Editor’s Note: Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. He has been heavily involved in the litigation regarding the Affordable Care Act, including having filed briefs on each of the four issues argued before the Supreme Court last week.
By Ilya Shapiro – Special to CNN
“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” With those words, Justice Anthony Kennedy sent the legal establishment reeling.
Was the Supreme Court really taking seriously the preposterous claims of the Tea Party-inspired hacks who were suing the federal government? Was there really a chance that five justices, acting as would-be partisan hacks themselves, would throw out President Obama’s signature achievement? Could Obamacare, which name everyone is now allowed to use because the administration itself has adopted it, really fall on some technicality about mandating economic activity rather than regulating it when it occurs?
In a word, yes.
Those of us who have been challenging the constitutionality of the individual health insurance mandate have been serious the whole time. We thought we had put to rest the slurs about our cases being frivolous or political sour grapes when multiple federal judges denied the government’s motions to dismiss them. Or when those same judges struck down the individual mandate. Or when an appellate court, including a judge appointed by President Clinton, affirmed one of those rulings.
When 26 states (and two more in separate lawsuits) argue that the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce - which the Court has interpreted to include the regulation of local economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce - does not give the federal government the power to force people to buy stuff, maybe there’s a legitimate point of debate.
Is it not valid to ask where federal power ends, as it must under the Constitution’s grant of enumerated and therefore limited powers? What legal principle can courts apply to sanction economic mandates with respect to healthcare but not in other areas?
At the very least, when the Supreme Court granted an historic six hours of oral argument over three days - akin to Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade - surely the government’s supporters in the media and academy recognized that there was something to what we were saying.
Yet on the eve of the arguments, nationally renowned commentators like Linda Greenhouse and Dahlia Lithwick breezily predicted an easy victory for the government. And 85% of academics and journalists polled by the American Bar Association said the law would be upheld. (Never mind the question of why we need proof that elite liberals overwhelmingly support the elite liberal view.)
After all, holding otherwise would take us back to the dark times when children could work in stores and the government couldn’t tell farmers how to go about their business. We all know that only Justice Clarence Thomas would endorse those kinds of hunger games.
And so, despite the plaintiffs’ methodical progress and impressive lawyering - led by Paul Clement, possibly the nation’s best advocate - the punditocracy still managed to be caught off-guard when four justices expressed skepticism about the government’s position. (Thomas was characteristically silent but can indeed be expected to support the structural limits on federal power.)
CNN’s own Jeffrey Toobin called it a “train wreck” for the administration, a reaction emblematic of the apoplexy with which the chattering classes reacted to last week’s hearings. There had to be some explanation - beyond the obviously implausible idea that the challengers’ claims had any merit - and indeed two narratives emerged: (1) the government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, turned in a horrible performance, and (2) the justices were playing politics.
Neither of these excuses is convincing. While it’s true that Verrilli wasn’t at his best - the experienced super-lawyer seemed to strain under a decidedly non-frivolous weight - he ably conveyed the carefully crafted legal positions that the government has advanced all along.
And while it’s also true that all the anti-Obamacare votes will come from justices appointed by Republican presidents, that doesn’t mean those justices are acting from partisan motives (any more than the pro-Obamacare justices are). Indeed, unlike any previous “controversial” case, here 72% of the American people - including 56% of Democrats and 54% of those who think the law is a good thing - think the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
No, the reason that the government had a bad week is that its position is weak. It has become abundantly clear that the reason that the solicitor general failed to articulate a principled limit to his theory of federal power - despite knowing that this would be the primary question he would face - is that there isn’t one.
No matter how much Yale’s Akhil Amar and Northwestern’s Andrew Koppelman protest, we must recognize the validity of an interpretive theory that gives judges the power to enforce the Constitution’s structure. Features such as federalism and the separation of powers are there not as some abstract exercise in applied political theory but to protect individual liberty. Before we even get to the Bill of Rights, which was a hotly debated afterthought, or the political checks on power, we have a constitutional design that denies the federal government the sort of plenary “police” power that states enjoy.
That’s why the infamous “broccoli hypothetical” is so telling: Economists say that diet and exercise have a greater effect on taxpayer spending on healthcare than rates of ownership of insurance, so if anything healthy-food and gym-membership mandates have greater constitutional warrant than what we’re dealing with now.
By the same token, Congress’s ability to concoct lots of well-intentioned national reform schemes doesn’t give it unfettered means to pursue those noble ends. It is a theory that would allow such unchecked federal power every time Congress acts under a self-declared “national problem” that cannot survive serious constitutional scrutiny.
Returning to Justice Kennedy, “here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Ilya Shapiro.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Before Obamacare, our national healthcare system was a disgrace to say the least. We need some kind of healthcare system to provide a safety net for the poor and the middle class. Besides, with the cost of medicine being as high as it is, only the wealthy can pay out of pocket prices for it!!! But what do the right-wing fanatics in Washington care as long as their medical expenses are bought and paid for???
Indeed, how long can America remain a stronghold of laissez-faire policy and social Darwinism?
On the other hand j.von hettlingen, we do need a laissez-faire foreign policy instead of the darwinistic one that we're currently following!!!
America was built on laissez-faire and social Darwinism
There is no freedom without free markets.
You morons really do not understand the concept.
Allah takes away any individualism you may have and after repeating the doctrines over and over again, you are now stupified.
Definition for laissez faire:Web definitions: individualism: the doctrine that government should not interfere in commercial affairs.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Healthcare costs have been increasing at about 9% annually for about thirty years. At that rate the annual cost doubles about every eight years. A few more doublings and our system – with or without Obamacare – will be bankrupt.
More effective cost shifting from the healthy to the sick will not fix anything at all.
Health care costs money because their is so much more doctors can do, and it is all very expensive. 200 years ago, you didn't have to worry about health care costs- you went to a doctor, he either bloodlet or applied leeches, and you paid the modest fee.
gee Medicare and Medicaid were both signed into law in 1965...about 30 years ago....wonder what the connection could possibly be? not government mandates and overly bureaucratic paper pushers in Washington sucking up the taxes that are suppose to be going to health service...surely not....just a coincidence
So translation from that philosophy is if you are poor and sick then it is OK for you to be screwed and die, your wealthy don't care, they will be OK anyway sick or not.
I agree with obamacare in a sense that everyone should be eligible for this act not just those who fit in a certain class. If Obama wants this obamacare he needs to make those who have to pay more receive something in return. It's not fair that those who have money and are wealthy have to pay full price for healthcare but on top of that have to pay more in taxes to support this Obama care that supports those who have no money. I think the federal government should take action and make this fair both parties. I don't want to see poor people die because of no health care but I think the ones who pay more should recieve something in return.
You mean a safety net like, say, Medicaid, or S-CHIP, or Social Security, or the VA, or Food Stamps, or the low income energy assistance program, or the national school lunch program, or the WIC program, or unemployment insurance. Yeah, someone should get on that. I can't believe we have no safety nets in this country. This is just terrible!!!
Yes, we are left to our own devices. If you lose your job, you only get 99 weeks of unemployment benefits...the horrors!
I am now proposing FoodCare, SecurityCare and MoneyCare (MoneyCare is a free service provided by big brother...I mean or government: just deposit your paycheck into the Gov't coffers and they'll take care of the rest!).
I'm certainly glad the liberals don't get their's paid for as well!! We can starve 'em out!
Boo fricken hoo. Some things are more important than free healthcare. Like freedom! Liberals would gladly sell their freedom for free rubbers. Not I. Keep your Obamacare and leave me be. Give me liberty or give me death!
And without insurance that's what you'll deserve according to those who see the issue as you do.
In reply to John:
Hey John: Who said Mark didn't have insurance? Try a little reading comprehension. He said he doesn't want Obamacare.
Who said Obamacare is free?? You have to pay for it. Unlike now when freeloaders (maybe you) don't want to pay and let the rest of us pay when they get sick. Real Americans???
Where did you see Obamacare is free healthcare? You still have to pay premiums you know. And it is probably a lot higher because of the uninsured that generates billions in uncompensated healthcare cost (although some of that is reimbursed by gvt which means higher taxes or debt). And I hope he doesn't have a sickness for which he can't afford the care, because under there is quite a likelihood his private insurance will dump him so they can increase their bottom line.
Why do you think US is the only industrialized nation w/o some form of Obamacare or single payer healthcare?(That includes free market worshippers like Switzerland or Taiwan... Also the mandate is actually a republican idea but since democrat hijacked it I guess they cannot possibly be in favor of it anymore in today's stupidest political PARTIES (Yes, PARTIES with an s)
For the record I am no fan of Obamacare. I hate that it does not sever the employer sponsored healthcare that put undue burden on businesses and prevent them from competing effectively
Freedom to do what? It seems other industrialized countries (Britain, Canada, Finland, etc.) have not lost their "freedom", yet they have a national health care plan. Personally, I would like for everyone to have a plan similar to VA Health Care (which I have). Americans could pay into a system less than we are now paying to insurance companies).
I stand with Mark and Patrick Henry. Tyrany always masks itself in good intentions. I am a citizen not a subject. Give me liberty or give me death!
common sense says it all, totally correct, well done1
How can you judge whether someone can pay for insurance and chooses not to? Unless you are one of the 1% wealthy elite the cost of indivdual health plans are prohibitive for most of us. Do you really believe we should leave people to die because they cannot afford healthcare? Anywhere else in the industrialized world health care is considered a human right. I see no reason why it cannot be the same right here in the USA.
We do. It's called medicaid, and a modest expansion of medicaid or federal funding for states' high-risk pools would have remedied any access deficiencies in our health care system at a fraction of the cost of Obamacare. I make $30,000 a year and my income and health insurance (private plan, not medicaid) adequately provides for a family of three. The last thing I need is my premiums to shoot up because the Obama Administration wanted to do me "favor."
sorry to tell you your premiums are going way up w/o Obamacare and your insurance companies are going to decide what you are covered for. And by the way- I hope you don't have some minor medical issue (i.e. ulcer, colon polyp) -you will never get insurance again.
Your premium would have gone up anyway because for years the cost of healthcare have gone out of control. But private insurance have decided to preempt a possibility that cost would go up (note the multiple conditionals) because they cannot get away with dumping the sick off their rolls anymore. Turns out the year after the premium for most people did not increase at all (in some case they have decreased). I guess ooooops from their end.
It was only a disgrace to those who don't have it. Those people, by virtue of their location on the globe feel every other worker should chip in for them, "just because".
Your comment would be a lot more meaningful if Congress gave citizens the plan they have. It would be a lot more meaningful if unions and other Obama supporters hadn't been given a pass on a bad law.
Yes indeed, the health care system was so wrecked that 85% of the nation was happy with their insurance. Of the 15% that were either not insured or not happy 1/3 were medicaid eligible and had not enrolled in the program (and would be forced to enroll under slumbamacare), another 1/3 were illegal aliens (and will excluded from participation and exempt from the penalty), and the final 1/3 were young people who feel that they do not need to spend thousands of dollars of month for insurance that they do not need (and if they are part-time worker and premiums would exceed 8% of their paycheck, they too will be exempted from the mandate and the penalty). This bill was nothing more than a massive expansion of government power over individual economic decisions.
85% is the number of people that have insurance in US. Can you provide a reference for 85% are happy with their insurance??
Not that it matters but this kind of stats is BS to begin with. I am sure almost 100% people would say yes to pay no taxes but most want all government programs that are paid through taxes to continue untouched....
You are missing the point here... this has nothing to do with whether ObamaCare is a good or bad idea. This is a Consitutional question about where the powers of the Federal government end.
The US should take a look at the EU and Canada where they have universal cover, a basic human right How the selfish Tea party twists and bends basic human needs into spaghetti meatballs
Are you serious?? A good analogy was when someone said.. if you need your kitchen done you don't level the house. Obama could have worked with repubs., but NO ..this wanna be king shoved this crap down our throats with one party rule. This is a power grab.. period.
It's not about healthcare, the same way the contraceptive garbage is about the women's vote...not anything more. This creep is putting his foot on the accelerator to control EVERYTHING. ...Wake up honey!!
You can't honestly believe that what you have in Europe is the answer to our healthcare woes? There are solutions and they were suggested by the Republicans and rejected outright. And none of those remedies were anything as draconian as those propsed by this administration. And I'll be damned if I am going to have to pay for someone's irresponsible lifestyle choices plain and simple. It is always easy for you liberals to show how much you care when you use someone else's money.
A fair statement to a point. But is this the only way to provide health care to the poor? 85% of people have healthcare now, and it works reasonable well for them. We are already starting to see the unintended, negative consequences and higher costs to people who have healthcare. Is a 2000+ page monstrosity of bill that no one has read, that completely restructures the healthcare of all Americans the only answer? Certainly not. We use food stamps to supplement the diet of the poor, we don't have the federal government step in and mandate the complete food supply from the farm to how all Americans should eat. We need to leave health care alone for the people it is currently working for, and help to supplement the health care for those where it does not.
Well said...Obamacare is like tearing down the Empire State Building because there's a broken window on the third floor. Fix the freakin' window...
Trevor,85% do have insurance and its getting too expensive for some families to budget.They said a family of 4 in 2016 will be spending around $22,000 a year ,plus a deductible of $5200,sound nice.So you might have a policy now,but there's no promise you'll have if later,good luck,hope you'll never have to use it to see what it actually covers,have fun,ya better stay healthy,that's all...
Ruling in favor of Obamacare is equivalent to approving totalitarianism. If the government wants to provide healthcare to uninsured set up a charity hospital in each congressional district with a defined budget similar to the VA hospital system.
Before Obamacare our health care system was a disgrace and after Obamacare it would be a disgrace.
85% of the American people had health insurance they were happy with before this law was passed. Of those that didn't the majority were young people who could buy health insurance, but chose not to.
This law is not about your liberal-imagined America where people are "dying in the streets"
It makes young, healthy, people who don't want to buy health insurance and cuts medicare for old people to save money for a government who made promises they can't keep. That is all.
There is a safety net – Medicaid!
You're right, it's so bad that people from places like Canada where they have such fantastic government sponsored healthcare come here for medical procedures all the time. In fact people from all across the globe come here for the terrible care that they can get here... As Bugs Bunny would say..."What a maroon"...
Don't expect me to believe for a millisecond that you actually understand the law, even in part, and that you think it has actualy IMPROVED the healthcare situation in this country. Most of its provisions haven't even STARTED YET anyway! Give me a break.
no democratic rules in syria and iraq
Shia thugs in syria , iraq and iran dont know the meaning od deocracy, give me a bbreak those evil cult , killed more than 14,000 cevilians....they arrive to power by force from his father al asad got red of the realy deocratic majority and put a minority 8% shiia thugs control with baathies and communist idiology they export terrorizim to lebanon , hamas and help hizboallah with arms..iran pay the bill, russia provid the weapons and syria do the killing and orgenizing crimes and terror.
You forget that this country is no longer a true democracy either. Now the all powerful M.I.C. owns both the Congress and the White House as the politicians do their bidding. That is why we're interfering in all these foreign countries and starting new wars! Before you condemn other countries as being undemocratic, take a look at Washington.
It never was. It was a representative democracy, and a democratic republic.
I ope that is only a screen name and not your real name because George Patton from our history would know that the United States has never been a Democracy but a Representative Republic. E Pluribus Unim (from many one)
you are spot on – you can't possibly an (intentionally) historically un/under ecducated US "citizen" –
the us has consistently supported the "bad" wannabe "rulers.
If only true religion could influence people – without their self appointed – often of course good – "leaders – and make the population act morally "correct"'
The 'arab' world also needs a lot of 'factual' education – and NOT by their selfseving religious 'leaders' – same as here
we the rational people have to make the needed changes – no one else will – and don't let religion muddle your mind !!!!
And, here's how Obamacare would really work: American working people will be forced to pay their Obamacare "premiums" 100% of the time. Why do you think the politicians will be putting 16,500 new IRS agents in the field? Obamacare will show up as a new category on your paycheck and/or your tax return! Maybe something like, "National Healthcare Plan" or some such euphemistic sounding phrase. But, and remember this, only about 10 to 20 percent of American workers (or members of their families) are sick or injured at any given time and need medical attention. The other 80 to 90 percent of the time people are at work or school and quite healthy. Like the medical insurance firms, the politicians know about this roughly 80/20 statistic. It's the basis for all insurance schemes. It is the motivating (but never acknowledged) concept behind Obamacare... So, like an insurance company's reserve pool of available cash, about 80% of the funds collected from Obamacare will create a surplus and be available for use by, uh, Washington politicians. This is exactly what Obama and his gang of grifters; Biden, Pelosi; Reed, Hoyer, Schumer, etc., are drooling at the mouth over and counting on while hoping, of course, that you never see this other "little angle" to Obamacare. These deceitful politicians are hoping too, that they will find themselves with a massive, new source of loot concealed behind the promise of gov't health care for all Americans. That is to say around 80% of Obamacare funds taken from taxpayers will be available (at any given time) to these stinking politicians to spend and waste on other "pet projects", completely unrelated to the healthcare needs of the American people (which will require only about 20% of the Obamacare funds at any given time). More loot for politicians to spend on things like new wars overseas, more foreign and domestic welfare, and of course nicer, more luxurious retirement deals for themselves their overpaid bureaucrats and thugs. Cut away all of the big talk, all the smoke and mirrors, all the promises and one sees Obamacare for what it really is: a massive, truly massive, back-breaking new tax hike on the American people. One trillion dollars or so, in fresh plunder for DC politicians to squander. Now, do you understand why these two-faced, big-spending politicians are so anxious to impose Obamacare on everyone? Not because Americans may get gov't health care, no sir, but because of the barrels of SURPLUS cash these conniving Washington politicians will be raking in. It is, without a doubt, one of the greatest swindles ever concocted to rob the American people of their earnings and incomes.
You are an idiot. How many cars get in a wreck any day? Insurance doesn't work if you buy it when you need it. Its power is in numbers. The more people who buy into the policy, the more cost effective it is.
I second mcg's comment. This guy sounds like a conspiracy theorist of the highest order. Hey Bead, the effect of invalidating health care reform? Back to increasing premiums, insurance companies making gazillions off the consumers, and less people every year with no coverage, meaning... yes, you get it now, you pay for them anyway! Wouldn't you rather have them pay their fair share? No, let subsidize the free loaders? Okay, brilliant...
Get a life
sounds good to me – this is how insurance policies work – you like social security, medicare (at least MOST of the 99% DO – and are willing to pay for it
Government spends about 97% on providing the care, insead of about 60% for insurance comapanies – rest THEIR PORFIT.
Part of Obamacare (great description) is the serious attempt to change real CARE providing to obtain BETTER health !!!
Good idea to collect MORE of taxes – esp the 1% and other cheaters – and hopefully those "non profit" cheaters – to finally even the burden out – only the "little people – the wage earners – cannot CHEAT !!!!
You are funny.
Why does ANYONE owe you or anyone else anything? Why are the 1% cheaters?
Maybe if you took education seriously, you could have a job that provides health insurance as part of your compensation?
The bottom line is that it is NOT the 1% fault you don't have coverage. It is not the for profit insurance companies fault yo you don't have coverage. It is not the government's fault.
It's YOUR fault.
Quit being an albatross around the neck of society and do something productive with your life.
The reason we are having this issue....the reason our economy sucks....the reason the government is going broke is simple:
losers like you make bad decisions, don't take education seriously and bring no value to the job market or the economy.
Then the rest of us have to take care of you when you start your screeds about how unfair the world is.
Yea, the world is unfair. And you know what would make it fairer? If YOU were accountable for all your dumb decisions and quit being a loser and blaming the 1% for the fact that you didn't have the brains to look at the world and make a good decision about what career to choose.
It's NOT our fault. And we don't owe you anything.
You really haven't got any idea what you're talking about.
Just the 30+ billion dollar annual losses for fraud and abuse in Medicare exceeds the profits of all the private insurers.
The Medicaids are even worse.
Most of the for profit companies like the Wellpoint (Blue Cross) companies operate at margins less than 10%.
The Not-for-profits like Blue Shield in Ca, run about twice as lean as that.
If you want to really fix the system, look to the hospitals, provider networks and, especially, to Big Pharma; who's profits can exceed 60%. and who have 130 times the market share of all the for-profit payors, combined.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/5conameu.html
Bead Stallcup,
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Big Government is Big Business. Those in this country who hate Big Business want the government to be Big. It's all about money and power.
Some of us are more charitable, and don't mind helping those less fortunate.
Been through things in my life with healthcare you could never imagine. As a young wife my husband was crushed in an industrial accident. We were ok financially for about six years because he had workers compensation and his medical bills were paid. Unfortunately after the workers compensation was done, he was fired from his job because he wasn't able to do it anymore because of his injuries. I was taking care of him full time, no income of my own, we struggled to get by on the workers compensation.
Once that was gone, I was left to build a career from scratch. I worked two or three part time minimum wage jobs, no health insurance, but I still had an injured husband to care for. We seemed to be managing until I got sick, then charity helped us. Hospital gave deep discounts for surgery I needed.
Then I couldn't work after the surgery, almost lost our home, income was low so we were able to get medicaid and food stamps to help us. The hospital got medicaid to pay my surgery even though we didn't get medicaid until I got sick. I am well now, and have managed to get myself a good paying job with health insurance.
When I think about what my insurance premiums are and how the hospital helped me when I was less fortunate, I feel so blessed that I have this and try to donate what I can to the hospital so they can help others who may find themselves in the same situation. I don't for the life of me see how people who are sick and have no income can possibly afford health insurance let alone a penalty on pain of prison. I don't know how I could possibly have taken care of my husband and gone to prison because I lacked the money to pay for health insurance.
It comes down to a choice between health insurance or food and shelter. Thankfully, we have a safety net. You don't want to go there, but if you have to, it's there. You might lose everything you have, but one of the nurses in the hospital said to me, you know, if you lose your home, you will find another place to live. And we would have.
If you are that poor at some point you can even get subsidized rent. I know people on disability who are doing that, they have a nice apartment and only pay a portion of the rent their income is low and just enough to get by. What more could a person ask for. Not jetting around taking vacation after vacation after vacation like Obama and family, but a roof over our head and something to eat. We are just incredibly blessed to live in such a great country. I am not the least bothered if my health insurance offsets the care of someone who is sick and can't afford health insurance.
MGM-Just because you don't agree with what someone has to say doesn't make them an idiot.
I meant to say MCG
"mcg
You are an idiot. How many cars get in a wreck any day? Insurance doesn't work if you buy it when you need it. Its power is in numbers. The more people who buy into the policy, the more cost effective it is."
Plus the inaccuracies....he blames only democrats congress people but then complain about people starting wars....most of which were started by republicans. Obamacare is not taken out of your paycheck, you have to pay for it and you have a chance to pick any policies you want. This is how most car insurance work, and you have the possibility to choose the crappiest one ever that meets the bare minimum requirements.
Plus other things but I think I made my point
Wow. The spin masters are all over the damage control via name-calling.
For the genius who brought up auto insurance...
Just apply that logic to the current situation.
If all the "special" people would just turn their hats around, pull up their pants and get a job, we wouldn't be in this situation. Employers would still be able to provide their employees health insurance.
But it's more fun to party all day and then flood the healthcare system with demands to correct the results of their bad behavior
Why should we have to acquire reasonably priced health insurance only through our employer? Also, there are lots and lots of not so "special" people whose employers don't offer any health insurance coverage. You truly are just amazing.
Can you even read?
Because decades ago, the federal government provided tax incentives to get companies to provide healthcare. Its how the government slowly destroys industries, by removing direct costs, which results in rising prices and more government involvement to 'fix' a problem the created
Hey stupid...your employer is NOT obligated to provide insurance. Some employers do it as part of the COMPENSATION package....meaning, they value what you do and PAY for it.....clearly, you don't have a job of such value.
Why does anyone OWE you cheap insurance? Why are you so wonderful that you should get cheap insurance? Do you expect some special deal for your auto or home owners' insurance? Do you go to the store when you buy something and say, 'I deserve super cheap insurance'?
No, you don't.
Maybe if you made better choices as to education and career field, you might provide a value to someone and they would compensate you with insurance as part of your pay plan?
The reason you don't have have coverage is because you are pretty much worthless.
I know. The truth hurts. But, why should the rest of the America be expected to pay for you? Heck, only 49.5% of Americans pay income taxes. You want us to also pick up the bill for you health coverage?
This is economy sucks because redistribution (ie, taking money from someone who EARNED it based on the Value their work provideds, and giving it over to those that don't CREATE value) destroys value which destroys the economy.
You can't have someone do something that creates value....then take the value created and transfer it to something that does NOT create value and not expect the economy to recede.
Destruction of value stops growth. No growth means recessions and depressions.
ALL of you that are destroying the value created in the economy are the ones that are destroying America.
Quit being so selfish.
PC Scipio,
You know that's a good question. After the horrendous experience I had with my husband as a young wife and mother I went to my state government and let them know something needed to be done. My state made a pool for insurance for people up to 200% of poverty. They would have to put in 5% of their income but they would have hospital and doctor care from this pool. It was voluntary to participate. There was no prescription drug coverage but the developed a website with information on where you could get assistance for your prescriptions. A lot of drug companies do provide the medications you need free of charge if you meet their income guidelines. When something like Hurricane Katrina happens, though, you may be out of luck for awhile (the drug companies were sending the resources they used to help us to the victims of Katrina) and have to do without your medication if you can't get samples from your doctor. Obamacare is NOT voluntary and if you can't afford it, you have to pay a percentage of your income OR a penalty WHICHEVER is HIGHER. To me, after these experiences that is a very FRIGHTENING prospect.
Y'all missing the point here this isn't about money is about freedom. The only freedom one really has is making up your own mind and this law wanna take this away from me, no Sir sorry ,no can do.
You are absolutely right. If the supreme court lets this law stand we will all have lost our freedom.
America had the best health system in the world PRIOR to one, LB Johnson. It was called "private" health care.....and the way it worked was.....if you had cash or insurance ["means"] you went to private physicians and private hospitals.
If you could not afford them, tou went to city hospitals....county hospitals.The tab for these were covered through local gubment budgets.
The health system didn't turn south 'til the pols took charge of it.
Bingo! We have a winner! This is just another of the favorite tactics of government, create a "problem" then propose an even more intrusive "solution." Repeat as needed.
Evidently, liberals believe that the Commerce Clause is infinitely elastic, giving the Federal Government authority to control the private sector in any way it wishes, anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
I have repeatedly challenged liberals to explain what, if anything, stands between an infinitely elastic Commerce Clause and a full-blown command economy. Is there any control of the economy up to and including socialism or even communism, that liberals believe is merely a question of policy and not liberty?
To date, I have not received an answer or even an attempt at an answer.
Perhaps some on the Left actually do believe that as long as we get to keep the First Amendment for some Gorbachev-style "glasnost" plus our Miranda rights, we should have no problem at all with actual socialism.
They're wrong. Nobody but them regards socialism as a moral ideal to be attained someday. No matter how "democratic" they make their socialism, I know I want no part of it.
On another blog, I tangled with a leftist who was not a liberal, but an actual self-described socialist. And his view of how socialism could come to America was–via the Commerce Clause, which he regarded as "infinitely malleable."
So take it from a real self-described socialist: An infinitely elastic Commerce Clause is indeed a ticket to socialism.
Nor will you have an answer, because their OBJECTIVE is an infinitely elastic Commerce Clause. They are unable to see how this detracts from liberty, and will not see it until their liberty is lost.
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe...
I was thinking about this the other night as well in regards to this case. If the commerce clause is so elastic to force someone into economic activity, then it will be Soviet style communism. Think about it like this, unemployment has a vast effect on interstate commerce, more than healthcare I'd argue. High unemployment lowers tax revenue, causes us to borrow/print more money, has an effect on inflation then, etc... The interstate commerce effects of someone being unemployed are numerous. Approving the mandate would also suggest, Congress has the power to pass a law that requires employment. Same thing as the health care bill, massively expand state employment and create programs that assign people to jobs...you essentially have the same basis of soviet communism then.
The expansion of the commerce clause like this has numerous possibilities for government mandates and requirements and a state driven economy. Because simply, everything we do, or choose not to do, has an effect on interstate commerce, no matter how major or minor. If inaction is commerce, then we cease to have a limited federal government with enumerated powers and a representative republic. We'll be much closer to a state run economy than the individualistic society outlined in the founding of this country.
That is exactly why Obamacare is so frightening. If you can't pay, you go to prison. Then you are a burden on society because you can't support yourself. Prison costs a lot more than a lot of people earn. The next logical step is forced labor. You know, make the prisoners pay for their imprisonment. Welcome to slavery. I can't believe how some people say it is DIckensian that we don't have Obamacare but if you think it through, Obamacare actually is Dickensian. Can't afford health insurance? Welcome to debtor's prison!
What a long long fall from freedom.
liberals and commerce clause:
yea, they believe it is infinitely elastic....unless it impedes their ideology....ie, why can't the federal government apply it to abortions?
As part of the government powers to regulate commerce.....can't the government decide that it is illegal for doctors to engage in the Business of providing abortions? I mean, a woman can have the right to have an abortion. No one can stop her.....but it is illegal for a doctor to do it.
Why not! The commerce clause is unstoppable!! Or, how about.....it's not illegal to own a gun....but manufacturing ammo is illegal!
Yay for the commerce clause and big government!
Please be an educated voter. Check out this new fact checking website: http://www.VoteFacts.org
Thank goodness- someone with a brain in the media!
Why are Democrats and Media Liberals so stupid? It's like they just go on very small analytical skills. God help the poor son of a guns.
I see a lot of people here bellyaching about Obamacare and giving medial services to the poor. Yet nobody here is saying a single word about our needless and excessive military spending and how that alone is bankrupting the national treasury!!! After all, not one single foreign country poses any serious threat to us today!
Where to start???
First, check your numbers....the military is NOT bankrupting us.
Second, ONLY 49.5% of Americans pay federal income. That means that 50.5% DO NOT. I even did the math for you!
I would suspect that those 49.5% are NOT poor. Therefore.....no money is TAKEN FROM the POOR.
No matter HOW you slice it......50% of the people in this country RELY on the other 50% to CARRY THEIR DEAD WEIGHT.
You can have one or the other:
Either the 49.5% of us that pay the taxes will continue to pay YOUR taxes for you.....OR you can have us pay YOUR healthcare.
You can't have both.
And if you don't like it....you should have taken education seriously and made better career choices.
Be accountable for being a dead beat.
Well, for one thing, the article under discussion is about Obamacare, not military spending. When an article on military spending is published I'll be happy to comment on it. Oy!
"Smarter than you".... you wish...you shoud change it to Smarter than a fifth grader or sthg...it is not because you say it you are that it will come true
Yes 50% don't pay taxed but they collectively own 1% or less of the country's wealth and they have to pay for basic necessities as food, housing etc...
locking out opposite party....yeah right republicans have blocked themselves through political positioning (by the way mandate was their idea...). Let's be honest both parties have been doing that for many many years and it is ridiculous
Blocked citizens from viewing it. Only people like you could not find it....
Force citizens to buy it...correct on this one but did anybody see republicans yelling about being forced to buy car insurance at state level. Plus, again, mandate was their idea to begin with...
Was lied about about its costs....costs were estimated by CBO WHICH IS BIPARTISAN and is an estimate. THEY refined it to a higher cost but is still projected to reduce the deficit over next 10 years.
Liberalism is a religion but not conservatism .... yeah right. Get back on earth when you have a chance! Both parties (yes, both) have lost it. Reason that are exempt (if it is true, I am not sure) is that all congress people (republican AND democrats) have a much better government plan for themselves...
Socialized medecine in US? Stop watching Fox news and go to a country that has one for real and learn because even Obamacare does not even come close...
The inconvenient fact remains that this law was pushed through without any legislative hearings, or even with time for Members of Congress to read the damn thing. I think it's ironic that the 'moderate' Justice Kennedy is asking questions that many of the 'moderate' Democrats might have asked before falling on their sword and truncating their political careers in the 2010 election. If Kennedy was truly the reasonable moderate he was flattered to be at an earlier point, he may just have the perspective of those who voted on the bill so they could see what was in it. And later found it to be a political suicide pact with the backroom deals between the leadership and their key lobbies.
If you don't want to have to buy health insurance and have no way to pay for emergency treatment you should by law be turned away from the hospital or the doctor. I mean stupidity is a lifestyle choice right? Why should I have to pay more for my health care because you bums don't have any money? If you can't be "made" to carry insurance I shouldn't be made to pay your medical bills. Using your logic....What gives you the right to pass your costs to me?
Peter... What right does Obama have to make us buy anything? Next he will make us buy volts and eat brocolli...
Thats my answer.
But I have the right to pay in terms of inflated costs when someone shows up in the emergency room without a way to pay? I have to absorb that when it gets passed on to me? What about my rights?????
Needing medical help and not having insurance doesn't necessarily stem from stupidity. Sometimes it stems from tragedy. Unless it happens to you, you can't really wrap your mind around it. "You" don't necessarily absorb all of the costs of someone else's tragedy. When my husband was crushed in a tragic industrial accident his employer paid for first six years because of Workers compensation laws. After that, we were on our own. Not stupid, just struggling to deal with what life dealt us. When he no longer had his employer to pay his medical costs, our doctor offered lower cost services, and would give us sample medications if he had them available. If we could afford it we just paid the doctors fees and bought our own medication. I worked two, three part time jobs and a home business. I needed flexibility so I could take care of my husband, take him to doctor appointments, physical therapy etc. We got help from a Catholic hospital, in other words, a religious charity. We got help from the government when I got sick and couldn't work in other words tax payers but by that point it was pretty bleak.
Why call people stupid? Can't we have a civilized discussion about this? It's no wonder we can't solve this problem as a nation, and a convoluted law that was forced through congress on Christmas Eve is before the supreme court about to be struck down by a closely divided court. We are all Americans, and win or lose, this healthcare bill is all of our problem. If it stands, we all lose our freedom in ways we haven't yet begun to imagine.
Liberals thought "commerce clause" = "the feds can do whatever they want." This might finally end. The republic depends on it.
It's so typical of liberals, though, to create a problem and then demand that a second, worse problem is the solution. Create a horrible Medicaid and Medicare system and then, when it fails, they demand that the answer is to double-down on it and expand it. Idiots.
"Economists say that diet and exercise have a greater effect on taxpayer spending on healthcare than rates of ownership of insurance." So true: here's the evidence as it relates to exercise: http://www.aei.org/article/health/healthcare-reform/scalias-correct-the-slippery-slope-towards-compulsory-exercisescalias-correct-the-slippery-slope-towards-compulsory-exercise/ Most Americans likely have no interest in letting Congress decide whether and how much to exercise or eat.
...make sure to keep fit and healthy .... we all want you looking buff when you show up in the mergency room and can't afford it...
my brother in law was a scescsuful insurance salesman but he had a military retirement to help him through the first years when survival in sales would be difficult. It might take 3 to 5 years to develop a base large enough to earn a decent mid five figure income. Many never reach this level. Depending upon which company you are with they will advance you a regular salary against commission which means you must make enough sales to cover your salary or it is out the door Usually you have 1 to 3 years to repay your salary from commissions. I assume you know how insuance commissions work it is a little complicated but you have to sell to survive and continue to sell to prosper but if scescsuful you can earn a very good living .but the odds are not good especially in the present economy..
It is amazing that in all of the opposing commentary in the last few weeks, the biggest question has consistently been "limiting principles" and the solicitor general didn't appear to be prepared for the question. If your professor told you for weeks that X would be the most important question on the exam, you would certainly have some kind of answer prepared. Regardless if it was his best performance, the guy is competent – why didn't he answer the question?
Could it be that there is no limiting principle to this law, and so there is no answer to the question? The law gives unlimited power to a to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. A political appointee.
Why didn't Verrilli put forth the "it's better than nothing" arguement . . .
Maybe because it's NOT better than nothing. It's so much worse.
It is really strange that the first things to be tried in order to make insurance affordable were not 1) Tort Reform and 2) allowing anybody to buy any insurance they wished in order to create a free market solution where insurance companies had to compete to supply the best product, cheapest.
Right now, insurance companies have a protected monopoly in most states so of course the price is going out of sight.and lawyers are getting rich suing for any conceived reason – which the companies pay off to save the cost of court trial. They could have tried the no cost fixes first but the trial lawyers rule.
See what can happen when a writer uses terms like preposterous and hack? People can make a decision based on the headline and miss the substance in the article. Sadly, much of our culture is run by sound bites and headlines, and people with short attention spans quit while they're behind. Not a good track on which to run an intelligent society.
So, what's wrong with fascism if it means we can get free stuff?
THE main reason that Obamacare is such a failure, is that it specifically fails to address the ONE factor that drives up costs more than anything else: lawsuits.
Without REAL tort reform (ie essentially outlawing liability lawsuits in healthcare), ALL attempts to fix the system WILL FAIL. This is not negotiable, or even remotely in dispute. The issue is not insurance, or even access, it is COSTS. Healthcare is too damned expensive, but it is only too expensive because it supports entire parasitic industries which do NOT provide any healthcare. These must go. Then, everyone will be able to afford insurance, because insurance will then be affordable. This is not rocket science....
If the dims had not patched this thing together with bribes and backdoor meetings things might be different. The bill is 2000 pages of confusing garbage. Bottom line is its about individual choice, we do need healthcare reform just not this monstocity
Why can't we establish a risk pool for those who can't afford insurance and can't afford to pay for catastrophic care. When tragedy hits, your priorities really change. You begin to savor every moment of your life, and the things you have matter much less to you. I am talking about catastrophic care here. If you are overtaken by a major accident or illness. You will give up everything you own to save your life and preserve your well being, or that of someone you love.
jack carlson
You bring up a good point. There needs to be some limit to liability for doctors and hospitals. Not elimination of liability but some limitations would be good.
I used to do studies for a large hospital. I remember talking to a woman who's husband was getting his leg amputated. The hospital amputated the wrong leg, so the man ended up losing both of his legs. There should be some kind of compensation for those kinds of mistakes. Give the doctor an incentive to maybe write his name on the leg that is supposed to be amputated or something. If you were losing a leg to amputation, what price would you put on your remaining leg?
So when you go to buy a house, can you afford it immediately? Or do you finance it? How about a car? A dining room set? How about a new outfit? All these things you can put on a credit card or finance it, but apparently, you can't reconcile that course of action when it comes to health care. In fact, what you would RATHER do is use the government as a proxy to take money from people who have worked for it and use that to provide you with a sweet comprehensive insurance product. You exist and you deserve it. But the other guy who pays for medicare, private insurance, and now Obamacare, he doesn't really deserve his own money. His money is required to promote fairness and equality within the collective, a truly enlightened path.
I'm making payments on my house, and my car (only because I need it to get to a job I commute a considerable distance to, and need something reliable). Dining room set I don't feel is necessary not worth going in debt to have. I borrowed a card table until I could afford a dining set. Only way i would ever consider putting an outfit on a credit card would be for a job interview or something that would help me to advance financially, like maybe a required uniform for my new job.
You can also pay for your healthcare or medication with a credit card if you needed to. Most hospitals and drug stores and even doctor's offices accept credit cards.
I don't think we need a comprehensive health insurance product. People should pay what they can as they need care. Doctors are sometimes generous, most are not in healthcare for the money but because they are caring people. Our doctor helped us when we couldn't afford it, but we always paid for it when we could afford it. I will always be grateful for the help that was given to my family in our most difficult days. The doctor had the freedom to provide the care he did at the price he knew we could afford. He didn't have to give us a discount.
What I am talking about coverage for catastrophic care. A tragic accident or illness. People who are self employed or work part time (maybe they are taking care of their children or their elderly parents or their disabled spouse) or for companies that cannot afford to provide health coverage for their employees should be able to pay into a risk pool that would help them should such a tragedy befall them.
I pay about 15% of my income towards my employer provided health insurance. On top of that I pay copays and deductibles which comes to another 20% of my annual income. So I have a tragic illness, I will have to pay 35% of my income for the year. If my illness gets to be so bad I can't work, I think we have a safety net for that, and I think we should have.
I know people who have been self employed and taken care of their own healthcare costs their entire lives, overtaken by cancer, have to sell their businesses and everything they have worked for to pay for their healthcare. The person was productive, gave jobs to others. Once his fortune is gone, do we just kick him to the curb and let him die? Maybe he will get well and overcome his cancer,go back into business and give more people jobs. If this person could have paid 15% of his income into a risk pool like this, his contribution would have been substantial.
WHY OzBAMA CARE GETS NO RESPECT
Why should a bill that
socialized medicine (worldwide failure we all should know),
required locking out the opposing Party to pass it,
blocked voters from viewing it,
added over 100 unelected boards and panels,
heaped on new taxes or fees,
forced citizens to buy it or be fined,
was lied about as far as its cost and rationing intentions…
have ANY acceptance by those it forced itself upon?
BTW, its such a wonderful bill that federal workers, including the royal congress are EXEMPT! EXPLAIN THAT!!!!!
-–
I am convinced that liberalism is a religion in which the lie
that a secular socialist utopia is best must be protected at all costs by its arrogant apostles…
using distractions, lies and smears.
Ouch! Cost Estimate for 'Obamacare' Up by $111B
(yet another lie)
Yet another liar!
Well, our (U.S.A.) welfare stseym was created to help the poorest of the poor. It was done so with the optimistic idea of helping those in most need. Unfortunately, the stseym has been over-taxed and abused. Let's hope that doesn't happen with universal healthcare, as well.
I think the government is not really interested in healthcare at all, it's just a political tool, power for whichever party is in power. If they were serious, they would do something about the corruption and fraud that is costing the system billions. I find it hard to swallow that a government who can't even come up with a budget, thinks they can manage an entire healthcare system properly. When it collapses and when (not if) the government is bankrupt, we will all have to take the bitter pill we begged for and just swallow it in silence: That's IF it survives one of our fine checks and balances-The Supreme Court.
http://www.waiting4departure.com
Verilli based the government's argument on the fact that when a citizen who can't pay is treated "free", the cost is borne by society. True enough. But the government itself created that condition with its own laws to that effect.
If that condition justifies the expansion of federal power to new heights, then the government has achieved an expansion of its powers through the expedient of its own prior enabling laws. If that recipe stands, there is no limit to its future use, and no limit on the power the government can attain through its use.
FREEDOM!!!!!
Reject it. Shred it. Urinate on it, and shovel it into the compost heap of other vile, vulgar, disgraceful attempts to violate individual liberty.
That's about the kindest thing I can say. People need to recognize that the right to liberty is far, far more important than any popular social want or wish. We can fix healthcare in any number of other ways without abrogating our freedom. Once you sanction the abrogating of a principle, you lose all protection that principle affords – you lose everything. Then something truly minor in comparison, like healthcare, fades in importance.
What freedom are you talking about?? The freedom to die for lack of healthcare in the wealthiest nation on earth? I don't understand your tea party mentality at all; God help this country if it prevails
What freedom are you talking about?? The freedom to die for lack of healthcare in the wealthiest nation on earth?
I don't understand your tea party mentality at all; God help this country if it prevails
First you say that America is broke, then you say America is the wealthiest nation on earth.
What are you going to say next?
Your visions are like a cartoon.
Not sure why lefties are so opposed to power being vested in the states. Most state and local politicians are bought and paid for by the public employee unions.
I cherished up to you will obtain performed proper here. The comic strip is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish. nonetheless, you command get got an shakiness over that you wish be handing over the following. unwell indubitably come more until now again since precisely the similar just about very regularly within case you shield this increase.
SHIAZIM= EVIL
BUL SH IT WE MUST ATTACK IRAN NOW, THOSE EVIL CULT EMPIRE OF SHIIA THUGS MUST END. WHEN WE GET RED OF SHIIA IRAN ALL THE OTHER MINOR EVIL LIKE HIZBOALLAH WILL FALL ALONG WITH SYRIA , KOFI ANAN IS NO BODY AND HE SHOULD NOT ALLOWED TO HELP SYRIAN THUGS AS HE IS BLACK, THE SHIIA WILL NEVER LISTEN TO BLACK THEY CONSIDER THEM LOW RACE AND INFERIOR HUMAN BEEN , THATS WHY THEY KILL KURDS, SUNNI AND OTHERS.
The caller ID on Eman al-Obeidi's smart phone says private number. She guesses the call is from a fellow Libyan and promptly silences the ringer.
"I think the halal meat seller gave out my number," she says, picking up another piece of sizzling beef fajita. "That's why I don't buy halal meat anymore."
MMMMMMMMMMMM HALAL MEAT, U EAT SO MANY FK CO KS IN LIBYA
WHATS THAT GOT TO DO WITH STUPID MUSLIM WHO GAVE YOUR PHONE!!! HALAL IS BETWEEN U AND GOD
Thank you, I have just been looking for info about this subject for ages and yours is the greatest I have found out till now. However, what concerning the conclusion? Are you sure about the source?|What i don't understood is actually how you're no longer really much more smartly-liked than you may be right now. You're very intelligent.
I kissed my way up to VP at a health insurance company. Now I take over $500,000 of your health care dollars for NO VALUE ADDED to your health care. And that’s just me. Now think about how many other VPs, Directors, Managers, etc. are at my company alone. Now multiply that by thousands of others at hundreds of other health insurance companies. From 10 to 25% of your health care dollars go towards administration that adds NO VALUE to your health care. But my company’s PAC dollars will continue to fool you little people into thinking that a single payer system will be bad. Little people like you are so easy to fool. Little people also don’t realize that a single payer system is the ONLY system that would allow little people (as an entire country) to negotiate better health care prices. Little people don’t realize that the Medical Cartels already know that. And that is the reason why the Medical Cartels spend so much PAC money from the hospitals and doctors lobbying against a single payer system. Some little people say that a single payer system would cost you little people more. But if that were true, then wouldn’t the hospitals and doctors WANT that extra money? Yes they would. So why do the Medical Cartels lobby against a single payer system? It’s because the Medical Cartels know it would allow little people to negotiate better health care prices. And that’s what the Medical Cartels are afraid of. Period.
But us big wigs at insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmacy companies don’t ever need to worry about health care no matter what it costs. We get our health care paid for one way or another by you little people. And we get the little people that work at our companies to contribute to our PACs. And us big wigs say it’s to protect the little peoples’ jobs. But in reality it would be in the little peoples’ best interest to NOT contribute to the PAC. Again, little people are so easy to be fooled. I won’t ever have to worry about losing my job with so many little people being brain washed by the Medical Cartels’ PAC money. Not only that, the Medical Cartels’ PAC money is used to elect so many republicans that will never allow a single payer system. Republicans have always fought against any meaningful health care reform. But that’s what our Medical Cartels’ PACs pay them for. Politicians can be bought so easily.
Pretty soon the only people that will be able to afford health care is us big wigs. And that’s the way it should be. We don’t want you little people using up the resources when we need them. And once again, I thank you little people for capping my SS tax at the $106,800 level. Now I only pay 1.3% SS tax and you little people pay 6.2%. Also, thank you for extending my tax breaks. I’m using the extra money on my vacation houses.
Fares Raslan MD
خبر عاجل وهام جدا جدا ::::::
تقوم المخابرات العامة في دمشق بأخذ كميات من الدم الفاسد من المشافي الحكومية الى افرع السجون حيث يتم حقن المعتقل بكمية 5 سم من هذا الدم وعلى اثرها يتوفى وفاة طبيعة /يرجى النشر لجمعيات حقوق الانسان/
By: شبكة اخبار حمص العدية (عاصمة الثورة السورية)
reliable sources from my collegues syrian doctors in syria .
the intelligence services in syria are collecting spoiled blood and injecting forcefully prisioners with 5 ml of it to let them die naturally ...please share to human rights watch and all human organizations around the world ....
also they are sending 50 truks aday since 3 months ago those trucks going to hizboallah south of lebanon , full of weapons , cash, arms, rockets, and some chemical weapons please take a note this is an eye wotness ....why no body is doing any thing to those thugs , war criminal shiia thugs?
وردتنا معلومات من احد منتسبي الاستخبارات مفادها ما يلي :
قامت مجموعه من مهربي المخدرات تابعين الى منظمة " بدر" يرأسة هادي العامري بادخال ( ثمانيه ونصف ) طن من المخدرات ( حشيشه ) من ايران وعبر مدينة البصره ثم الى الناصريه لغرض تهريبها الى المملكه العربيه السعوديه وجزء من الكميه تذهب الى محافظات الوسط ( كربلاء – النجف – الديوانيه – بابل ) لبيعها في هذه المدن
تمكنت مفارز الاستخبارات في مدينة الناصريه من القاء القبض على المخدرات والمهربين وفورا تحرك المهربين للاتصال باللواء ( صباح الفتلاوي ) قائد شرطة ذي قار وتم الاتفاق معه على تسوية القضيه وعلى الشكل التالي ( بعد فحص كمية المخدرات وجدت انها حشيشه مغشوشه ) مقابل ( ٦٠ ) الف دولار تسلمها اللواء صباح من المهربين بغية اطلاق سراحهم من السجن وتسليم المخدرات ( المغشوشه ) ؟؟؟
ارسلت الاستخبارات معلومات الى وزارة الداخليه حول كمية المخدرات وتفاصيل الاتفاق الذي تم ما بين اللواء صباح الفتلاوي والمهربين تم الاتصال من قبل وزير الداخلية وكالة " عدنان الاسدي " برئيس الوزراء نوري المالكي " القائد العام للقوات المسلحه واعلمه بتفاصيل القضيه وكان جواب المالكي لوكيله عدنان الاتي : ( صباح الفتلاوي" ابنه " اكتفي بنقله الى بغداد اما المهربين وهم من ( منظمة بدر) امر المالكي باطلاق سراحهم مخاطبا وكيل وزير الداخليه ( تعرف ذوله من جماعة " هادي العامري " ( حزام ظهرنه ) ..
مع العرض ان المنظمه نشرت معلومات سابقه عن الخلاف الذي نشب بين اللواء صباح الفتلاوي شقيق ( لهلوبة المالكي ) بسبب قيام احد مرافقي " صباح " بشفط ( 80 ) الف دولار ارسلها بيده صباح الى اهله في محافظة بابل وهي مبالغ رشى المخدرات ولم يسترجعها له وهدده بكشف الاموال الطائله التي جناها شقيق حنان من تهريب المخدرات .
IF ROMENY TO WIN THE ELLECTION HE SHOULD PICK MCCAIN FOR A VICE PRESIDENT
"When not favored by the electorate, conservatism exercises a vice grip on the judiciary to undermine the need for change, using whatever methods are required, even judicial activism in its most liberal connotation. "
What does the ordinary citizen need to know about Obamacare and Supreme Court Review? Read the first segment of a three part series at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/04/obamacare-and-supreme-court-review-part.html
only people with the means to pay should have health care–you run out of money or your boss says sorry your costing me to much too bad ,tax payers should not have to pay for anybodys emergency visits-no money no care
Excellent article! Bonne contination à vous
Hi there very nice web site!! Man .. Beautiful .. Superb .. I'll bookmark your blog and take the feeds also?I'm happy to search out so many useful information right here within the put up, we need develop more techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .
By no means glower, even though a person is miserable, given that you don't know who it is going down gets interested ones own smiling.
accessoires louis vuitton pas cher http://www.ruezalando.fr/