In what was but one more very obvious example, on what is a very long list of many, of how this administration is now running amok, we have Barry's solicitor general who, while defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money. So this is now what we have now deteriorated into courtesy of "Hope and Change." When I first heard that this egotistical asshole had made such a statement it kinda sent a chill down my spine. That this clown felt that he could even utter such an imbecilic statement shows the level contempt with which it views the people of this country. Even the morons who voted for this present team. And where is our stalwart media I calling this guy for making such a statement? Where is that supposed watch dog of our democracy? Most likely nodding their collective head in total agreement with this out of control bureaucrat has said. That something like this would even be said by a member of this administration, provides yet another glimpse into the dictatorial mentality of those now in charge. Neal Kumar Katyal, acting solicitor general, made this idiotic argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than did the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. Of course as we all remember, the Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself. Talk about the game being rigged.
Anyway, during the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by George W. Bush, asked our Mr. Kaytal if, by chance, he might be able to name one, just one, Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the new healthcare mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action. This bonehead Kaytal was forced to concede that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but he did cite the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as being a relevant example regarding the government's argument. In that particular 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants. “They’re in the business,” Judge Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.” But not one to give up easily, our determined Mr. Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate. In what was a rather sarcastic tone, Mr. Kaytal stated, “If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income." “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…” Judge Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money."
The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law, that the esteemed Mr. Kaytal alluded to, is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So contrary to what this moron is saying, earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold. Throughout the entire process of oral arguments, Mr. Kaytal struggled in his attempt to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something. Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said. During arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge's question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. Kaytal has now fallen back onto the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress. Judge James Graham, a Reagan appointee, said, “I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it.” Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities. The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, “What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy.” Graham acknowledged Kaytal's arguments, yet reiterated that he was “having trouble seeing the limits.” The problem with the “health care is unique” argument is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.
For instance, I'm told that the example that's come up most often is the idea of a law in which the government would force individuals to eat broccoli. During the Sixth Circuit argument, Mr. Kaytal said that such an example doesn't apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms. Yet that argument assumes that Congress would, or could, pass such a law as a regulation of the food market. And is that such a stretch to imagine? What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn't difficult to see where that argument can go. The broccoli example is really a proxy for a much broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior, like eating more salad, or exercising daily. There's no doubt that a huge driver of our nation's health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. It goes without saying that people who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation's health care expenses, a number that's set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to then believe that future Congresses, in looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstitutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld? Scary questions, all! With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity. But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn't actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.
Isn't it a shame that the courts in this country can no longer be relied upon to defend our Constitution? If that were the case this obvious power grab by the government coming at us in the form of Obamacare would have been struck down on it's first day in existence. Further more, this clown Kaytal, would have been laughed out of every courtroom in which he chose to appear. Activist judges of the liberal persuasion, who are appointed for their lifetime are permitting irreparable damage to take place and all for the sake of advancing a liberal agenda that shreds our Constitution that they have sworn to protect and defend. Every single American, including those that voted for our Dear Leader, Barry "Almighty," should be absolutely outraged by the fact that this administration feels that it is now in the position of being entitled to dictate what is expected of us and even feels that it is able to enforce those policies that it decrees upon us. We are in some very dark times, my friends, and if the 2012 election does not result in our being able to rid ourselves of this man, Barack Hussein Obama, we may very well not survive. To assume to be able to quite literally seize control of how the Ameircan people receive their healthcare, and to justify that action through any number of lies and obvious deceptions, clearly lays bare the rouge nature of the present administration. Clowns like this guy Kaytal who are sent out to defend the corrupt actions of this president must be stood up to, with the point being made crystal clear that they are now officially in breach of our Constitution. Obamacare cannot be allowed to stand. It must not be allowed to stand. It has to be stopped!
No comments:
Post a Comment