See the Tea Party’s scathing response to Texas Congressman Pete Sessions

The fight to defund Obamacare in the House and Senate shed light on a growing divide within the GOP between the establishment and the more conservative/Tea Party movement.

One such example is Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX), whose campaign has put out materials claiming he has been unfairly targeted by Freedom Works and other Tea Party groups. But local members of the Tea Party were not about to take Rep. Sessions’ claims sitting down. Instead, they penned a scathing open letter to the Congressman outlining some of their concerns with his leadership.

Ken Emanuelson, on of the authors of the open letter, will join Glenn Monday night on The Glenn Beck Program.

“So here’s a letter to Pete Sessions… and it is one of the best letters I’ve ever seen. I’m not going to be able to read it all,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “It’s surgical. It’s like five [pages].”

Dear Representative Sessions,

Republicans in Congressional District 32 have been receiving communications from your campaign suggesting that you are the victim of a campaign of deception being orchestrated by local TEA Party members and libertarians who are being pushed by Freedom Works and other conservative free market groups. This letter is a response to your allegations. Hopefully you would agree that the principles of honesty, good faith, and fair dealing require, at a minimum, that one fully investigate the truth before spreading conspiracy theories or carelessly tossing out public claims of deception by another person or group of people.

“Do you see what they’ve done in the first paragraph,” Glenn asked. “They’ve set out, this is going to be a response to your conspiracy theories. This is totally turning the tables.”

Hopefully, we would all agree that the principles of honesty, good faith and fair dealing require, at a minimum, that one fully investigate the truth before spreading conspiracy theories or carelessly tossing out public claims of “deception” by another person or group of people. Given the ease with which the reputation of honest men and women can be unjustly tarnished and smeared, good sense and morality demands that one be reluctant to publicly attack the character and honor of others without first investigating the available facts and confirming that such deception has actually occurred.

We’re not in a position to say, with certainty, the claims your campaign has been making arise out of an intentional effort to deceive or lie to the constituents of CD32. We are, however, in a position to say your campaign has made numerous claims that are false and clearly not supported by the facts. We address each claim, in turn, below.

Read the entire letter HERE.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“I think this is what is going to start happening to all of these progressive GOP members who have lost their soul,” Glenn said. “All of them who are blocking anybody from common sense spending limits, anyone who is voting for the continuing, ever‑expanding growth of our government, anybody who is blocking the efforts to defund Obamacare, they are going to find themselves at the voting booth in so much trouble because the American people are done with it.”

“We just gave you last hour the ten states that are going to lose, the majority of people are going to lose their healthcare as soon as these exchanges kick in because the insurance companies are pulling out. And what they will do is they will blame it on the insurance company. That’s their plan. Blame it on the insurance company. But they are intentionally crippling these insurance companies as we have told you for the last four years, they are intentionally crippling them so a year from now they will say, ‘You know what? It just isn’t working. You have to scrap the whole thing and we just have one single‑payer healthcare system.’ It’s not like, you know, people say it’s a Trojan horse. It’s not a Trojan horse. Look, it’s just right there in front of you. I’m quoting the Tides Foundation,” Glenn continued. “That’s exactly what’s going to happen. And when people really figure that out, the Pete Sessions of the world will be lucky to get out of town in time because the people will come with pitchforks because they’re going to be pissed. They already are, Pete. I would suggest you don’t even run. Because you’ve got another thing coming when you run. You are going to lose in a spectacular fashion, and I hope you’re just the first in many Republicans.”

Front page image courtesy of the AP

  • Anonymous

    I think that many Republican’s are finally starting to wake up to the fact that their dear old GOP are just as bad as the Democrats. I’ve wanted a 3rd Party since all this began in late 2007 and was told to just shut up and “we’ll fix the GOP from the inside”. This has clearly not worked! Our local Republican Party in Rockdale County GA went to great lengths  and succeeded in shutting down our 9-12 Group and a new group of young Conservative’s called Young Republican’s. The behavior on their part was absolutely ridiculous. But they achieved their goal, for the time being, of silencing all of us who were fed up with the status quo. Today we have not only Beck who has been way ahead of the curve and actually have some establishment types like Rush and Hannity talking about this problem on a daily basis. The actions of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee the last couple weeks have finally woken up the majority of people who felt like their was a problem in the GOP but couldn’t put their finger on it. I think now the lines have finally been drawn and folks like Cruz are finally starting to get their message across. The Left can play their name calling games all they want but I think most American’s are now seeing right thru that. Guys like Sessions, Grahm, McCain, Boehner are soon going to feel the wrath of their constituents and I think that is going to be a good thing If the Conservative’s can’t remake the GOP very soon, they need to simply split off into some form of Liberty Party. I think millions will go right alongf with them! It’s really our only hope.

  • Anonymous

    2014 mid term elections, sweep the debris out of DC; then on to 2016 vote out the rest of the vermin.  For the most part they have forgotten for whom they work and have become lazy, self-important, delusional, arrogant, corrupt, incompetent and did I say corrupt?  Both parties – cleanse our country of the rinos’s and the party of D – dependency.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rigoberto.serrano.39 Pachy Serrano

    I believe, Dems and Moderate Reps should not backdown or be pressured by the Tea Party.
    In terms of numbers, Independents, Minorities, Most women, Youth, Liberals, Moderate conservatives and others are more in numbers than the tea baggers. If they want a fight . . .
    lets’ give it to them. I like my chances against the “radicals” of the conservative movement, than, in fact, don’t really care about their fellow Americans, but themselves. Let them create a 3rd party . . . we gonna see who they really are . . . Fear has never won at the end cause the goodness of the American people will overcome . . . Always!

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    Oh look a liberal showing tolerance to others. Oh by the way the Youth in this country are sick of your liberal bull and are slowly turning libertarian so suck on that.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    I am sorry to burst all you libs bubbles but I bet as soon as this healthcare law is set in stone and people see this for the flying pile of crap that it is the Tea Party will be the most popular movement in the history of this country because we can sit back and point to others that mock us and go well we told you so.

  • Laurie Bluth

    So where’s the one to liar crony Cornyn? He SWORE he was not going to vote for it – but!

  • Anonymous

    I agree, but split the party and the DEMS will win again.  They have to clean up the party get honest, forceful people to run against the RINOs, maybe then we have a chance.  I still wonder to this day how we lost the last election?  So many people knew what was coming our way, still we lost.  We need articulate people that can counter all the lies and deceptions of the opposition!

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    Oh one more thing stop with the bull of calling us Teabaggers you don’t see us on the right going around and calling Bill Clinton BJ Clinton because we disagree with him but I guess asking a liberal to act his age nowadays is asking to much.

  • Draxx

    Sam the Idiot that Pachy is… is simply astonishing how they think they have made a point but it is mute.  Not to mention using Radical and Conservative in the Same Sentence is total oxy-moronic, it is either or not the same thing!!!

  • greywolfrs

    We do not need the Liberty party, we have the LIBERTARIAN party, they are already 42 years in the making. It’s about following the Constitution….

  • greywolfrs

    You already know who they are, they are called LIBERTARIANS. Dunce.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    I don’t think he knows anything outside of what his handlers from MSNBC tell him is truth.

  • Anonymous

    GARY JOHNSON 2016-Left office with New Mexico as one of the only four states in the country with a balanced budget-Left New Mexico with a budget surplus-Used Line Item Veto thousands of times to trim the budget-Vetoed 750 bills during his time in office; more than all other governors combined-Cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone-Created more than 20,000 new jobs-First New Mexico Governor to challenge education status quo and propose statewide voucher program-Restored State General Fund reserves to more than $222 million from a low of $28.1 million-Limited annual state budget growth to 5.0% during eight years in office-Cut taxes 14 times while never raising them—a first for New Mexico-Vetoed 32% of the total number of bills submitted for his signature

     

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    Yah how is it someone be an Conservative to the Constitution but yet radical. Gee I would think the radicals are the ones that want to replace the old system with Marx’s teachings. 

  • Anonymous

    Sorry Ole Pachy, I am NOT in your “MOST WOMEN” category….

  • Anonymous

    “BJ Clinton” LOL!!!!

  • joe michael villa

    reason you’re fighting it so hard is because you are afraid it will be successful and that will be the end of the tea party.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/martin.mueller.9862 Martin Mueller

    At one time the Republicans were the third party.  Now we have our representatives in Washington so scrambling  for money and power they are willing to keep us in a national position of fear.  The Fear of have our entitlements cut by voting for the “wrong” person.  This may go beyond term limits as the party chairs strengthens control over the primaries.  Our vote will always have to go to someone who could win. 

  • Anonymous

    and you are so full of snake crap you can’t even walk.

  • Anonymous

    Successful great, but Joe name me one Government Program that has ever ran in the black? Give me just one, just one Government Program that has ever paid for itself?

    Based on our Governments history, Obamacare is an abysmal failure yet to wreak havoc on all “Working” Americans pocketbooks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/manuel.manjarrez.313 Manuel Manjarrez

     we should call them names but that is what I do I know where my sypathies lie but I am best being crude and a jerk to communists that is

  • Anonymous

    Hmmm…what about the daily nasty name-calling aimed at our current President?  Haven’t you seen that, Sam?  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000903533412 Wendy Dooley

    then you belong in the democrat zone..

  • Anonymous

    Just a thought for the Tea Party to do — aggressively beat them to the punch by declaring what the dems and libs are going to do, but counter it with the truth beforehand.

    “The libs are going to accuse us of XYZ but the truth is really ABC, and that is the truth of the matter. Now, let them go ahead and call us XYZ but recognize the truth and where the lies are coming from.”

    Keep telling the whole story, and point out the manufactured talking points that have no basis in fact, noting where the lies are coming from. “That’s what they think, not us.”

    F’rinstance, who said “Stand down” about Benghazi?

    Laus Deo

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    unfortunately, the pete sessions et al. contingency will be eyeing the lovely lucrative lobbying gig that every throw-a-away politician seeks and was promised.  the thieves will either throw money into the campaign and/or steal it or deals will be made.

    very difficult to abstain from hate today.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    Gee hypocrite what about the daily name calling of our last President?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    I do it because they call us names they want respect from me they should stop calling us teabaggers Nazis or what ever other name they can pull out of their rears.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    But we have something your side don’t their called facts and facts say this is going to be one giant mess that is why we fight it because we want the best to happen to this country and not have it thrown off a cliff by moron clowns like you. we fear you guys screwing up the country not losing are popularity because we all know when this flying crap bomb is released people will be running to us so thank you liberal morons for giving us future power.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    I figure that would make the point and be funny.

  • Anonymous

     Joe? Joe…Joe….Bueller….Bueller………Chirp….Chirp….Chirp

  • Anonymous

    Sam…I did not – and would not – make any claims about either side not calling names. I simply pointed out that you were quite wrong in your claim. The Right is guilty of nasty name-calling all the time, contrary to your foolish claim.

    Why can’t you simply admit that?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ronald.r.melone Ronald R. Melone

    If it’s so great, why is the President delaying parts of it?  If it’s so great, why are the Unions wanting out?  If it’s so great, why are the architects of the law now trying to shout from the rooftops how bad it is?  We’re fighting so hard because we see how it will destroy America as we know it.  Come back in a year and let us know how you like this legislation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ronald.r.melone Ronald R. Melone

    I agree, Sam.  When they don’t have facts, they name call.  I used to go to this FB page called “Stop the World, The Teabaggers Want Off” and I am no longer able to post my comments.  They can’t take criticism and their only response is to name call.

  • Anonymous

    Ronald, those are easy questions to answer:

    1)  Parts of it are being delayed because some companies asked for, and were given, more time to fully prepare for its implementation.

    2)  The unions are unhappy because the ACA, by treating them the same as it treats non-union workers, takes away some of the union power over its members, just as most conservatives would like.

    3)  The architects of the law are not displeased with it.  Get your facts straight on this.  

    People on both sides are fighting hard, and no one can be certain at this point how the ACA will affect the majority of us.  The same predictions about destroying America were made by the Right-wing in regard to other social programs that are now very popular. It would be great if the Right, instead of sabotage and extortion, would simply allow the law to take effect so that we could, as you suggest, come back in a year and evaluate its results.  

  • Anonymous

    Because in a year folks will be so intrenched in it there will be no place else to go!!!

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    I can but nothing like teabagger.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    On Facebook I friended someone who I graduated with and he posted a post comparing the tea party to Nazis and Hitler. Let say I refuse to follow some idiot like that and made it very clear.

  • Anonymous

    One of the chief architects of this socialist mess has called this thing a train wreck. Direct quote. Democrat. 

    You are suggesting like Pelosi, as in: “You have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” “You have to experience it to appreciate it.” is tantamount to making it permanent, whether you like it or not. The only ones who like this thing are those who either won’t have to pay for it, or are so overpaid they can easily pay for it.  

  • Cameron Vance

    Typical, always falling to the insults.

    I will not say anymore.

  • greywolfrs

    Gary Johnson screwed the pooch the moment he said he was FOR open-borders. I have been a Libertarian for a VERY long time and would never vote for him for that REASON alone.

  • greywolfrs

    Wrong, you obviously don’t have the first clue about which you speak, imagine that.

  • greywolfrs

    Hey, it’s vicki tiffany’s life partner. Hey stupid, where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to health care on the backs of your fellow citizens? Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t. Moron.

  • greywolfrs

    Did he call a spade, a spade and hurt your feelings? Too bad.

  • Cameron Vance

    No. Insults just make someone look like an immature 12 year old, and doesn’t add to the conversation. 

    If you want to go insult someone, please find a forum.

  • greywolfrs

    Wrong, calling a spade, a spade is just that. If you are a moron, than you should be called on it.
    Who in the fuck made you the forum moderator? 73 whole comments here and you believe you have the right to tell me or anyone else to leave. I have a good idea, why don’t YOU leave if you don’t like it. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

  • greywolfrs

    I can tell you how Republicans lost. They put up another clown, just like McCain and expected people to vote for him simply because he had an R after his name. It didn’t happen. The first time Obamao was elected, the Republicans torpedoed Rudy and Fred Thompson, two guys who could have beaten Obamao. The Republicans killed their own chance.

    The last election, they put up Romney the clown. Instead of picking someone Conservatives could get behind, without having to hold their nose as they voted.

    That’s how…

  • Cameron Vance

    “Wrong, calling a spade, a spade is just that. If you are a moron, than you should be called on it. 
    Who in the fuck made you the forum moderator? 73 whole comments here and you believe you have the right to tell me or anyone else to leave. I have a good idea, why don’t YOU leave if you don’t like it. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.”

    First off, what you mean by a spade? 

    Second, just because I don’t understand your jargon doesn’t make me a moron.

    Third of all, Everyone has the right to be respected. Ben_Franklin asked a very good question, and got an insult as a reply from a guy whom he wasn’t even addressing. So I called him out on it, and then you tried to troll me.
    Does it bother me? A little bit. Probably because it shows that many people here have no respect for one another’s opinions, on both sides of the fence.So, what do I do? I ask you to leave, in as polite a manner as I could muster at that time, and what do I get for it? An enraged troll who asks me to leave. Someone who got offended by the guy who, he was trying to offend. I think your trolling just stabbed you in the back bud.

    Yes, I could leave, but that wouldn’t really solve the problem.Trolling is everywhere, even when it has no place anywhere. So, to put it nicely, I ask you and others to please be civil here. Insults do not add to a conversation, and make you seem less intelligent than you probably are.

    If you have nothing to say of note, then don’t post. 

    If you find something offensive, either ignore it, confront it, or leave. Just do not spoil the discussion for everyone else.

    Please?

  • Anonymous

    Gary, you’re referring to Max Baucus’ comment, and you’re wrong. He was referring to potential problems with the public awareness campaign about the bill, not to the legislation itself. Check it out yourself.

    You also misunderstand Pelosi’s comment, which referred to the Senate needing to pass their own version of the ACA (already passed by the House under her leadership) before legislators in both houses could come together on a final version. Fox News has a field day with stuff like this that they can take out of context.

    This is typical of the misinformation campaign that has led many people to oppose the legislation because they believe false ideas about it. Did you know that that people tend to be in favor of the ACA once they better understand its provisions? It’s the Big Lie campaign by Republicans that has people upset, not the law itself. Get the facts straight.

  • Anonymous

    He isn’t for open borders.  You’re wrong my friend. You can still read his platform online if you like.

  • Anonymous

    Yo, Wolf, yeah, it is I! How ‘ya been, former libertarian comrade?

    Re the Constitution…hmmm, you stumped me. No, wait, I just found the answer in my Modern Socialist’s Handbook…Gee, you’re right, the Constitution doesn’t specify an individual right to health insurance or health care. But, on the other hand, it doesn’t deny it, either. In fact, it doesn’t mention it at all! (It’s a rather short document, as you know.) Looks like a tough call. What do you say we let the Supreme Court decide?

    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/health-care-constitution

  • Anonymous

    Oy, what mishegos!

  • Fire wolf

     What war ever ran in the black?  Your boy Reagan loved to give guns to the Iranians and money to the taliban.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    Even you got to admit it is a big problem on both sides.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, the ACA generally provides more choice, not less. It’s a free market, privatized insurance idea that was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation as a conservative alternative to the Clinton attempt at a national health plan in the 90s. And it’s working in Romney’s old state. Get your facts straight.

  • Anonymous

    dumbness continues to thrive. For the unthinking right the federal deficit has decreased in the last 3 years at a rate only equaled by the decrease following the end of WWII. 
    Old joke that lives again: 

    Whats the difference between the Tea Party and terrorists? 
    Punchline: You can negotiate with terrorists.

    Only rightwingers would use holding the government hostage to try and defund the Affordable Care Act. A law passed into law some three years ago. And found constitutional by the Supreme Court. 

    Of course rightwingers are demagogues and “true believers” aka fanatics. So facts are not going to work when dealing with people who are able to believe that their view of the world is the absolute for everyone. And they are going to make everyone who disagrees with into fascist, commie, traitors. Dimbulbs on display. How stupid are they? Just listen to the pedantic absolutist of the 10 percenters who will do anything, even destroying the government and our economy to insist that their misguided perceptions of the world are the holy writ of governing. Hint: government by the 10% is minority writ large.

  • Anonymous

    Where to start? We have the best most powerful military on the planet. In case you didn’t know the DOD depends on Federal tax revenues and allocations from Congress for funding. 

    Millions of retirees get to live life much better with Medicare and Social Security. 

    Social Security runs on the surpluses created by Greenspan and Reagan. 

    Medicare does not largely because those in Congress who hate anything that Obama cares about but the American people love will not raise the FICA tax that adjusts itself to account for rate of increase in the cost of health care in the US.

    Can you clariify some of your gross generalizations and catastrophic thinking re: Obamacare is an abysmal failure yet to wreak havoc on all “working” Americans pocketbooks. That comment doesn’t pass the sniff test. Can you provide substantiating facts. By the way I am on Medicare and my wife isn’t. She needs the Affordable Care Act to get insurance that covers her pre-existing condition: muscular dystrophy.

    Note: pretending you’re Glenn Beck is not a replacement for the ability to think critically i.e considering Pros/Cons of a given set of policy.

  • Anonymous

    Pete Sessions better be careful, or he will get his ballsack sucked

  • Anonymous

    1. Please investigate the facts. Yes, we “still” have the most powerful military in the world. But, there is much waste in the DOD. IMHO, too much brass and flag officers trying to justify positions and not enough attention to the needs of the grunt.

    2. Social Security has been pilfered by all adminstrations for years and is heading toward bankruptcy according to the Trustees of the fund. A modest investment of the same funds would have yielded a much better return than what I currently receive.

    3. Social Security Disability aid is subject to much fraud. As an example, enrollment in this program has risen as unemployment as run out. I know of several incidents of this.

    4. Medicare is also headed towards bankruptcy according the the Trustees of the fund. Info on this is readily available on USA government web sites. This program has significant fraud and abuse in it.

    5. Medicaide is bankrupting the states. In many states it accounts for more than 25% of the state’s expenditures. Medicaide is very much abused, also. As with the above “entitlement” programs, there is no incentive for the administrators of these to correct the problems.

    6. Honest financial analysis of O’care shows that it will be unsustainable (like the two programs above) without raising taxes, and/or premiums, and/or deductibles (i.e. increase out of pocket expenses.) Pure mathematics. O’care does not address health care. Nor is it insurance. It is essentially prepaid medical care.

    7. I have paid, and continue to pay into Social Security for nearly 60 years. It is a Ponzi scheme, and I would rather have had the funds to invest myself. I have paid, and continue to pay into Medicare since its inception. It is also a Ponzi scheme. A private individual or businessman would be in jail if they perpetrated such a scheme on others.

    8. I’m sorry about your wife’s condition. Some states offer insurance programs which cover these situations. Perhaps yours does. Also, some foundations and religous organizations offer help in these situations. I hope you are able to find something that will assist you and your wife.

  • Anonymous

    You Sir are an uninformed minion for the National Socialists leb by Obama and his ilk.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    Ladies and gentlemen liberal tolerance.

  • Jean

    You are just an idiot wait until Obama care is fully  implemented maybe you will wake up, but it is to late.  How can we pay for this when we have no jobs to support it.

  • greywolfrs

    Hey stupid, this country is NOT a pure Democracy, for a reason. If you actually believe that Conservatives comprise only 10% of this country, then you are dumber than anyone could have imagined. By the way, you do realize that this country leans to the right? Maybe yo9u don’t, since you are dumber than a bag of hammers.

  • greywolfrs

    He is for open-borders, he said it himself during the last election cycle. As I stated before, I have been a Libertarian for a VERY long time. Look it up for yourself, don’t take my word for it.

  • greywolfrs

    I have a better idea, read the Constitution. Anything not specifically outlined for the Federal government is reserved for the states and people, respectively. Therefore, it does say the Feds have no right to be in the health care system at all. Nevermind that little tid bit, that doesn’t fit into your left win g stupidity.

    By the way, you are no Libertarian. Keep up the lies, it’s all you have.

  • Anonymous

    I think name-calling is the symptom, not the disease, and it stems from a polarization led by demagogues and fed by media enablers, where people can indulge their emotions at the expense of civility, creating an atmosphere where the other side is viewed as illegitimate and thus, may be rightfully demonized.

    Would you agree with that, Sam?

  • http://thefriendcenter.com/ Average Joe.

    Please quote the page in the A.C.A where it gives Obama the right to give waivers to anyone just because they ask for them.  Please quote the pages in the A.C.A. that allows Obama to delay implementation for businesses and members of Congress.

    Two easy questions.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUrbEIqFl_Q Sam Fisher

    Sounds right.

  • http://thefriendcenter.com/ Average Joe.

    Keeping a Military is actually mentioned in the Constitution.(Article 1., Section 8.)

    Medicare, Social Security and Healthcare are not. 

  • Watch it

     The unions are unhappy because they are seeing full time jobs replaced with part time jobs. That is the big fit Trumka has been in since the unions finally figured out what was going to happen to them. Get your facts straight.

  • Anonymous

    Grey, if you were on the Supreme Court, your opinion might carry more weight. My opinion is that the ACA is clearly constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but then, I’m not a member of SCOTUS either. I’m just another former libertarian and current Disqus participant.

  • Anonymous

    Grey, if you were on the Supreme Court, your opinion might carry more weight. My opinion is that the ACA is clearly constitutional under the Commerce Clause, but then, I’m not a member of SCOTUS either. I’m just another former libertarian and current Disqus participant.

  • Anonymous

    So, what do you think we should do to improve this situation?

  • Anonymous

    So, what do you think we should do to improve this situation?

  • Watch it

     The ACA does not provide more choice. Not all doctors  accept all plans that are in the exchanges, so many people are finding out that they will NOT be able to keep their doctor. Many are finding that to keep things the way they are for themselves, they have to buy private, and then lose their subsidy, which means they can’t afford it, especially since new mandates on the insurance companies are driving costs up.. As far as it working in Mass, they have financial problems because of it, and many people are unhappy with it because they are limited as to what doctors they can see. Lots of younger people refuse to pay into the system because they can’t afford to, so no, it isn’t all working so great in Mass. Funny, even my leftist sibling who lives there hates it.
     
    http://www.popscreen.com/v/23na/Heritage-President-Ed-Feulner-Responds-to-President-Obamas-Claims

    http://www.askheritage.org/heritage-rebuts-president-obamas-claims-that-heritage-supported-obamacare/

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

  • Watch it

     The ACA does not provide more choice. Not all doctors  accept all plans that are in the exchanges, so many people are finding out that they will NOT be able to keep their doctor. Many are finding that to keep things the way they are for themselves, they have to buy private, and then lose their subsidy, which means they can’t afford it, especially since new mandates on the insurance companies are driving costs up.. As far as it working in Mass, they have financial problems because of it, and many people are unhappy with it because they are limited as to what doctors they can see. Lots of younger people refuse to pay into the system because they can’t afford to, so no, it isn’t all working so great in Mass. Funny, even my leftist sibling who lives there hates it.
     
    http://www.popscreen.com/v/23na/Heritage-President-Ed-Feulner-Responds-to-President-Obamas-Claims

    http://www.askheritage.org/heritage-rebuts-president-obamas-claims-that-heritage-supported-obamacare/

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

  • Watch it

    The reasons people are fighting it is: It will increase the cost of health insurance, decrease the quality of health care, decrease the accessibility to healthcare, prevent many people from being able to keep their doctors, restrict coverage to certain “accepted” options,  negatively affect treatment outcomes to name a few,

  • Watch it

    The reasons people are fighting it is: It will increase the cost of health insurance, decrease the quality of health care, decrease the accessibility to healthcare, prevent many people from being able to keep their doctors, restrict coverage to certain “accepted” options,  negatively affect treatment outcomes to name a few,

  • Watch it

     How is it that you see it as Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?

  • Watch it

     Good non-answer.

  • Watch it

     Good non-answer.

  • Watch it

     Actually, it’s quite to the contrary. The more people find out what it is, and what it will do to them, the more they don’t like it. The majority of US citizens now are against the ACA – it has flipped around since before it was passed.

  • Watch it

     Actually, it’s quite to the contrary. The more people find out what it is, and what it will do to them, the more they don’t like it. The majority of US citizens now are against the ACA – it has flipped around since before it was passed.

  • Anonymous

    AJ, yes, two  - actually one – easy and foolish question that you could have looked up yourself.  It’s not in the ACA, It’s part of the power of the Executive branch to implement and enforce the law.  This is all part of the implementation process.

    What’s your point?  That he overstepped his authority?  Very hard case to make, although some have tried.

  • Anonymous

    AJ, yes, two  - actually one – easy and foolish question that you could have looked up yourself.  It’s not in the ACA, It’s part of the power of the Executive branch to implement and enforce the law.  This is all part of the implementation process.

    What’s your point?  That he overstepped his authority?  Very hard case to make, although some have tried.

  • Anonymous

    As I wrote, one reason is that the ACA treats union workers” the same as it treats non-union workers.”  You’re agreeing with me.

    As to the ACA’s affect on the continuing trend towards part-time vs. full time employment (which certainly began before the ACA was a blip on the horizon), that’s one piece of the equation whose cause,effects and importance will be answered by time, evidence and analysis rather than by speculation.  

  • Anonymous

    As I wrote, one reason is that the ACA treats union workers” the same as it treats non-union workers.”  You’re agreeing with me.

    As to the ACA’s affect on the continuing trend towards part-time vs. full time employment (which certainly began before the ACA was a blip on the horizon), that’s one piece of the equation whose cause,effects and importance will be answered by time, evidence and analysis rather than by speculation.  

  • Anonymous

    Re your other comments (I don’t get a response option, and they’re not showing up on my dashboard):

    1)  Your evidence is anecdotal.  The ACA is designed to improve overall health care and reduce the rate of increase in costs.  Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows for certain how it will play out.  “Many people…” is not “most people.”  
    2)  You’re flat-out wrong about the ACA’s popularity among folks who learn what it’s designed to do.  Do your own research, however.
    3)  Your leftist sibling in MA is in the minority. This is clear.  You should know better than to attempt to make a case anecdotally.  The law has been in effect there for 5 or so years, is working and is popular. 
    4)  The Commerce Clause argument has been so much discussed that it’s not worth my time to recount it to you.  Go read.

  • Anonymous

    Re your other comments (I don’t get a response option, and they’re not showing up on my dashboard):

    1)  Your evidence is anecdotal.  The ACA is designed to improve overall health care and reduce the rate of increase in costs.  Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows for certain how it will play out.  “Many people…” is not “most people.”  
    2)  You’re flat-out wrong about the ACA’s popularity among folks who learn what it’s designed to do.  Do your own research, however.
    3)  Your leftist sibling in MA is in the minority. This is clear.  You should know better than to attempt to make a case anecdotally.  The law has been in effect there for 5 or so years, is working and is popular. 
    4)  The Commerce Clause argument has been so much discussed that it’s not worth my time to recount it to you.  Go read.

  • greywolfrs

    It is not, regulation is one thing. Taxing “commerce” is one thing. No where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government has the right to force citizens to buy ANY product, simply because they breath. That goes beyond the Commerce Clause, it’s really too bad that you can not see that.

    Stop using the term “Libertarian,” you are obviously not one. Just call a spade, a spade. You are a left wing dolt and vicki tiffany’s life partner. Now, go make some more pronographic art so you can pretend that you actually work.

  • Watch it

    No, I am not agreeing with you. Being treated as non-union workers is a vague generality, their beef is specifically the full time vs part time issue.

    There is no speculation as the replacement of full time with part time to escape the health insurance requirement, it is happening, is directly caused by Obamacare, and expected to continue until all those companies that will feel forced to move in that direction do so.

    “… that’s one piece of the equation whose cause,effects and importance will be answered by time, evidence and analysis rather than by speculation.” . . . On the contrary. The effects and importance are being experienced now, the cause is the ACA (this is known and confirmed by those businesses that are doing it). This is not speculation, it is reality. There is no time needed, the evidence is clear, and the analysis is not rocket science.

  • Watch it

    1. My evidence is not at all anecdotal, it is reality. The design of ACA is flawed. The idea that it would improve overall health care and reduce the rate of increase in costs is wishful thinking. Any actuary in an insurance company can tell you that when you increase the risk and exposure, the cost increases to cover it. Experience of socialized medicine in other countries bears out the theory that when you control medical reimbursement in a downward manner, the availability of medical care shrinks.

    2.Polls have confirmed that as time went on after ACA was made law, as people found out what it was going to do to medical care, cost, the job situation etc, they turned against it. Look at the polling history. Do some research.

    3. I was not offering my sib’s POV as evidence, just as a bit of info to counter your blanket claim that everyone is happy with it. You don’t seem to have a problem with promoting your own anecdotal evidence so why pick at what I am saying? The law is only popular with the small percentage of people who couldn’t afford insurance before. It only increased those covered by a few percentage points. Mass has seen it’s healthcare costs increase and it’s benefits decrease, Google it. It has also put a strain on their budget.

    4. The Commerce Clause was not an issue in it’s acceptability, so it isn’t worth my time to even consider what your opinion is, which doesn’t matter anyway.

    It is clear that you are making a lot of erroneous assumptions where the Mass Healthcare situation is concerned, and are only providing unsupported opinions. You are in no position therefore, to bitch about someone else using anecdotal evidence or reference when you do the same or worse.

  • Anonymous

    It’s fun to trade posts with you, Grey. I actually enjoy your churlish style and rancorous certitude on controversial topics and about what you see as other people’s shortcomings. But as a practical matter, I don’t see the value in re-arguing a point that SCOTUS has decided. I thought Bush v. Gore was the worst decision ever. Who cares?

    Former libertarian. Don’t forget the “former”. In my impressionable youth.

  • Watch it

     Equal protection under the law. The law required Congress to get it’s insurance through the exchanges, which meant they could not apply the subsidy they used to get from the government to the new premiums. Obama exempted them from this condition. In effect, he changed the law illegally.

  • http://thefriendcenter.com/ Average Joe.

    The Excutive branch implements the law but doesn’t have the power to change the law. Nowhere in the law does it give the President the authority to delete, change, or ignore provisions in the law.

    Thanks for your reply but it doesn’t give Obama the power to do what he’s been doing.

  • Todd A Scheller

     No it is not a very hard case to make, the Executive or President under the Constitution has the following powers:
    -is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He or she has the
    power to call into service the state units of the National Guard, and in
    times of emergency may be given the power by Congress to manage national security or the economy.-has the power make treaties with Senate approval. He or she can also receive ambassadors and work with leaders of other nations.-is responsible for nominating the heads of governmental departments,
    which the Senate must then approve. In addition, the president
    nominates judges to federal courts and justices to the United States Supreme Court.-can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by congress.-can issue pardons for federal offenses.-can convene Congress for special sessions.-can veto legislation approved by Congress. However, the veto is
    limited. It is not a line-item veto, meaning that he or she cannot veto
    only specific parts of legislation, and it can be overridden by a
    two-thirds vote by Congress.-delivers a State of the Union address annually to a joint session of Congress.Nowhere does the Constitution provide him with the power to IMPLEMENT or ENFORCE the law. Each law gives a specific Agency, that he happens to be head of the power to implement and enforce the law, with the PPACA, that would be the DHHS, and IRS.None of this allows for any person in the Executive Branch the power to INTERPRET the law, which under Article II of the Constitution is provided to “one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

  • Todd A Scheller

    Actually Greywolfrs is right, it is called the X Amendment. So maybe you should really try reading the Constitution.
    Have you even read the case that said the PPACA was constitutional?
    You cannot regulate people that are doing NOTHING, Commerce requires PARTICIPATION. So you want Congress to tell you that you have to buy a $1,000,000 yacht in 2017? Well you let them do that with healthcare, so why not with Million Dollar Yachts?
    Now how is making you buy health insurence in an exchange INSIDE your state, an excersie of the Commerece clause, as Congress can only regulate commerce “with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.” You Could not buy health insurance across state lines prior to PPACA.
    So how again does it meet the Commerce Clause pray tell.

  • Anonymous

    This is your speculation.  (Disqus and other parts of the site still don’t let me reply directly, so…)  Your analysis of the effects of the ACA is premature, by definition, so your certitude is wholly without foundation.  You seem to rely on information and ideas from certain sources and not from others re the ACA’s popularity, the MA experience (I think you knew I’m right here, actually),  healthcare insurance policy, economic effects, Obama’s role and authority re Congressional participation in the ACA (where your story and analysis are plainly wrong), etc.  You say the same about my sources and methods. The difference between us, I think, is that I don’t profess certitude about the ACA’s future outcomes, only some knowledge about the design and intent of the legislation, along with a recognition of the exigent need to revise a current system so dysfunctional (because it incentivizes service rather than results) that it has inevitably led to a cost spiral that threatens our nation’s budget, long-term and makes healthcare more expensive than in most other countries.  (Acc to the CBO, the ACA will reduce the national debt.)  Bottom line:  we know from experience what doesn’t work.  We’re trying something that many (most, in my view) educated public policy folks think will, or at least be an improvement. 

    Each of us chooses which sources we think are reliable and which we think are b.s. The fight against the ACA is led by the same folks, the same media, the same Think Tanks spouting, unrepentantly, the same ideology that gave us Supply Side nonsense along with the certitude of the disastrous W. Bush administration and the financial collapse of ’07.  Our national experience from 1990 – 2008 should have led to us to tar and feather these folks. Instead, they’re now running the GOP. Those of us on the Left and in the Center, who recognized and called out these wing-nuts and predicted the results of their legislative follies now recognize how hard it is to deal rationally with True Believers.  Even though we don’t have the results of the ACA yet, I’m placing my bets on the side that prefers empiricism to fanaticism.

  • Watch it

    Unfortunately, your opinions are not based on logic or actuarial science, and ignore the reality of what is already happening.

  • Anonymous

    Everyone knew Democrats would not deal with Republican blackmail, so why is it such a surprise that some Republicans acknowledge it.  Americans voted for Obama, and by default, the ACA.  Face it, most Americans want healthcare reform just like they want Social Security and Medicare.  ACA is already law adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  So, how about shaping it in a more conservative way though good-faith negotiations instead of attempting a reckless coup? It is not just moderate Republicans that will pay the price for this charade, it’s all Republicans and it will result in fewer Republican seats in the House.

  • http://www.facebook.com/virgie.bartee Virgie Bartee

    Sheila St James A post from the Obamacare website page. 
    “I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 “Silver Plan” and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I “opt-out” and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the “REPERCUSSIONS PORTION” for “non-payment” of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with “Non-Payment” and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy “Automatically withdraw” your “penalties” weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is “Free” or even “Affordable   This is just the beginning of the cost, my daughter has alrady lost 2300 a year and her employer taxed per employee 25 dollars , not for not having adequate coverage for employees but for paying the employee portion of their insurance,,, this is only 1 example of what is to come. Please do research Ocare is a noose around the neck of WORKING taxpayers

  • laura

    Let me enlighten you!

    Recently, an announcement on the page thanked Americans for their feedback Regarding the Obamacare enrollment process, which, in the very rare instances that it even works, frightens Americans with premium rates typically double and even triple what they were paying for before.“I am so disappointed,” L.S. said in her comment with the most up votes. “These prices are outrageous and there are huge deductibles.”
    “No one can afford this!”
    Another commenter felt the same way.
    “I am a single mother of two, in school and working full time, living 75% below the poverty level and I DO NOT qualify for a healthcare subsidy,” S.J.A. added in another popular comment. “Are you ******* kidding me? Where the **** am I supposed to get $3,000 more a year to pay for this “Bronze” [the lowest cost] health insurance plan?”
    “I DO NOT EVEN WANT INSURANCE to begin with! This is frightening.”
    These two commenter actually managed to get through the enrollment process, which has not been the case for most others.
    “I’ve been stuck at the security questions since 9am on October 1st,” S.R. added, in reference to one of the first steps in enrollment.
    “Took me two days to get my info in and my account verified via an email link,” B.C. wrote in a comment that received many replies. “Now when I log in it tells me the info is wrong.”
    “Very frustrated in Jersey.”
    “I’m having the same problem, B.C.,” one of the responders said. “I finally got past the security question problem, got my account, my verification email, and when I went to log in, it said the information was invalid.”
    Another commenter, a veteran, made a startling statement.
    “As someone who has been on military insurance for many years all I can say is this new healthcare law is proof positive that you really can polish a turd and sell it to people,” C.N. wrote in a comment that as of this writing received 121 thumbs-up. “Just you all wait and see just how wonderful government run healthcare really is!”
      a repost from a Facebook page – An alleged comment on the Affordable Care Act FB page states that a person had signed up online, under the $45-55,000 income range, pre-existing condition of type I diabetes. They chose the “Silver” plan…Their premium came back as $597 per month, with an almost $14,000 annual deductible!  And when the person clicked the “opt out” option, they shortly received an e-mail stating that their fine would be $4,037, and could be attached to their annual tax return.  And if you don’t have the $4,037 on time, then the repercussions for non-payment begin with your drivers license being suspended until the fine is paid, and if it goes 24 months without payment, a tax lien is placed on your property.  It gives you the option to provide your bank info so your penalties can be withdrawn weekly, or biweekly, etc.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=721330421212629&set=a.5

  • laura

    Why would anyone in their right mind want the government to get involved with their personal health care choices that should only be between the patient and the doctor, and why would anyone want to comply with a law that the very people who passed it have exempted themselves from it? To desire to be under that type of control is insanity.

  • Anonymous

    Well, my bubble didn’t burst because I don’t like doing anything “after the fact”. Once that happens the other side just figures you’ll swallow anything.

  • Feet2Fire

    The Supreme Court said the 0-care mandate is a TAX, so how can people get waivers for a tax? –Very confusing!

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2901073/posts
    (People have been asking this for a year and a half… Any answers yet?)

  • Anonymous

    You failed to respond to the question: “name me on Government Program that has ever ran in the black?  Give me just one, just one Government Program that has ever paid for itself?”

    The first sentence was clarified by the second.  You have failed to name any government program that has paid for itself.  The military, relies on constant tax payer funding.

    Social Security on a path towards bankruptcy

    Medicare certainly doesn’t sustain itself, relies on constant involuntary funding by taxpayers, is the bane of doctors, and is also heading towards bankruptcy.

    The only people that the Federal Government is actually responsible for providing healthcare for are the Native American Indians, and that program is such a dismal failure that they run out of money half way through the year.

    So you really didn’t answer the question at all.

  • Anonymous

    Also, I don’t believe we have the most powerful military on the planet.  China has more military than we have population.

  • Anonymous

    Laura, your questions are not rhetorical.  Instead, they simply show that you’ve fallen for the b.s. about the ACA.

    Under this legislation, the govt does NOT get get involved between doctor and patient, and Congress has NOT exempted itself, in fact, the law was written so as to make an exception to INCLUDE Congress. (go to any non-partisan information web site for an explanation.)

    Your ignorance of these facts is a sad example of how well the Right-wing smear campaign has done.  Truly a shame for our country.

    This presents a good opportunity for you to learn how you were led to believe deliberate lies.

  • Anonymous

    No one is getting a waiver, however there are income-dependent subsidies on a sliding scale, just as there are with taxes.

  • Anonymous

    Your question is nonsensical.  Govt programs are not designed for profit; they’re investments intended to improve the quality of our society.  That’s why we pay taxes – and, in a democracy, elect legislators to decide how to spend them..  

    We ran surpluses in the Clinton administration.  That’s running in the black.  

    Stupid, stupid question, misunderstands the very purpose of government.

  • Anonymous

    AJ, answer to your post below (I don’t get a
    “reply” option; Disqus has its quirks.)
    The Executive branch did not change the law; it only adjusted a compliance timetable in order to improve the law’s execution.  This is not only legal,
    it’s a good example of responsive and responsible governance.  This particular ACA situation came about
    because businesses requested this additional time so that they could develop compliance
    resources and procedures.  The ACA is a new law, the
    compliance timetable was only an estimate, so – reasonable request, granted. 

    Does that satisfy you?

  • Anonymous

    AJ, answer to your post below (I don’t get a
    “reply” option; Disqus has its quirks.)
    The Executive branch did not change the law; it only adjusted a compliance timetable in order to improve the law’s execution.  This is not only legal,
    it’s a good example of responsive and responsible governance.  This particular ACA situation came about
    because businesses requested this additional time so that they could develop compliance
    resources and procedures.  The ACA is a new law, the
    compliance timetable was only an estimate, so – reasonable request, granted. 

    Does that satisfy you?

  • http://thefriendcenter.com/ Average Joe.

    So what’s the big deal with extending those exemptions to “We the People”? Where does the law give Obama the right to modify or change the law? Is it worth the Democrats shutting down the Government?

    You don’t have to satisfy me.

  • Anonymous

    AJ, Read my previous post and think more clearly.  There.. is… no… change… to the law itself, no exemption for anyone. 

    “Satisfied” means that you get it, which you should by now.  Don’t be so literal.  If you still don’t understand the answer, it’s probably because you weren’t asking for information but just trying to make a point.  Problem is, your point is based on a false assumption – as you may now see.  You’re welcome.

    Read more about the shutdown.  The Dems didn’t shut it down, the Reps did.  The Dems believe in govt, the Reps don’t.  

    It seems to be the nature of some folks on this site not to accept any information, no matter how clear, that in any way might reduce their antipathy for Obama. 

  • Santiago Amavisca

    That’s why sam has 44 likes and you have 3.                       HAH LOOSAH

  • Feet2Fire

    A quick online search for keywords “waivers Obamacare” indicates that many (if not most) are confused about “waivers” and “exemptions.”

  • Anonymous

    Happy to respond, and I hope you’ll vouchsafe me the same.

    The answer is so well-known that I wonder why you asked.
    “…among the several states”. That’s where the healthcare market exists, and following the “substantial effects” standard that SCOTUS followed for about 75 years in re interstate commerce, it’s therefore subject to federal regulation. Can you say the same about yachts? (a particularly stupid example, btw. At least blowhard homophobe Scalia used broccoli, something that people can afford.) Do you understand the importance of “stare decisis?” Don’t worry, five members of SCOTUS don’t either, to their eternal discredit. Too bad for me.

    But, too bad for you that five members of SCOTUS upheld the law on the basis of the govt’s power to tax. The ACA is the law of the land.

    Now, a question for you: why are you still making an issue of this? It’s a done deal, Todd, the ACA has been judged constitutional. Picking arguments with folks like me won’t change that.

    Look, I thought Bush v. Gore was the most shameful and biased decision SCOTUS ever made, clearly a contravention of the Constitution done solely for partisan gain. A national disgrace. And we’re still living with the disastrous consequences of the W. Bush presidency. But it was SCOTUS’ decision, and we had to abide by it. The ACA, which is far less consequential, and whose effects are a matter of conjecture, has also been decided by SCOTUS. Just deal with it like a patriot, by respecting our institutions.

  • Anonymous

    I agree it’s easy to make a case, in the same way that it’s easy to file a frivolous law suit. You can’t make a reasonable case, however. You’re just indulging in another futile argument that isn’t taken seriously outside the hyper-partisan Right Wing bubble.

    To state the obvious: adjusting a compliance timetable in order to improve a law’s execution is not only legal, it’s an example of responsive and responsible governance. This particular ACA situation came about because businesses requested additional time to develop compliance resources. This is a new law, the compliance timetable was an estimate so – reasonable request, granted. That’s how government is supposed to work – reasonably and responsively. But since the Right doesn’t like government in the first place, it has a hard time understanding the difference between good and bad government policy/procedure. The few GOP legislators who still prefer responsible, moderate governance don’t dare admit it for fear of courting a primary challenge from an enraged TP.

    This anti-Obama jihad is really a problem. The whole stream of serious and necessary political discourse has become polluted by shit like this.

  • Todd A Scheller

    So sorry, you fail to understand what COMMERCE is, hint, it requires participation. You also fail to understand what reasonable is. The government should not be able to force you to PURCHASE anything.
    So is adjusting who the law says is covered by the law also reasonable and responsible? They had FOUR YEARS to get the compliance resources. The Government was not even going to have the exchanges open until 1 October, the same day they shut hem down because there was no FUNDING. The Cost of the law was also an ESTIMATE, how is that estimate turning out in reality?
    Who is raging a holy war? Not I, I happen to be addressing legislation, not people.
    So if government is supposed to act reasonably and responsively, why did we get a law that a majority of people do no want?
    USA Today: 53% Disapproved of the law, and 53% disapproved of how Obama was handling the implementation. Sept. 4-8 2013.
    CNN/ORC: 55% disapprove of how Obama is handling healthcare policy. 57% oppose all (20%) or most (37%) of The PPACA as written.
    Is going against a MAJORITY of the peoples view reasonable and responsive?

  • Todd A Scheller

    Sorry, you are wrong again. You cannot buy Insurance from an Exchange (other than the Federal one) that is not operated in your state, thus there is no trade “among the several states” it only takes place in ONE state. This is called INTRASTATE commerce. Congress can regulate INTERSTATE Commerce, meaning it has to cross at least one state line. Congress can tell Missouri they cannot place a tariff on products produced in Oklahoma.

    The power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and among the several States. It does not stop at the external boundary of a State.

    But it does not extend to a commerce which is completely internal.

    - Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
    Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969) allowed Congress to regulate a recreational facility because its snack bar sold three out of four things that were bought out of state.
    You and I see Bush v. Gore in different lights. Have you actually read the decision, or just viewing its results?

  • Anonymous

    Todd, you go on a tendentious rant, but you haven’t had the courtesy to respond to my questions yet. So, let me pose some again.

    Why do you still feel such a need to invest time in arguing this when it’s completely academic at this point?

    Why do you seek opinions from me, in particular, when the rebuttals to your points have been available since the arguments began over a year ago? Do you not read outside the Right-wing echo chamber? Doesn’t seem like it.

    I hope you’ll get a grip long enough to answer those questions.

    Meantime, here’s a brief response to your argumentative meanderings.

    The Executive branch did not legislate by granting a temporary compliance delay. That should be obvious to all except zealots. Here’s a little article that gives both sides of this minor tempest in a Tea Party pot: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

    Read it and you won’t need to ask me any more about it.

    Re your attempt to hijack “reasonable and responsible” by moving it from the Executive to the Legislative sphere without noting the differences – you’re just being argumentative. You should give it up, get out of the bubble and read a bit more about people’s opinions of the law. First of all, the legislature is not supposed to govern by poll numbers. And poll responses depend entirely on how the question is asked. Please don’t tell me you don’t know that. The “majority” of people with an unfavorable view of the ACA includes many who think it doesn’t go far enough (I avoid the use of percentages, because they’re too rough and malleable, but the combination of folks who approve and folks who think it should be stronger is well over half.) Also, disapproval of the law is conditioned by what people actually know about it – which is not much. The disinformation campaign, e.g. death panels, Congress is exempt, govt takeover, etc., has influenced opinion more than the reality of what the law does. Since you seem to believe in polls, it’s been shown that, when people who are not in favor of the law are asked about specific provisions, they favor almost all of them. Ignorance, much of it caused by Right-wing lies and distortions, has done a huge disservice to our country.

    The ACA is a very reasonable, responsible, earnest, comprehensive and well-researched initiative designed to improve upon our current system, which is dysfunctional and wasteful and produces mediocre overall results at exorbitantly high costs.

    So, why the anger? Why can’t folks just follow the law and give it a chance?

  • Todd A Scheller

    The Executive Legislated when it excluded CONGRESS and their staff from the law, that specifically INCLUDED CONGRESS and their staff.
    In no way shape or form am I required at anytime to answer any of your questions that come from the left-wing echo chamber.

  • Anonymous

    I believe the Chinese military, given an opportunity to turn on their leaders, will do so.  The Chinese citizenry knows something is terribly wrong, but have no words.

  • Anonymous

    Congress was not excluded, Todd.

    Re answering my questions…are you kidding? (Oops, another question.)

    Re deficit, the ACA reduces it.

  • Todd A Scheller

    Congress is not exempted by the law as originally written. They and their staffers are how ever by the regulations put into effect after passage.
    No the PPACA does not reduce the deficit.

  • Guest

     ACA reducing deficit is another Obama lie. OMB is now depicting between double to triple cost of the program. The only way they will come close is by the increased taxes on people who don’t buy into it. The actuaries know a lot more than Obama and his waterboys.

  • yah

    tinyurl.com/l3cselt

  • Defend The Constitution

    I’ve found this to be a lighthouse in the fog conjured up by the quacks, progressives, and clowns of today’s TV media: http://www.savageleft.com/resources/beacon.html

  • Anonymous

    Todd,
    It was not a rhetorical question when I asked you why you bother to argue constitutional law with me. As a practical matter, you’re wasting your time, which makes little sense. Your bizarre objection that you weren’t required to answer prompted my remark “Are you kidding?” – and, guess what? That was a rhetorical question!

    It’s revealing that you don’t recognize the difference, but you also don’t seem to recognize the norms and standards of civil debate. Clearly, you don’t understand how the ACA was designed, passed into law and scored for estimated budget effects. You’ve got it exactly backwards re Congress’ exemption, and you’re confusing future cost estimates with hard costs – a foolish misunderstanding, albeit very common on the Right.

    A little bit of reading from reliable sources might go a long way towards improving your understanding of these matters, but it seems you want to vent rather than to understand, so I certainly won’t stand in your way.

  • Todd A Scheller

    I bother to argue Constitutional law with you because you have it WRONG. What other reasons is there? Do you not remember claiming that the PPACA was Constitutional via the Commerce Clause?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=682144051 Elizabeth Holscher

    I apologize, but a democracy?  Since when has this Nation been a democracy?  We’re a Republic.  Stupid, stupid reply…learn the difference.

  • Anonymous

    @facebook-682144051:disqus  I didn’t call our government a democracy.  I think you responded to the wrong person.  We are a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives.  Or at least we are supposed to be.  The government seems to be forgetting that Republic requires them to follow THE LAWs.

  • Anonymous

    @marburyvsmadison:disqus  Aamtrak, Postal Service, Social Security, Universal Healthcare.   You hit the nail on the head.  Government programs are not SUPPOSED to be designed for profit.  That is to say that the federal government has no right or business competing with private business.

    Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, and only today’s activist SCOTUS would say otherwise.  Keep in mind that to do so, they had to rewrite a part of it, and then ignore that they changed it into a tax which is also unconstitutional because it did not originate in the house.  Congress has the authority to tax, but the federal government does not have the right or responsibility to become a medical insurance provider forced upon the individual states.  This is a republic, and the supreme law of the land forbids this.

    The postal service is legitimate in that it was called for as part of an interstate federal program.  However, as a government function, unions should be prohibited from existing in any relations thereto.  You cannot have unions in government without massive corruption — unless all donations both direct and indirect result in dissolution and mandatory prison time.  

    Clinton lowered capital gains taxes, and also rode on the wave of his predecessor.  Then he rode on Ms. Lewinsky, and lied about it to a grand jury.  That perjury was clearly cause for impeachment, but illustrated the massive corruption of the Senate in failing to affirm his impeachment by congress.  He should just be getting out of prison for that bit about now.

    But back to the subject at hand.  The federal government has no right to be in the business of running business and/or competing with the private sector.  Our current radicals in power clearly (as you said)  “misunderstand the very purpose of government”.

  • Anonymous

    Todd, thanks for your answer! So…you’re arguing with me because I’m WRONG? Is that the same as wrong? Do you know what it means when you feel you must in CAPS?

    Glad you’ve overcome your hostility to my questions, because there are some things you can, perhaps, clarify.

    Were you in elementary school when they taught the difference between FACT and OPINION? Aren’t SCOTUS’ decisions commonly called opinions? How do we typically refer to the differing sides when SCOTUS decides a case? Do we say “Right opinion vs. wrong opinion”, or “majority opinion vs. minority opinion”? So, since my opinion on the ACA as a tax is the majority opinion, may I describe your opinion as WRONG? Or would I be wrong to do so, since it’s just a different opinion?

    That’s another reason why it’s so foolish to beat your chest and continue arguing the constitutionality of the ACA with me (the first reason being, you’re actually beating a dead horse; it’s settled law). No one’s WRONG. Not even you, in this case. There are simply differing opinions. I guess you missed school that day.

    But there are facts about the ACA that are verifiable. An important one is that Congress was not exempted, in fact, the opposite is true. An exception was made to include Congress, contrary to the purpose and design of the ACA. It was originally a political stunt by Senator Grassley, but Dems called his bluff. The decision to have the Office of Personnel Management continue its contribution to health care premiums simply restored the original intent of the law, as written by a Republican senator.

    So, when you or Beck or someone of that ilk denounce the “fact” that Congress was exempted from its own law, are you misleading, misunderstanding or lying? My opinion is that you’re lying, but since I can’t know if another person is passing along false information knowingly or unknowingly, I can’t say it’s a fact – just my opinion, and subject to change.

    Lastly, we have cost estimates. These involve assumptions about the future. Do you have a crystal ball? Do you know CBO assumptions and methodology? (hint: they’re very conservative!) Do you think it’s probative to take an example from 1965 and insert it into 2013’s context? Mightn’t a slightly more recent case be more instructive, for example the CBO’s scoring and the subsequent realties of MediCare Part D? (hint: they were way off, but in a direction that won’t help make your point.)

    So…differing opinions, different estimates, and then reality. You seem to prefer arguing the first two at the expense of the third. That’s because Right-wing world doesn’t do well dealing with reality, Todd.

    If you bother to write back, I’ll tell you the difference between facts (or, FACTS, to use the Right-wing term) and reality. It’s really interesting.

  • Todd A Scheller

    IF I TYPE IN ALL CAPS IT MEANS I AM SCREAMING. If I type ONE word in CAPS it means I am EMPHASIZING that word. What else would you like to be wrong about now Maburyv.Madison? FYI: there is no s used in referencing a court case.
    The difference in facts and FACTS is nothing, facts in this case prove you wrong.
    No the Methodology of CBO is not Conservative, if it were they would not be so wrong so often, kind of like you.

  • Anonymous

    Opinions are interpretation of facts, Todd. That’s the salient point you keep missing, the whole issue in a nutshell. Intelligent, well-meaning people often see the same facts but interpret them differently. It’s what makes us human.

    CBO’s methodology is not Conservative, it’s conservative, kind of like me. Have you checked the estimate the CBO made after Medicare D passed?

  • Todd A Scheller

    So like I said, they are based on legal facts thanks for playing.
    Have you checked where the CBO was wrong on its projections for Medicare Part A?

  • Anonymous

    I guess you think things must have been so much better for old folks before SS and Medicare.. Wonder why they changed