually you would ejaculate some wisdom, and this is it. Enjoy your moment in the sun, it won’t last forever. Though, I think you have stumbled upon your golden bit by accident, rather than by competence.

          Now capitol l gets all righteous and shit:

          Spoofing, joke handles, petty girlslap bickering, and the resultant bullshit that is the current ‘a go go on these here threads has lead to an atmosphere of youtubian inanity.

          What drew me to this site was not juvenile asshattery, rather a website with an intelligent staff, and a thought provoking comment section. If I wanted to read fucking nonsense, I would go to any major media outlet would debate with the goddamn numbnuts that inhabit such dens of stupidity.

          And I’ll say it right here; MNG has been around here before you were a glimmer in your daddy’s eye, and a roofie in your mamma’s drink. So yeah, debate if you wish, because most of his ideas are shit. But, debate on an honest level with honest arguments.

          Take what you will from my little rant you fucking milky lickers, I really don’t give a flying fuck. If you don’t like it, put on your mamma’s underwear and dance to lady gaga, like you always do when your feelings are hurt.

          *steps down off of soap box*

            1. That’s it?

              C’mon you can do better.

              1. Well I sorta agree, but IMO the problem stems from there being way too many posts per day (ahem, Cleveland). Proof of this is in the relative quality of the comments posted after the post is on the second page. John makes a right-lib arguement, Epsiarch makes an anarchist arguement, Warty creeps me out, SugarFree says some weird shit, and Fluffy tells someone to fuck something. Mix some trolls in there, and the post is on page 2 before any conversation can happen.

                1. Sidd, I do agree with your assessment, and also alan’s, as seen below. I am curious as to what the motivation is behind multiple daily posts of a single story, I’m sure there is a reason behind it.

                  Also, when there is a important story there seems to be a pile on of posts, differing in authorship. but homogeneous in content; see Ellen Kagan, Scott Brown, et. al. Everybody probably wants to have their say before the story is old hat.

                  Don’t get me wrong though, this is one of the best sites for editorial content and an engaging comment section. I wouldn’t trade it for any other news outlet. I would be interested in any thoughts that the staff have on the discussed points.

                  When things get too silly I just need to head on over to the Washington Post, or the NY Times, and look at their comments, things could be worse, way worse.

                  1. I am curious as to what the motivation is behind multiple daily posts of a single story, I’m sure there is a reason behind it.

                    Comment dilution seems to be the main effect, regardless of their original intent.

          1. Agreed cap l. I do both, but much less joke handling and more adding discussion and points to a debate. At least I try to. 🙂

            1. I will say that joke handles can be valid in making a point, especially in a humorous way, if not overdone. The spoofing, on the other hand, turns any thread into Sesame Street.

              Never forget;
              When you have become what you hate, all is lost.

              1. Disclaimer: Max and Slap!, deserve whatever horrible things happen to them, also to their mothers for spawning them.

    2. You’re our little oil spill, Edward. And your impotent rage is the sea it floats on.

      1. Go suck Ron Paul’s cock.

        1. Your rage is so yummy and sweet, Edward. It tastes like purple, the same as the color of the veins throbbing in your neck as you bang away at the keyboard in your impotent apoplexy.

        2. You probably want to.

        3. Max is one of our smarter trolls.

          1. If that includes Tony and Chad, I guess that would not make him a sure in for Mensa. But, please, let me retract that statement at least in part, because I have too many colleagues with PhDs who are totally incapable of making any intelligent basic daily life decisions on their own.

            1. That’s pretty much my experience, too. As I told a friend once, Einstein might have been one of the smartest guys ever, but I’m still not letting him pick the wine for dinner. Richard Feynman, OTOH…

            2. The phrase is “shoe in”, not “sure in”

          2. Max is one of our smarter more efficient trolls.

            He just cuts to the chase with the emotional stuff and doesn’t pretend that his arguments need to make sense. He’s a fine little commissar.

        4. Have Ron Paul stick his prick up your ass, Max.

    3. Why are you so convinced that ‘we’ need to pin this on the government, Edwardo? Can you possibly wrap your little intellectually challenged liberal mind around the fact that most of ‘us’ have accepted it as a natural disaster and that we need to clean it up and move on towards an economically sensible energy policy that is going to include offshore drilling in the near future? No, of course not, that would make too much sense for your liberal kool-aid soaked brain.

      1. I suppose I shouldn’t feed the troll, but I don’t view it as a natural disaster. I think BP should be liable for all damage resulting from the spill. Furthermore, since these sorts of spills present an obvious externality, oil companies that want to do off-shore drilling should be required to demonstrate the capacity to deal with these sorts of catastrophes (via insurance, proper rescue equipment, etc.).

        And I don’t think I should have to turn in my decoder ring. For that particular offense.

        1. You can keep your decoder ring, but you are being ejected from the anarchist caucus, and the miniarchist ethics committee is taking you case under consideration.

    4. A requirement to pin the oil spill on the government is unnecessary, because anyone harmed by the oil spill has the right to sue BP in court and recoup damages to make themselves whole. That’s the point of non-constitutional administrative law regulations by non-elected bureaucrats – they are undemocratic. It’s called DEMOCRACY, Max.

      1. I wonder about that though. Put an international oil conglomerate and their phalanx of lawyers up against Bob Shitkicker from Shreveport and who do the odds favor in court?

        1. Depends on the quality of the judge. Most judges are borderline incompetent, so your point stands.

  12. Here’s another question: can the government force you to take public assistance in order to purchase health care coverage that it mandates.

    Here’s my problem. I can currently afford catastrophic coverage, which will be banned by this law. I can not afford more than that, and I do not want to take my neighbor’s money.

    Do I have a choice?

    1. Yeah, Ann, you have a choice. You can continue to be a silly losertarian cunt, or you can think about real issues and be a niormal human being. Give it a shot.

      1. Hey, Max. You can continue to be a brain-dead asshole, or maybe graduate to being a brain-dead asshole. Which is it, brain-dead asshole?

      2. This is why Max will die a virgin. Most likely he’ll live his life out in his mother’s basement, weeping while chronically masturbating to child pornography. Hopefully he won’t become a serial rapist.

        1. He’ll probably try to become a priest because he heard they get alot of young boys and his mother would stop asking him why he doesn’t bring any girls home, but he’ll be rejected for being too obvious a pedophile.

          1. Least The Church still has some standards.

    2. this is one of the parts that is really frustrating to me personally. My relatively high deductable/ low premium plan will become illegal. I am not allowed to engage in a peaceful transaction now and will be forced to spend more money on a product i dont want.

    3. Ann, you always have a choice.

      You can disobey the law and self insure.

      You can band together with friends and start a speakeasy mutual insurance company.

      You can emigrate.

      You can rebel.

      You can buy the legal ‘insurance’.

      These are unpleasant choices, yes, but they are out there.

      Do what is most pleasing (or least displeasing) to you.

  13. Can they make it MANDATORY that insurance companies actually provide decent policies that everyone can AFFORD? Of course not!

    Lou
    http://www.anon-posting.tk

  14. If these lawsuits prevail, no private insurance companies will exist roughly two weeks after denying coverage for preexisting conditions becomes prohibited in 2014. Quite the nasty bear trap the Dems have set for us.

    If you support these lawsuits, you are objectively pro-single-payer. Of course, Reason and its groupies have never been about looking at the practicality of their advocacy.

    1. So, if healthcare reform causes our healthcare system to completely collapse, you think the response of the American people will be, “gee, I guess we didn’t go far enough”?

      1. The health care system collapsed because of the free market’s failure to provide affordable insurance. That will be the spin.

        You don’t think that spin will succeed? Ask a good high school history student to describe Herbert Hoover’s economic philosophy.

      2. Isn’t that the common response these days?

    2. You are correct about this, but what is the alternative? Should we just stay silent about the lawsuits, or support the definite versus the worse, but indefinite?

      1. They could comment that they exist, and comment on the absurd lose-lose situation that we are in with respect to them. While I haven’t read every single post by a Reason writer about the lawsuits, there’s no evidence their attitude toward them is anything more complex than heedlessly cheering them on.

    3. I’m sure that was the plan. I can imagine the faux shock on Nancy Pelosi’s face when the insurance market collapses due to extreme adverse selection.

      “Oh noes! Look what the evil conservatives did!”

    4. Tulpa, single payer is unavoidable. This legislation has ensured this. Even with doctors like me getting out of CMS, the majority will stay in, especially those in medical school now. The newer crop of students support this type of legislation and the paternalistic medicine and legislation that is here now and more to come.

      The idea that people are responsible for their own health choices is at its end.

      1. The idea that people are responsible for their own health choices is at its end.

        And, as pointed out in another thread this has ramifications well beyond the health industry.

        The newer crop of students support this type of legislation

        Do you think they will feel the same way when they get the bill for medical school, or their first malpractice insurance payment. Perhaps those will have to be paid by the taxpayers eventually, otherwise who would want to become a doctor?

        1. So, I pay extra for a surgery, i pay for the malpractice insurance on the surgery, and if it gets botched, i can pay the doctor the settlement money he gives me from the malpractice suit. Sounds great!

      2. Single payer will arrive much more quickly if the mandate is struck down. I agree that the act as a whole pushes us in that direction, but we’re talking a time scale of decades vs. weeks.

        There’s still a lot of residual distrust of socialized medicine among the public in America. It would take a serious shock to make it happen quickly.

      3. “”The idea that people are responsible for their own health choices is at its end.””

        As you probably know, that started prior to this legislation. More and more, it’s about government watching for outcomes. Albeit, they are attracting the providers to the game with cash incentives at the moment.

    5. Of course, the insurance companies might challange the ban on pre-existing conditions once the mandate is struck down.

      1. And I might get to marry a Hollywood starlet tomorrow Hazel.

        Imagine all the appeals to pity, the non-stop coverage of hard luck cases you will see in the TV Hazel. The pre-exist is there to stay, and like Medicare, will never will be rolled back. Too politically volatile an issue to touch.

      2. The ban on denial for pre-existing conditions is on much firmer constitutional footing than the mandate. They would pretty much have to reverse Gonzo v. Raich and the rest of the rogues gallery of Commerce Clause decisions since 1937 in order to rule it unconstitutional.

        1. Well, I predict that the insurance companies will simply start denying ALL new applications and become closed clubs.
          That way, they aren’t turning people down for a pre-existing condition. They’re turning down all comers.
          Maybe they won’t accept any individual clients, only employer-based ones. People too sick to work will be thus excluded.

    6. I think that at least some of us recognize that there is no practicality whatsoever in being involved with the government in any way. Whether the lawsuit succeeds or not will have absolutely no real bearing on whether or not we get “single-payer”.

      I know, some people still cling to the idea that if we play the game right, we can bend the government in the direction of liberty (I don’t know if you are in that group). Pfah. I say to them, good luck with that.

  15. Do you think they will feel the same way when they get the bill for medical school, or their first malpractice insurance payment. Perhaps those will have to be paid by the taxpayers eventually, otherwise who would want to become a doctor?

    You hit the nail on the head. For example, in OK, a bill just passed that prohibits smoking is bars restaurants and reimburses owners who paid the money to convert their establishments to be in compliance with smoking regs in the first place. And who did I see on the TV behind this, a large group of docs and med students grinning ear to ear that this is good legislation, that this will be good for the health of Okies. Because we know better. The paternalism makes me ill.

    As far as the malpractice stuff goes, when health policy issuers go under, malpractice underwriters may not be far behind. Most med schoolers get some form of scholarships and grants, but almost all get government assistance to cover the rest or all of the cost for those that don’t get grants and scholarships. I was fortunate in that I didn’t require government assistance to complete my education and training..

    Why become one? Two reasons: the genuine desire to help and the status that power brings. The primary desire in most cases will be supplanted by the latter.

    1. “”And who did I see on the TV behind this, a large group of docs and med students grinning ear to ear that this is good legislation, that this will be good for the health of Okies. Because we know better. The paternalism makes me ill.””

      I sat in a siminar where the NYC commish of health spoke highly of their nanny campaigns. Including showing the soda/drinking fat commercial that didn’t air on TV. It is all about government controlling your health care. This philosophy will continue even if the new health care law is shot down.

  16. To my favorite troll: https://reason.com/blog/2010/05…..nt_1704331

  17. What drew me to this site was not juvenile asshattery, rather a website with an intelligent staff, and a thought provoking comment section.

    Were not the two of us talking about boobies just this weekend in these here threads?

    That said, I’m no fan of spoofery, except in rare cases, like the Steve Smith shtick.

    Joke handles, well as a rule, when a thread gets linked to a site like the Kos or Freepers and a hoard of idiots are unleashed on us, it is a necessary defense mechanism to temporarily swell our ranks. Six or seven highly dedicated statist could easily make this site one libertarians would avoid like a plague if it ever not worth the trouble to find the rare Episiarch or capitol l post in a sea of Chads.

    1. Were not the two of us talking about boobies just this weekend in these here threads?

      Technically that was thought provoking, because it made me think of boobies.

      The fact that I am always thinking about boobies is beside the point.

      a sea of Chads.

      I believe that is Dante’s eighth circle of hell.

      I’ll concede to your joke handle point, having never thought of it that way. I guess three or four entreaties to “grow up and let the adults…” is frustrating enough without adding more kreepers(kos/freepers).

      1. capitol l |3.3.10 @ 4:18PM|#
        Kieth Olbermann is about as douchy as you can get, but when a dicktoucher says something funny I must give him credit. “Compares Michelle Malkin to an ‘mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it'” is fucking funny.

        Also good to see that the cons are on the retard train to vicitmhoodville…woowoo. Waaah, they made meanies at me, shut the fuck up …next.

        1. “‘mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it'” is fucking funny.”

          Funny? Really? I dont see it, except maybe in a “you’re a doo-doo head” sort of way, which can be heard commercial free at any preschool.

        2. Dude, this is the internet, I can’t do anything to you. Therefore, there is no reason to hide behind that handle. It really adds nothing to your post.
          You could of used your real handle, and started the post with; “Urbane, really capitol? Don’t you remember this?”.

          And just because you are a Michelle Malkin fan, doesn’t mean that you have to take offense. I just thought the image of a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it ” was a funny visual.

          Also, if you like the fact that conservatives have jumped on the umbrage bandwagon, then more power to you. I happen to find it just as annoying as when liberals do it.

          1. capitol l |3.3.10 @ 5:06PM|#
            Aw, dang ol’ girl, you still smartin’ this morning? I’m so swowry.

            Now go get your fuckin’ search box.

            1. Wow, it only took you 2 months to figure out how to work the search box, I’m impressed. Maybe in another two you’ll be able to decide on a name for yourself.

              1. I’ve been on an extended cruise:-)

  18. if it ever not worth the trouble

    blanked out there, still haven’t had my coffee, and I have no idea what word I was going for — eh.

  19. Does anyone seriously believe that government will be compelled to bend under the law if their current agenda requires disregarding it? Because, occasionally, the government can be made to adhere to the law when they would prefer not to, people still participate in the charade that the government is bound by the law even in the face of countless examples where those in charge simply flout it. These lawsuits are pointless. “Health care reform” is here to stay, legal or not.

    1. Does anyone seriously believe that government will be compelled to bend under the law if their current agenda requires disregarding it?

      Call me naive, but I seriously believe that the executive branch would obey a court ruling on this. Of course, that requires a court ruling.

      This is all business as usual. The legislation passes laws which they know may not pass court muster, but which are popular with their constituents. The courts take the political heat for invalidating those laws.

      1. ^ this gets it exactly right. The bill will not stand a constitutional challenge. That is clear from all the precedent concerning the matters addressed here. The bench would have to have been replaced entirely with differential, rubber stamping lackeys before this could sail through and, though it may happen a generation down the road with the Dictatorship of the Academic currently at the height of its power, that turn of events hasn’t happened yet.

  20. I agree with this lawsuit. you cant make everyone pay for something if they didnt have it because they couldnt pay for it to begin with.

  21. i totally agree with the lawsuit. why make people pay for stuff they cant afford.

  22. i totally agree with the lawsuit. why make people pay for stuff they cant afford. aarp health insurance

  23. The privacy argument against ObamaCare draws some support from cases like Robinson v. Reed (5th Cir. 1978) (requiring public employee to disclose facts about her home life in a diversity training seminar stated a claim for constitutional privacy violations).

    Actually, it’s stronger than that case, because that case involved public employees, whose constitutional rights against the government are more limited than those of citizens at large because the government has proprietary prerogatives over them. See Waters v. Churchill (1994) (government has broader control over public employees than over citizens at large).

  24. Excellent topics, I like your topic very much. After long searching I found this online that, HealthSource Chiropractic and Progessive Rehab Rye Brook, NY their commitment to their patients has led them to develop a center consisting of state of the art treatment using the revolutionary FDA cleared DRX spinal decompression equipment. You may visit their website to learn more.

  25. Alan Grayson Honors The Dead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

    I want to commend all of you for working so hard and being so strong at helping the whitehouse and congress begin to address our U.S. and Global healthcare crisis. You have been AWESOME! my fellow Americans and peoples of the World. America and the World is better and safer for it. My greatest pride is the knowledge that I am one of you. And that you really get it. You really understand the importance of it all.

    There are some potentially very good things in the healthcare legislation. Especially with the reconciliation fix’s. The Democrats, Bernie Sanders and the Whitehouse did a GREAT! job of fighting to produce the best healthcare legislation that they could. They have earned all our strong support. And we should give it to them.

    But it was your relentless pressure and hard work that made the difference. Whatever good comes from this healthcare legislation, America and the peoples of the World will have each of you to thank. You were smart, creative, courageous and relentless. You fought together for the best legislation possible. And when you had to, you fought alone. No matter who stumbled and fell you continued to push and forge ahead. Fighting for the lives and health of the American people and the World. YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF YOUR-SELVES 🙂

    It may come to pass that future generations will look back on us and say that we were ALL Americas Greatest Generations. And that healthcare reform was our finest hour. You should be proud of our leaders President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the many other Democratic and independent fighters for the people in congress. They proved them-self worthy of the leadership of a GREAT! PEOPLE.

    But we are not done yet. This was just the beginning of healthcare reform, not the end. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE NOT! divided on healthcare legislation. The vast majority of you have been consistently crystal clear that this legislation does not go far enough. You want a strong Government-run Public Option CHOICE!! available to everyone on day one. And you want it NOW!

    YOU MUST NOT ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE TO STAND WITHOUT A STRONG GOVERNMENT-RUN PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE! AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.

    WE THE PEOPLE have been crystal clear that we want an end to dependence on for-profit healthcare and the for-profit proxies called private for non-profit healthcare. The American people want the CHOICE! of a strong Government-run Public Option to replace their need or dependence on healthcare providers whose primary motivation is profit. Rather than providing the highest quality, easiest accessible and most affordable medically necessary healthcare possible. This is what the rest of the developed World has. And the American people want it too. They want healthcare ASSURANCE! Not, for-profit health insurance. And they want it NOW!

    Now is the time to continue the push for a strong Government-run Public Option CHOICE! available to everyone that wants it on day one. Rationally it’s clear what we have to do to get this done. SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS that supported you with a Public Option choice, and REMOVE as many republicans as you can. Not one republican in congress was willing to step across the isle to support a strong Government-run Public Option CHOICE!! available to everyone on day one. NOT ONE! Let no candidate prevail this November that does not support a Strong Government-run Public Option.

    47,000 AMERICANS die each year from lack of healthcare. 120,000 die from treatable illness that don’t die in other developed countries. Hundreds of thousands of you are dieing from medical accidents in a rush to profit. And Millions of your are injured. Millions more are driven into bankruptcy. All for the privilege of paying two to three times as much as any other people in the developed world for healthcare. HOGWASH!

    Additionally, tens of thousands of you and your children were killed and millions sickened and injured from a terror attack with H1N1 (swine flu). Released on the American people and the World by the for-profit healthcare industry. All in an attempt to panic and frighten you into accepting the oxymoronic criminal enterprise of private for-profit healthcare (The most costly, deadly, dangerous, and disgraceful product sold in America). H1N1 is still sickening people and killing them. Especially children, the young and the middle aged. And there will be a third wave. These are the terrorist you need to worry about the most. Even the so-called international terrorist would not do something so INSANE! But greed driven medical profiteers would and did.

    Apparently as far as republicans in GOVERNMENT are concerned, YOU! my fellow Americans ? CAN JUST DROP DEAD! Including their own family members. Fools!… Hundreds of thousands of you, and possibly millions of you will die from the long-term effects of your infection and poisoning with H1N1.

    So my fellow Human Beings. Rest-up, Take good care of the basics (Balanced nutrition, hydration, exercise, rest and POSITIVE emotional supports). Then wade back into the FIGHT! for a strong Government-run Public Option CHOICE! available to everyone on day one. Drug re-importation, Abolishment or strong restrictions on patents for biologic and prescription drugs. And government controlled and negotiated drug and medical cost. You must take back control of your healthcare system from the Medical Industrial Complex. you MUST do it NOW! This is a matter of National and Global security. There can be NO MORE EXCUSES.

    God Bless You My Fellow Human Beings. I’m glad to know of you. And proud to be one of you.

    See you on the battle field.

    Sincerely

    jacksmith ? WorkingClass 🙂

  26. In the medical insurance there are many pluses, but compulsory purchase of the insurance, this infringement of constitutional laws of the person

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.