...but wait! I thought if I liked my plan I could keep my plan?!

[Centinel]

But I can read, which is why our founders wrote down the law. If SCOTUS were the supreme law of the land, there would have been no need to write a constitution.

Non sequitur. SCOTUS, per Article III, has original jurisdiction on all matters Constitutional.

The constitution (not SCOTUS) is the supreme law of the land.

Yes, it is and it says SCOTUS has original jurisdiction (art iii) on all matters constitutional.

Please cite the language. Because what you just said is wrong.

You are wrong.

Article III

Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

------
Notice that the section pre-empts any sovereign citizen crap under admiralty law as well.

Yes, the constitution establishes the judiciary. Everyone knows this.

However, the constitution does not grant congress the legislative power to have enacted obamacare. It should be shut down and trashed like the illegal "non-law" it is.

 

[Centinel]

Centenial, you have your opinion, but it has no force, no power, nothing at all.

The constitution grants congress limited legislative powers. These powers are listed in Art I, section 8. Maybe you can point out the specific enumerated power that would allow congress to create a law instituting obamacare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Non sequitur. SCOTUS, per Article III, has original jurisdiction on all matters Constitutional.

The constitution (not SCOTUS) is the supreme law of the land.

Yes, it is and it says SCOTUS has original jurisdiction (art iii) on all matters constitutional.

Please cite the language. Because what you just said is wrong.

You are wrong.

Article III

Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

------
Notice that the section pre-empts any sovereign citizen crap under admiralty law as well.

Non sequitur. SCOTUS, per Article III, has original jurisdiction on all matters Constitutional.

The constitution (not SCOTUS) is the supreme law of the land.

Yes, it is and it says SCOTUS has original jurisdiction (art iii) on all matters constitutional.

Please cite the language. Because what you just said is wrong.

You are wrong.

Article III

Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

------
Notice that the section pre-empts any sovereign citizen crap under admiralty law as well.

Yes, the constitution establishes the judiciary. Everyone knows this.

However, the constitution does not grant congress the legislative power to have enacted obamacare. It should be shut down and trashed like the illegal "non-law" it is.

The Constitution is quite clear that SCOTUS determines the Constitutionalty of laws. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States" . . . End of story.

 

[Centinel]

Yep, thanks to both parties, we will have single payer within four years.

Congress has no legislative authority to enact single-payer.

 

[BluesLegend]

Yep, thanks to both parties, we will have single payer within four years.

Congress has no legislative authority to enact single-payer.

Congress doesn't have the brains to enact single-payer either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, thanks to both parties, we will have single payer within four years.

Congress has no legislative authority to enact single-payer.

Merely your opinion. SCOTUS's "judicial power shall extend to all cases. . . ".

 

[Eaglewings]

Guess what people..unless if your killed in a accident somehow...Your going to get sick, and old....And your going to die.

You may not need the medical system yet, but it is a promise you will.

Not too many people are healthy their whole life to 120 and die in their sleep.

The funeral homes are dying for you to get screwed over in death expenses as well.

.

NSS......fine excuse to let govt get in on screwing us

They already have been since the 1930's when the rockafellers gave the first donation to the medical school and started to have a say.
Much more going on that we do not see.

.

 

[Centinel]

The Constitution is quite clear that SCOTUS determines the Constitutionalty of laws. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States" . . . End of story.

SCOTUS has the power to decide whether the defendant or the plaintiff wins a case.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that congress does not have legislative authority to enact obamacare.

 

[Centinel]

Yep, thanks to both parties, we will have single payer within four years.

Congress has no legislative authority to enact single-payer.

Merely your opinion. SCOTUS's "judicial power shall extend to all cases. . . ".

Yep. The supreme court has the constitutional authority to determine whether the plaintiff or the defendant wins a court case. So?

Congress has no legislative power to enact obamacare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is quite clear that SCOTUS determines the Constitutionalty of laws. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States" . . . End of story.

SCOTUS has the power to decide whether the defendant or the plaintiff wins a case. Which has nothing to do with the fact that congress does not have legislative authority to enact obamacare.

Only your opinion. Both Congress and SCOTUS disagree.

 

[Centinel]

The Constitution is quite clear that SCOTUS determines the Constitutionalty of laws. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States" . . . End of story.

SCOTUS has the power to decide whether the defendant or the plaintiff wins a case. Which has nothing to do with the fact that congress does not have legislative authority to enact obamacare.

Only your opinion. Both Congress and SCOTUS disagree.

Well congress and scotus can't violate the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, and no person is above it.

The constitution gives scotus the power to decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant wins any particular case.

If you think that the constitution contains language giving congress the legislative authority to enact obamacare, please cite the relevant language.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is quite clear that SCOTUS determines the Constitutionalty of laws. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States" . . . End of story.

SCOTUS has the power to decide whether the defendant or the plaintiff wins a case. Which has nothing to do with the fact that congress does not have legislative authority to enact obamacare.

Only your opinion. Both Congress and SCOTUS disagree.

Well congress and scotus can't violate the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, and no person is above it.

The constitution gives scotus the power to decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant wins any particular case.

If you think that the constitution contains language giving congress the legislative authority to enact obamacare, please cite the relevant language.

SCOTUS and Congress have already done that. You have to do far more than say "nuh uh", my friend.

Be unhappy, it won't change.

 

[Centinel]

The Constitution is quite clear that SCOTUS determines the Constitutionalty of laws. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States" . . . End of story.

SCOTUS has the power to decide whether the defendant or the plaintiff wins a case. Which has nothing to do with the fact that congress does not have legislative authority to enact obamacare.

Only your opinion. Both Congress and SCOTUS disagree.

Well congress and scotus can't violate the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, and no person is above it.

The constitution gives scotus the power to decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant wins any particular case.

If you think that the constitution contains language giving congress the legislative authority to enact obamacare, please cite the relevant language.

SCOTUS and Congress have already done that. You have to do far more than say "nuh uh", my friend.

Be unhappy, it won't change.

Yes, I am aware the the federal government has already violated the constitution. Thanks for agreeing that government positions are being occupied by lawbreakers.

That was my point from the start, and you have confirmed it. There is no constitutional basis for obamacare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is quite clear that SCOTUS determines the Constitutionalty of laws. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States" . . . End of story.

SCOTUS has the power to decide whether the defendant or the plaintiff wins a case. Which has nothing to do with the fact that congress does not have legislative authority to enact obamacare.

Only your opinion. Both Congress and SCOTUS disagree.

Well congress and scotus can't violate the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, and no person is above it.

The constitution gives scotus the power to decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant wins any particular case.

If you think that the constitution contains language giving congress the legislative authority to enact obamacare, please cite the relevant language.

SCOTUS and Congress have already done that. You have to do far more than say "nuh uh", my friend.

Be unhappy, it won't change.

Yes, I am aware the the federal government has already violated the constitution. Thanks for agreeing that government positions are being occupied by lawbreakers.

Those are your words, not mine. Be unhappy, it changes nothing.

 

[Centinel]

SCOTUS has the power to decide whether the defendant or the plaintiff wins a case. Which has nothing to do with the fact that congress does not have legislative authority to enact obamacare.

Only your opinion. Both Congress and SCOTUS disagree.

Well congress and scotus can't violate the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, and no person is above it.

The constitution gives scotus the power to decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant wins any particular case.

If you think that the constitution contains language giving congress the legislative authority to enact obamacare, please cite the relevant language.

SCOTUS and Congress have already done that. You have to do far more than say "nuh uh", my friend.

Be unhappy, it won't change.

Yes, I am aware the the federal government has already violated the constitution. Thanks for agreeing that government positions are being occupied by lawbreakers.

Those are your words, not mine. Be unhappy, it changes nothing.

So in your own words. Does the constitution give congress legislative authority to enact obamacare? If so, please cite the language.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only your opinion. Both Congress and SCOTUS disagree.

Well congress and scotus can't violate the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, and no person is above it.

The constitution gives scotus the power to decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant wins any particular case.

If you think that the constitution contains language giving congress the legislative authority to enact obamacare, please cite the relevant language.

SCOTUS and Congress have already done that. You have to do far more than say "nuh uh", my friend.

Be unhappy, it won't change.

Yes, I am aware the the federal government has already violated the constitution. Thanks for agreeing that government positions are being occupied by lawbreakers.

Those are your words, not mine. Be unhappy, it changes nothing.

So in your own words. Does the constitution give congress legislative authority to enact obamacare? If so, please cite the language.

You have been given the authority by which the question has been answered. You simply don't like it and repeat yourself like a mindlessly chattering chipmunk.

 

[MaryL]

I lost my previous health care provider, and it wasn't made clear how I could have kept it. Choose this plan, there are all these other plans that are affordable. Nobody said, wait a bloody minute, you can keep your present plan! In the middle of this maelstrom, I lost my job and my health care plan. Obama made this rather difficult, and may have even cost us older folks our jobs to boot. What a train wreck.

 

[easyt65]

So..you don't think a company should have free choice?

I think Americans should have 'free choice', something that was denied them with the passage of Obamacare.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Most got to keep their plans, and the others were upgraded to better plans.

The good part was the elimination of dorks from using catastrophic plans to privatize their profit and socialize their risk.

And by upgraded you mean forced to pay for shit they neither needed nor wanted right?

That's what you mean. I don't. I mean that catastrophic insurance used as a health insurance was almost a freebie grab by people who did not want to pay what they should to protect themselves at the expense of others.

A catastrophic plan protects the person as it should. From major injury or illness. It put no burden on anyone else

 

[Wilbur Right]

I think Americans should have 'free choice', something that was denied them with the passage of Obamacare.

Americans are free to chose an employer that provides medical insurance. Who says they arent?

What americans arent entitled to is "free" health care at emergency rooms.