If They Force This Anti American Health Care Bill Down Our Throats What Can We Do To Fight Back?

The States Can Stop Obama
by Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.)
2009 Oct 28

By now we have all heard the clichés and seen the posters from the "Tea Parties" espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national healthcare down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth of the matter is all the slogans of "Don't Tread On Me" or "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" or "We're Mad As Hell And We're Not Taking It Anymore," don't mean a thing when compared to reality; the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage. The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That's right, the individual States can stop "Obamacare" and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and
"big brother" tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hamshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Healthcare as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say "No!"

For you skeptics who think the States could no more do this than fly to the moon, let's look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government. Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever
be held inviolable by our own governments.

The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the "creator." Let's be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of "balanced power." Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers
intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the
Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a
recurrence here in America.

In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal direction." But today's federal Tories argue that the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other." So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare "incursion." To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more
subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The point to remember here is; where do we define the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsiblity, and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.

Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let's take one more look at Mack/Printz. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other..." What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a "structural protection of liberty" that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of "checks and balances." The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere.

So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC. The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and "The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national healthcare proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!

In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, "The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." It is rather obvious that nationalized healthcare definitely qualifies as a "federal regulatory program."

Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are
misdirected. Such actions are "pie in the sky" dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of "dual sovereignty," the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate. Doing so is what States' Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.

Now think about that, I can and alot of others can reduce their participation from 100 percent to 75 percent. Just who is going to pay the other 25 percent. Those that get the insurance, that's the middle men. I employ 100 people, in this economy I'm always looking for reductions and that is one area you just don't fool with. The government is fooling with it and they are opening a door to businesses that is going to have major ripple effects.

I pay 60000 a month for insurance at 100 percent, if the government only requires 75 percent and companies are looking for relief just what do you think is going to happen.

Fix the problems but do not place the responsibilities back to the companies, you are really asking for troubles.

I fully expect all of you that oppose health care reform to relinquish your RIGHTS to MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND SOCIAL SECURITY. I seriously mean it. While we're at it, I fully expect all of you to renounce your public police department, fire department, public schools, public libraries, etc.

Especialy you Trin.

Stop fucking up the country with your b-s Anti-American rants.

So now who still thinks that this bill would allow for private healthcare coverage or would actually help working people?

I fully expect all of you that oppose health care reform to relinquish your RIGHTS to MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND SOCIAL SECURITY. I seriously mean it. While we're at it, I fully expect all of you to renounce your public police department, fire department, public schools, public libraries, etc.

Especialy you Trin.

Stop fucking up the country with your b-s Anti-American rants.

So now who still thinks that this bill would allow for private healthcare coverage or would actually help working people?


Here is the flaw in your reasoning:

Why is PRIVATE healthcare insurance a good thing??

The goal of PRIVATE healthcare insurance is to make money, NOT to look after the health of working people. in fact, their goal of making money is DIRECTLY AGAINST the goal of keeping working people healthy.

So yes. I wholeheartedly agree this is probably a "trojan horse" for the introduction of more generalized government health care insurance.

So what???

The ONLY people against that are health care insurance executives, who see theor gravy train ending.

Patients aren't against it.

Doctors aren't against it. As long as their reimbursements aren't cut 20% -- which is one of the ways the repubs are trying to squash this, by supporting an amemndment which does exactly that.

Hospitals aren't against it -- as long as we get rid of the antiquated reimbursemnet schedule that rewards hospitals in NYC, NY twice as much as in Mobile, AL or Cheyenne, MT.

So yes. I wholeheartedly agree this is probably a "trojan horse" for the introduction of more generalized government health care insurance.

So what???

While I'm at it, I expect all of you to RENOUNCE the Deparment of Defense, Homeland Security, State National Guard Units, Coast Guard, FBI, Police and Sheriff Depts., etc.


I FULLY EXPECT YOU TO RENOUNCE ALL OF THESE PUBLIC GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS.

You all think you're all so fucking smart.

While I'm at it, I expect all of you to RENOUNCE the Deparment of Defense, Homeland Security, State National Guard Units, Coast Guard, FBI, Police and Sheriff Depts., etc.


I FULLY EXPECT YOU TO RENOUNCE ALL OF THESE PUBLIC GOVERNMENT RUN PROGRAMS.

You all think you're all so fucking smart.

So now who still thinks that this bill would allow for private healthcare coverage or would actually help working people?


Here is the flaw in your reasoning:

Why is PRIVATE healthcare insurance a good thing??

The goal of PRIVATE healthcare insurance is to make money, NOT to look after the health of working people. in fact, their goal of making money is DIRECTLY AGAINST the goal of keeping working people healthy.

So yes. I wholeheartedly agree this is probably a "trojan horse" for the introduction of more generalized government health care insurance.

So what???

The ONLY people against that are health care insurance executives, who see theor gravy train ending.

Patients aren't against it.

Doctors aren't against it. As long as their reimbursements aren't cut 20% -- which is one of the ways the repubs are trying to squash this, by supporting an amemndment which does exactly that.

Hospitals aren't against it -- as long as we get rid of the antiquated reimbursemnet schedule that rewards hospitals in NYC, NY twice as much as in Mobile, AL or Cheyenne, MT.



I don't who you listen to, but doctors are agaist this. More paperwork means less time treating and taking care of their patients. I should know, I am married to one, and help run the office. Every doctor I know is agaist this.

I fully expect all of you that oppose health care reform to relinquish your RIGHTS to MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND SOCIAL SECURITY.

I fully expect all of you to renounce your public police department, fire department, public schools, public libraries, etc.

Especialy you Trin.

So now who still thinks that this bill would allow for private healthcare coverage or would actually help working people?


Here is the flaw in your reasoning:

Why is PRIVATE healthcare insurance a good thing??

The goal of PRIVATE healthcare insurance is to make money, NOT to look after the health of working people. in fact, their goal of making money is DIRECTLY AGAINST the goal of keeping working people healthy.

So yes. I wholeheartedly agree this is probably a "trojan horse" for the introduction of more generalized government health care insurance.

So what???

The ONLY people against that are health care insurance executives, who see theor gravy train ending.

Patients aren't against it.

Doctors aren't against it. As long as their reimbursements aren't cut 20% -- which is one of the ways the repubs are trying to squash this, by supporting an amemndment which does exactly that.

Hospitals aren't against it -- as long as we get rid of the antiquated reimbursemnet schedule that rewards hospitals in NYC, NY twice as much as in Mobile, AL or Cheyenne, MT.

I fully expect all of you that oppose health care reform to relinquish your RIGHTS to MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND SOCIAL SECURITY. I seriously mean it. While we're at it, I fully expect all of you to renounce your public police department, fire department, public schools, public libraries, etc.

Especialy you Trin.

Stop fucking up the country with your b-s Anti-American rants.

There is only one way to fight back.
Stop paying income tax.
If everyone changed their withholding to zero we can starve the beast of the ammunition that they use to persecute us.

There is nothing you can do.

The people don't have Any influence in government.

I fully expect all of you that oppose health care reform to relinquish your RIGHTS to MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND SOCIAL SECURITY.


I will gladly relinquish all my rights to Medicare and Social Security (yes, I pay into Medicaid but "make too much" to ever qualify) as long as I am paid back the monies I have paid into such for the last 25 years from each and every paycheck. I will gladly take that money back and find a way to save it to use for when I can no longer work to cover my own healthcare insurance. Yes, these programs were the first steps to socialism (thanks FDR).



I fully expect all of you to renounce your public police department, fire department, public schools, public libraries, etc.


Erroneous, these are paid by local and state taxes not federal taxes, nice try though...those powers not granted by the Constitution are the states' rights (10th Amendment)



Especialy you Trin.



Guess your mother never taught you to be appreciative of your hosts when at a party. You must be the person who always destroys things at parties or never brings something when visiting someone. I was taught to never go to someone's home empty handed and to respect the host/hostess.







So now who still thinks that this bill would allow for private healthcare coverage or would actually help working people?


Here is the flaw in your reasoning:

Why is PRIVATE healthcare insurance a good thing??

The goal of PRIVATE healthcare insurance is to make money, NOT to look after the health of working people. in fact, their goal of making money is DIRECTLY AGAINST the goal of keeping working people healthy.

So yes. I wholeheartedly agree this is probably a "trojan horse" for the introduction of more generalized government health care insurance.

So what???


If you aren't happy with your carrier you can change; if they don't remain competitive and make their customers happy they go out of business AND are regulated by the Department of Insurance. Their denials are based on....wait for it....Medicare/Medicaid denied services (laughing). If they deny something that Medicare/Medicaid covers then they are in violation of the DOI guidelines for health insurance.


The ONLY people against that are health care insurance executives, who see theor gravy train ending.

Patients aren't against it.

Doctors aren't against it. As long as their reimbursements aren't cut 20% -- which is one of the ways the repubs are trying to squash this, by supporting an amemndment which does exactly that.

Hospitals aren't against it -- as long as we get rid of the antiquated reimbursemnet schedule that rewards hospitals in NYC, NY twice as much as in Mobile, AL or Cheyenne, MT.


Please provide links to support that other patients aren't against, that the majority of doctors are for this plan, that hospitals are for this plan.

I have cousins who are doctors and nurses, friends who are doctors, nurses, PAs, CNAs, PTs who all recognize the debacle that this bill is. I work for a large hospital in a major metropolitan area and know of the staff physicians who oppose this bill as well as medical ancillary staff.

Also, to address "get rid of the antiquated reimbursemnet schedule that rewards hospitals in NYC, NY twice as much as in Mobile, AL or Cheyenne, MT"...as soon as we can get the cost of living in NYC to equal that of Mobile, AL or Cheyenne, MT that will not be feasible as overhead is greater in NYC than it is in rural areas. Or are you proposing that rent, salaries, etc that are paid in NYC should also be equal in rural areas?

So yes. I wholeheartedly agree this is probably a "trojan horse" for the introduction of more generalized government health care insurance.

So what???


So WHAT?!

I don't think you've quite wrapped your mind around about what this means!

With this legislation comes absolute governmental power over citizens when it comes to health care.

You will accept health care, or you will be jailed and/or fined.

That is fucking dictatorial. The government has no right to do this... it is beyond unconstitutional.

It will get worse... mandatory health insurance is just the beginning.

If you had any sense, you'd oppose this bill. There are better ways to reform health care, but this is NOT it.

The poll is NOT anecdotal, it is a scientific poll, as best as a poll can be. And it was published after rigorous peer review:

[link to healthcarereform.nejm.org]

62.9% of respondents favored a public option and private options.

9.6% favored public option ALONE -- ie single payer. That's almost 1 in 10 docs for single payer.

62.9 + 9.6 = 72.5% of docs support the public option.

By the way ALL of those federal government programs are unconstitutional and should have never been enacted in the first place

So you're saying the Dept. of Defense is unconstitutional? So the Iraq war is unconstitional? Homeland Security is unconstitutional?

You're a fucking moron.

Get an education please!


Geez, folks! I seriously believe that we should have gone for EDUCATION REFORM before we tackled Health Care Reform because we sure have a lot of stupid ass people in this country. Especially on this forum!