CNN today carried a report that Mr. Obama has stated that the new proposals for mandated health care coverage as proposed by Max Baucus (D-Mt) is "absolutely not a tax" on the middle class or American people.
I think, Mr. Obama, that Patrick Henry, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and those other great framers and founders would dispute your claims. Since "mandating" a seizure of property (money) from the American people to buy a "product" which is what health care insurance actually is, is not within your powers or duties of office nor of the U.S. Congress.
Not without their express consent. Not simply political party publicity focused townhall meetings, not public opinion polls.
Mr. Obama attempted again to spin the measure likening it to mandatory auto insurance which is mandated by most states throughout the nation. Also which laws and statements were really a falsehood and those laws unconstitutional in and of themselves, since there are provisions also in many states that merely provide that you must show proof of financial responsibility in other forms, not mandatory insurance coverage at all.
And that coverage is, after all, determined correctly at the state level, not by federal mandates.
And is, after all, simply for any and all personal liability you might have which might damage the property or other automobile of another driver. And the laws also provide for alternate provisions than insurance, and without such alternatives also technically in violation of most state and the federal Constitution anyway and have made a great business for those professional auto wrecker criminals and their activities, many of whom are employed in the insurance industry themselves or their "preferred vendors", in the process.
And many Americans already, correctly so, dispute those laws on Constitutional grounds also.
Since the entire reason they were passed in the first place actually was in order to lessen the burden to the taxpayers also in the amount of small claims and fender bender property damage court actions that had progressively occurred as more and more Americans started owning automobiles.
And really was a gold mine for the auto insurance industries, and many state residents have been calling for long overdue reform in those laws also progressively, and regulation and accountability of those insurers whose premiums also have increased over and above the CPI levels for many who have never made even a claim, or have had substandard provision under those policy or contractual provisions "progressively" ever since gaining that access to the public’s purse unconstitutionally during the last recession in the 70’s.
Especially since many states then even took it one ludicrous step further and mandated that you now must have "uninsured" and "under-insured" coverage, which laws are definitely unconstitutional. Meaning you must carry coverage in order to protect yourselves from the damage or fault of another if they object to those laws or are uninsured for any reason.
And strangely enough, foreigners of course are not required to carry auto insurance in this country at all, which has resulted in the higher rates for citizens now in the borders states especially due to accidents caused by uninsured foreign visitors to those mostly tourism focused states, or the Mexican illegals crossing at will.
Since driving is a risk in and of itself, than what actually is lawful and legal in that respect is also making insurance a choice. If you have an expensive automobile than as a piece of property you can choose whether or not to insure that property for risk of loss. If it is damaged due to willful or deliberate negligence of another driver, than the courts are there for such reasons. The entire passage of mandatory insurance laws and that illegal move is now being used in order to somehow paint this Baucus measure as similiar, when it is fundamentally not.
And any such laws mandating the taking of an Americans property for corporate gain and welfare is actually a tax, so I hate to break it to Mr. Obama, but Harvard’s law school curriculum at this point truly is suspect in its Constitutional Law courses. That much also is abundantly clear at this point.
Congress and the President have no such authority, period – all their representations to the citizens and public to the contrary. They work for the people, not the other way around, nor do the people work for the insurance industry in this country and their profits and gains at the public’s ultimate expense.
What is within their authority is regulation and oversight of these massive global and national insurers. Not getting into bed with them, nor the also huge supplemental plan organizations such as AARP, which sell those policies that are nothing more than gravy for the insurance industries, since they rarely have to provide any benefits under them, using the primary care provider such as Medicare then as the heavy whenever treatments are denied, or the payment of benefits refused. It’s all in that fine print.
So how Mr. Obama can NOT paint this as an additional tax on the middle class I haven’t a clue. And his amazing oratory skills really are wearing thin on many in this respect and many others. We know a sales gimmick when we see it. The dumbing down of the populace has not reached those proportions quite yet.
The fact that this "proposal" came from a Senator from the State of Montana, a Western state also historically known for its conservatism in Bill of Rights protections and also less populated due to its expansive Western mountain ranges and areas, bespeaks also politically putting a public face on this unconstitutional legislation for public consumption which is, while not socialism that can be outrightly labeled as such in governmentally mandated and taxed provision, nothing more than "corporate" socialism masked as in the "public interest." Which it is not.
Since it is clear that there is a sizeable majority of Americans that see this for what it is. No reform. Simply feeding the insurers and industries once again at the public’s ultimate expense since there is little, if any, regulatory or accountability measures included over those insurers and health care providers, or the financial sector and these Wall Street traders that own a great stake in these industries, and also have progressively divested these industries into high risk financial investments which have also impacted the American public in the costs for health insurance in general.
And the middle class auto workers in Detroit, and homeless in Arizona, truly not those you can fool once again in just how much Washington and those on the Hill actually care for the welfare of its lawful and legal citizens, rather than foreign and industry backers at this point in history.