Guess who’s exempt from ObamaCare mandates?

posted at 10:55 am on March 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Reid Wilson at National Journal’s Hotline took Nancy Pelosi’s promise to heart.  She said last week that Congress had to pass the first-ever federal mandates on American citizens to purchase a product before we could see what else was in the bill.  Now that it’s passed, Wilson discovers that the bill exempts perhaps thousands of staffers on Capitol Hill from a mandate to purchase coverage from government-run insurance exchanges:

House GOP aides and the non-partisan Congressional Research Service believe health care legislation passed this week requires lawmakers to enroll in government-run insurance programs — while exempting leadership staffers, many of whom were instrumental in crafting the bill.

Top staffers buzzed yesterday on an off-the-record Capitol Hill list-serv, citing the part of the mammoth legislation that deals with members of Congress. The federal government can only make available to members and their official staffs health plans created by the bill or offered through an exchange. …

The loophole for leadership staffers could impact thousands of Hill employees. There are 16 active leadership offices in the House and 26 in the Senate, according to the government transparency website LegiStorm. Some are small, with just a few employees. Others are much larger; Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid 54 employees a total of $1.1M in the last quarter of ’09, while House Min. Leader John Boehner paid his 26 staffers a total of $721K in the same quarter.

Anyone shocked by this turn of events?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?

Congress has a long and notorious history for sticking America with ridiculous mandates while exempting themselves.  In fact, that became a theme of the 1994 midterm elections; Newt Gingrich included in his Contract with America a requirement to end such exemptions, such as the ADA, Social Security waivers, and so on.  It played well with the electorate, which rightly questioned whether Congress had decided to make itself above the laws it busily made for everyone else after 40 years of Democratic Party control.

Looks like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid didn’t learn that lesson the last time they lost the majority.  It’s time for the electorate to give them another object lesson.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

That’s because if you hit me with your car or if you go into a hospital for “free” service, you’re imposing costs on me. I know many of you disagree, but that’s the way I see it.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Why not just make me pay my bill?

Bobbertsan on March 23, 2010 at 1:59 PM

“It played well with the electorate, which rightly questioned whether Congress had decided to make itself above the laws it busily made for everyone else after 40 years of Democratic Party control.”

I see a political add in there somewhere…

… too bad there is no political party around that didn’t scream this at the top of their lungs over the past year.

Oh, well. Now where is my white lab coat?

Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Why wasn’t this used as a centerpiece to the argument against this crap sandwich? R u kiddin? NO ONE saw this until right now??

Alden Pyle on March 23, 2010 at 2:03 PM

My comments on this health care fiasco

http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2010/03/elections-have-consequences-now-what.html

mark24609 on March 23, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Why wasn’t this used as a centerpiece to the argument against this crap sandwich? R u kiddin? NO ONE saw this until right now??

Alden Pyle on March 23, 2010 at 2:03 PM

The people who allowed it into the bill are the ones who voted to pass the bill.

thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Isn’t this going to be fun? A nationwide black market, tens of millions of people running what is technically a criminal enterprise, with federal agents scooting around trying to catch us. Joy.

Bishop on March 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM

You’re losing sight of what’s important here: We need to make sure the murder of babies is safe and legal so no woman ever has to resort to a back alley abortion…but the entire country except congress and their cronies will be relegated to back alley health care. If you need surgery, I know a retired veterinarian who could use some cash;)

Thanks, Stoogepak!

Laura in Maryland on March 23, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Here’s the whole thing you are missing Jim. No one REQUIRES you to take employer provided insurance. You can walk down the street and purchase another policy with the provisions that best fit you and your family. But all that ends with Obamanation Care. Suddenly you will be told what insurance you must have regardless of the differences in your family needs vs mine. And the “semi-requirements” will become requirements.

katablog.com on March 23, 2010 at 1:34 PM

–And you do understand that you’ll be able to buy at least three different levels of insurance policies (if you’re not already covered by Medicare) and that you can buy them from insurance exchanges rather than insurance companies?

That’s because if you hit me with your car or if you go into a hospital for “free” service, you’re imposing costs on me. I know many of you disagree, but that’s the way I see it.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Why not just make me pay my bill?

Bobbertsan on March 23, 2010 at 1:59 PM

–Because right now there is a law requiring hospitals to provide free service to patients who can’t afford medical care.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM

You understand the difference between a private entity’s requirements and the requirements of the federal government, right?

DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 1:37 PM

–I do. And I’m sure you understand that there is no public option in the bill.

Obama just signed a bill that requires the insurance companies pay back 85 % of their revenue as claims, instead of 65 %. Do you have a room that me and my family can stay in, Jimbo?

kingsjester on March 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM

–Sure. The insurance companies effectively agreed to this provision, you understand, and were regulated at the state level up to this point? And their stock price has generally gone up recently. I don’t think this provision is as bad as you think

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:13 PM

I don’t think this provision is as bad as you think

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Are there loopholes? Congress always puts in loopholes for their buddies to use, and even if their aren’t it doesn’t cap total profits, since it only requires a specific percentage goes to patient care, whatever that might be.

DFCtomm on March 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Let’s look closer at some fallacies:
1. The Government best knows how to control costs. This is self-evidently false. Examples; Medicare, Medicaid, Gov’t appropriations procedures.
2. The Government never has to ration resources or services due to its size. Um, again, the reverse always proves true.
3. The Government always writes useful regulations. See Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
4. Health Care is a universal right. Correct. Which is why no hospital ever turns anyone away even if they’re unable to pay. They also attempt to bill for their provided services, as they are permitted to do so under law. Does this cause bankruptcies? Yes. But make no mistake, no one who asks for help goes without it in this country!
5. Affordable Health Insurance is a “right”. Not correct. Insurance is a service, and services have a cost. Fair market value for services usually best determine prices. Besides, if this were a “right”, and “rights” are granted by God and Nature, then why are illegal immigrants banned from buying their own insurance from the exchanges established by this bill? It cannot be a “right” if one class is banned or forbidden from participation. Why is Congress and it’s staff excluded?

Plans have already been laid in the House to introduce “the Public Option”, in order to provide “competition for the insurance companies”, as an amendment to the new current law. Harry Reid plans to attempt to pass this as a ‘reconcilliation amendment’, requiring only 51 votes in the Senate.

I am in a self-imposed 5-day “grace period” regarding this bill, and I call on everyone to ask why President Obama did not honor his campaign promise of a 5-day grace period before signing it? Can we call him a liar now?

I will say that I think Rush has it right; the Democrats want to take over health insurance. Unfortunately, I think it’s not because they want to control our lives, it’s because they already know that the Federal Gov’t is financially destitute. They need that insurance money coming in monthly in order to prop up the Federal Gov’t and prevent its outright collapse.

photomunkey on March 23, 2010 at 2:18 PM

the individual mandate could end up being a good thing for you and your company.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:09 PM

“It’s for your own good. You’ll realize this later”

Now curiously, on the previous page, you say you wouldn’t really rat anyone out.
Well, are you going to tattle, or aren’t you?
I have to buy liability ins for our ranch at a cost of over $5,000+/yr.
But I do have a choice bcs I can sell the ranch & go out of business or get rich & pay off my mortgage, leaving me free to do what I want without the bank imposing this rule upon me.
I also have the choice not to drive a care, thereby not buying liability ins for it.
However, the only choice that remains with this health care is not having a body.
So must I die to legally choose whether I purchase health care or not?
This is what you are imposing.

Badger40 on March 23, 2010 at 2:19 PM

I don’t think this provision is as bad as you think

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:13 PM

The whole thing stinks bcs they’re trying to tell me what to do with my own body by insuring it by force-hey Proc-Choice people!

Badger40 on March 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Jimbo: To take the 85% or 65% of revenue issue… IIRC, a very publicized figure is that health insurance companies make about a 3% profit margin. I won’t belabor the fact that this is absurdly low.

Now, if the insurance companies were mandated to have 65% of revenue to be used for claims, and they only made 3% profit, that means either 1) they actually had a higher percentage of revenue used for claims (the mandate was unnecessary), or 2) their operating expenses were roughly 32% of their revenue.

What happens in the second case (and which of the above should be easily attainable) if you increase the mandate to 85%? In that case, you have 85% of revenue as claims, and 32% operating expenses… meaning that the insurance company that was making 3% profit is now ‘making’ a 17% loss.

Most companies cannot exist in those circumstances for long.

Scott H on March 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Now curiously, on the previous page, you say you wouldn’t really rat anyone out.
Well, are you going to tattle, or aren’t you?
I have to buy liability ins for our ranch at a cost of over $5,000+/yr.
But I do have a choice bcs I can sell the ranch & go out of business or get rich & pay off my mortgage, leaving me free to do what I want without the bank imposing this rule upon me.
I also have the choice not to drive a care, thereby not buying liability ins for it.
However, the only choice that remains with this health care is not having a body.
So must I die to legally choose whether I purchase health care or not?
This is what you are imposing.

Badger40 on March 23, 2010 at 2:19 PM

–Unless you’re running a meth lab (which, considering all the cattle you have, you might unintentionally be doing), I won’t report you. So no worries.

But the choice isn’t between living and dying IMHO. If you were willing to agree that you’d never use any health care facility without paying your bill in full and we’re willing to put up a large bond to back that promise up, I’d say you should have the right not to buy insurance or pay a fine.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:26 PM

But the choice isn’t between living and dying IMHO. If you were willing to agree that you’d never use any health care facility without paying your bill in full and we’re willing to put up a large bond to back that promise up, I’d say you should have the right not to buy insurance or pay a fine.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Make medical debt as hard to discharge in bankruptcy as student loans.

Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Jimbo: To take the 85% or 65% of revenue issue… IIRC, a very publicized figure is that health insurance companies make about a 3% profit margin. I won’t belabor the fact that this is absurdly low.

Now, if the insurance companies were mandated to have 65% of revenue to be used for claims, and they only made 3% profit, that means either 1) they actually had a higher percentage of revenue used for claims (the mandate was unnecessary), or 2) their operating expenses were roughly 32% of their revenue.

What happens in the second case (and which of the above should be easily attainable) if you increase the mandate to 85%? In that case, you have 85% of revenue as claims, and 32% operating expenses… meaning that the insurance company that was making 3% profit is now ‘making’ a 17% loss.

Most companies cannot exist in those circumstances for long.

Scott H on March 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

–See the attached article. According to it, the insurance coompanies are cclaiming that they’re spending 87% of their rrevenues on average on claims:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/21/81072/some-states-already-limit-health.html

Remember that the 3% figure is, from what I remember, an after-tax net profit figure, not a pre-tax number and not a gross margin number (revenues less operating expenses).

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:32 PM

But the choice isn’t between living and dying IMHO. If you were willing to agree that you’d never use any health care facility without paying your bill in full and we’re willing to put up a large bond to back that promise up, I’d say you should have the right not to buy insurance or pay a fine.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Make medical debt as hard to discharge in bankruptcy as student loans.
Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 2:28 PM

YES! They are a creditor that when you get credit, you must PAY it.
And Jimbo:from your school thread, you indicate you shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s education, i.e. private school.
Why do you agree we should be forced into this stuff?
The bill is CRAP.
Medical debts should have to be paid for & discharging them should be very hard, not easy.

Badger40 on March 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

–I do. And I’m sure you understand that there is no public option in the bill. Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:13 PM

You understand that a House Dem announced yesterday that she would be introducing a “public option” amendment in the House today, after Barack Obama signed it into Law. They want to pass this (and they can with their votes) and hand it over to the Senate for another “reconcillation vote” of 51 Senators Traitors.

The reason given was to provide the insurance companies with “competition”, in order to try to hold down premiums.

So… the Fed Gov’t will be allowed to peddle it’s insurance in all 50 States, without having to worry about turning a profit, while insurance companies will still be restricted to each state, with profits capped, costs unrestricted, and without any meaningful tort reforms to help control malpractice suits.

Do you still want to argue that this will be a good thing? If so, God help you boy, because no one on here can, or will.

photomunkey on March 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

According to it, the insurance coompanies are cclaiming that they’re spending 87% of their rrevenues on average on claims:

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:32 PM

They are just using creative accounting.
Much like lawyers use creative definitions & lawyer-speak to get around things.

Badger40 on March 23, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Jimbo: To take the 85% or 65% of revenue issue… IIRC, a very publicized figure is that health insurance companies make about a 3% profit margin. I won’t belabor the fact that this is absurdly low.

Now, if the insurance companies were mandated to have 65% of revenue to be used for claims, and they only made 3% profit, that means either 1) they actually had a higher percentage of revenue used for claims (the mandate was unnecessary), or 2) their operating expenses were roughly 32% of their revenue.

What happens in the second case (and which of the above should be easily attainable) if you increase the mandate to 85%? In that case, you have 85% of revenue as claims, and 32% operating expenses… meaning that the insurance company that was making 3% profit is now ‘making’ a 17% loss.

Most companies cannot exist in those circumstances for long.

Scott H on March 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM

FYI, from a PWC report at http://www.americanhealthsolution.org/assets/Uploads/risinghealthcarecostsfactors2008.pdf

“About 87 percent of the costs of health
insurance are benefits paid out. Administrative costs and
profits account for the other 13 percent.”

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:37 PM

The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution does NOT allow the Federal Gov’t to tax someone for NOT participating in Commerce. I.E. if someone CHOSES to NOT buy insurance, the Constitution grants them that right. It does NOT SPECIFICALLY bequeath that to the Federal Government, and therefore that provision of this Bill new LAW is Unconstitutional.

You can call it a “MANDATE” or a “PROVISIONAL FEE”, or any other such nonsense, but it cannot be squared with the Constitution. Period!

photomunkey on March 23, 2010 at 2:38 PM

while insurance companies will still be restricted to each state, with profits capped, costs unrestricted, and without any meaningful tort reforms to help control malpractice suits.

photomunkey on March 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

This has led to monopolies in states.
Like here in ND w/ Blue/Cross Blue/Shield, which consolidated not long ago.
Every employer in ND uses this company & I’m not sure how many others offer med ins, but it isn’t enough.
BTW-if Jimbo is a lawyer, which I am assuming he is, then malpractice suits may be a good thing for him & his friends.
No offense, Jimbo.
But I don’t trust anyone who’s in that business.
They are always redefining what ‘is’ is.

Badger40 on March 23, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Thank you for providing some data. The first question I have is, if insurance companies are already paying >85% of revenue as claims, why do we need the mandate changed (or at all)?

Scott H on March 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Thank you for providing some data. The first question I have is, if insurance companies are already paying >85% of revenue as claims, why do we need the mandate changed (or at all)?

Scott H on March 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM

–Probably to make sure they don’t become more inefficient over time. It looks like some states already have similar requirements.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM

This is about the biggest takeover of our lives without muskets or black pwerer, that I have ever seen. The damage all kicks in AFTER elections. The worst thing they could have happen is have DEMS win AGAIN and have to eat this crow! Thats what I am starting to think. When all hell breaks loose after the pendilum swings back, well Republicans will be blamed. I say let them lay in the bed they made. It will be at our expense unfortunately.

johnnyU on March 23, 2010 at 2:57 PM

–powder that is

johnnyU on March 23, 2010 at 2:58 PM

This has led to monopolies in states.
Like here in ND w/ Blue/Cross Blue/Shield, which consolidated not long ago.
Every employer in ND uses this company & I’m not sure how many others offer med ins, but it isn’t enough.
BTW-if Jimbo is a lawyer, which I am assuming he is, then malpractice suits may be a good thing for him & his friends.
No offense, Jimbo.
But I don’t trust anyone who’s in that business.
They are always redefining what ‘is’ is.

Badger40 on March 23, 2010 at 2:40 PM

–No offense taken. BTW, you asked on another thread why I’m forcing you to pay for my healthcare with Obamacare. You already may be paying for my health care depending on how the insurance companies have structured and reinsured the risk pools for existing health insurance policies.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

You understand that a House Dem announced yesterday that she would be introducing a “public option” amendment in the House today, after Barack Obama signed it into Law. They want to pass this (and they can with their votes) and hand it over to the Senate for another “reconcillation vote” of 51 Senators Traitors.

The reason given was to provide the insurance companies with “competition”, in order to try to hold down premiums.

So… the Fed Gov’t will be allowed to peddle it’s insurance in all 50 States, without having to worry about turning a profit, while insurance companies will still be restricted to each state, with profits capped, costs unrestricted, and without any meaningful tort reforms to help control malpractice suits.

Do you still want to argue that this will be a good thing? If so, God help you boy, because no one on here can, or will.

photomunkey on March 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

–You understand that that bill will have to pass the House and the Senate? And I’m not at all sure reconciliation will be applicable to that bill, so they might have to get 60 votes initially in the Senate? I doubt they’ll have the votes even if only 50% is needed in each chamber.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 3:03 PM

I simply cannot believe anyone is for this.

That includes Jimbo. This is immoral. This is tyrannical.

Our country is run by tyrants.

God Bless America and let us please take back our freedom.

petunia on March 23, 2010 at 3:23 PM

–No offense taken. BTW, you asked on another thread why I’m forcing you to pay for my healthcare with Obamacare. You already may be paying for my health care depending on how the insurance companies have structured and reinsured the risk pools for existing health insurance policies.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

He isn’t talking about risk pools and other standard elements of the insurance business, and you know it. He’s talking about taking my tax dollars and using them to purchase insurance for you, and that is completely different from diffusing risk across a large risk pool, and thus allowing insurance to exist.

DFCtomm on March 23, 2010 at 3:38 PM

–And you do understand that you’ll be able to buy at least three different levels of insurance policies (if you’re not already covered by Medicare) and that you can buy them from insurance exchanges rather than insurance companies?

The plans offered in these exchanges…are plans offered by INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!

–No offense taken. BTW, you asked on another thread why I’m forcing you to pay for my healthcare with Obamacare. You already may be paying for my health care depending on how the insurance companies have structured and reinsured the risk pools for existing health insurance policies.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

That’s the entire point of insurance. We all put all of our money in the pool, and we take money out as we need it. That’s how insurance works. That’s why they have to mandate under the threat of fines/jail that everyone gets insurance. They need those young people who do not use the system to pay into it in order to keep the charade going. if the individual mandate gets struck down, the entire thing unravels.

uknowmorethanme on March 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM

The bill also does not have enforcement to deny benefits to illegal aliens (last version I knew of), so here we have a bill that is:

Good enough for illegal aliens, but

Not good enough for TOTUS and his family (???)

Not good enough for Congress, and

Not good enough for key staffers/authors of the bill.

THEN IT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS!!

fred5678 on March 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I know someone else probably mention it already: If the healthcare bill is so good for our country why are congressional staffers exempt?

Do we not need their money?

TN Mom on March 23, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Pft. I’d be surprised if they didn’t do this.

Crooks, every last one of the mwho voed for this unconstitutional monstrosity.

Yakko77 on March 23, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Rand Paul money bomb today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqX43ry5Bqk

Spathi on March 23, 2010 at 4:44 PM

And you do understand that you’ll be able to buy at least three different levels of insurance policies (if you’re not already covered by Medicare) and that you can buy them from insurance exchanges rather than insurance companies?

The plans offered in these exchanges…are plans offered by INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!

–uknowmorethanme on March 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM

–You’re right. They’ll be state-based exchanges but they’ll be negotiating with insurance companies.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Four words:

UNEQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW

.

Sue the pants off of them.

englishqueen01 on March 23, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Republicans should introduce an amendment changing it so they aren’t exempt.

Spathi on March 23, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I understand what you are saying about these insurance pools.
I had insurance with the school in Lemmon SD where I worked & a couple of really unhealthy & sickly teachers drive up the premiums for the whole staff.
Here at Mott, not so bad & our premiums actually went down last year by $50/month.
But if I don’t want 2 pool with sickly people, I shouldn’t be made to.
And this nonsense of ins companies not being able to compete across state lines is retarded.
My ins company is basically the only one in the whole state!
That monopoly, bcs of the GOVT, is WRONG.
I want choices about what ins I have, what it covers, & who I’m pooling with as well as whether I want it in the 1st place or just save my $$ for a rainy day & pay cash.

Badger40 on March 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM

–You’re right. They’ll be state-based exchanges but they’ll be negotiating with insurance companies.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 4:56 PM

One thing I can’t wrap my mind around…

How, if Congress itself will not allow us to buy Insurance across state lines… can they then classify this as Interstate Commerce, and thus regulate it?

Don’t they prohibit, by law, this from BEING interstate Commerce?

Romeo13 on March 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM

in order to keep the charade going
uknowmorethanme on March 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM

That is what it is. A charade.
A pathetic charade that will unravel no matter what they do until they abolish it.
I would really like to pick & choose a major medical plan like I can with something like Afflac.

Badger40 on March 23, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Ed/Allah,

–Take it viral, b*tch. Just like you do with your STDs.

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM

I think someone needs a little talking to.

unclesmrgol on March 23, 2010 at 6:43 PM

–If you’re not buying insurance or paying the fine, my costs go up. Understand the connection?

Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I’m Mennonite.

unclesmrgol on March 23, 2010 at 6:46 PM

I’m Mennonite.

unclesmrgol on March 23, 2010 at 6:46 PM

I think I may take advantage of my American Indian heritage now myself. I heard their exempt too.

DFCtomm on March 23, 2010 at 7:28 PM

My comments on this health care fiasco

http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2010/03/elections-have-consequences-now-what.html

mark24609 on March 23, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Read your blog – agree with your conclusions

whatzit2u on March 23, 2010 at 7:54 PM

One thing I can’t wrap my mind around…

How, if Congress itself will not allow us to buy Insurance across state lines… can they then classify this as Interstate Commerce, and thus regulate it?

Don’t they prohibit, by law, this from BEING interstate Commerce?

Romeo13 on March 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM

This is one of the BIG REASONS the challenges may win in court; COngress prohibited interstate commerce in Obamacare, yet claim to be able to mandate health care because it is interstate commerce…

Quite the paradox, don’t you think?

Khun Joe on March 23, 2010 at 8:18 PM

American Power tracked-back with, ‘Change! ObamaCare Exempts Obama!’.

Donald Douglas on March 23, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4