Posts Tagged ‘overturn’

The Socialist ObamaCare Takeover Of Health Care Is An Unmitigated Disaster. Just Ask Doctors.

June 28, 2012

I write this the night before the Supreme Court releases its decision on ObamaCare, obviously not knowing how the SCOTUS will rule.

Will the SCOTUS overturn the entire law?  I think so, in the sense that the Democrats who rammed the disgraceful takeover of our health care system could have placed a severability clause in it, but didn’t.  One of the Justices (Scalia, in my memory) famously asked just how on earth they could be expected to divide this 2,700 page monstrosity up if they were to decide to overturn part of it and keep part of it.

On the other hand, The Supreme Court seems to have a penchant for deciding as little as possible and ruling as narrowly as possible – which guarantees that the same issues will come before them again and again and again.  If you are a fan of the SCOTUS, you might argue that this is because they don’t want to involve the Court in important issues which ought to be decided by the elected branches.  But if that’s true, why bother to even take up these cases with decisions that decide almost nothing?  On the other hand, if you are a SCOTUS skeptic, you might well conclude that the Supreme Court never issues bold decisions so it can have job security.

The court issues so many narrow decisions that merely force them to issue subsequent narrow decisions on basically the same damn cases ad nauseam.

An example of this was the Arizona SB 1070 Law.  By keeping the major provision and overturning the other three, you ended up with a joke of a system in which the states get to demand immigration papers and the suspects get to refuse to show them their immigration papers.  Antonin Scalia’s frustration over the near-useless ruling which guarantees that immigration will remain a mess would have been funny if the situation wasn’t such a travesty.  His harshest remark may have been:

The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

So, while I am believing the Court will issue a bold decision and overturn ObamaCare simply because it will create a genuine disaster if it overturns the mandate (the funding mechanism) but leaves the rest of the law that forces trillions in spending intact – or even worse, leaving the mandate intact and choosing some other details to quibble over – I recognize that such a decision is how the SCOTUS normally does business.

A new survey that just came out that demonstrates just what a turd this ObamaCare law is worth broadcasting from every rooftop.  If ObamaCare gets thrown out as unconstitutional, then we need to keep doing everything we can to expose just how breathtakingly evil this demonic law truly was in the face of the Democrat Party’s “The Supreme Court is only a valid entity if it rules the way we fascist liberals say it should” mantra (see more of that here from elected Democrats).  And what the heck.  Here’s still more.  And we need to expose it even MORE if any part of this beast is allowed to limp out of the Supreme Court (and if the SCOTUS doesn’t overturn it, figure on the same people who demonized the Court saying, “The highest court in the land has now spoken …”).

So take a look at the following two surveys:

Thanks Obamacare: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit
Kate Hicks
Web Editor, Townhall.com 06/14/12

The Doctor Patient Medical Association has released a new survey of about 700 doctors, and the results are bleak. Scary bleak. Among other dismal figures, Doctors’ Attitudes on the Future of Medicine: What’s Wrong, Who’s to Blame, and What Will Fix It found that 83% of respondents are contemplating leaving the industry if Obamacare is fully implemented, owing to its disastrous projected consequences. Indeed, they openly blame the healthcare law for their industry’s woes:

KEY FINDINGS
 90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
 83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
 61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
 85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
 65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
 72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
 49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
 74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
 52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
 57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
 1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
 2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
 95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
 80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
 70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.
 
If this isn’t an airtight argument for the repeal of Obamacare, nothing is. When the people providing the actual healthcare are thinking of getting out of the game, the system is clearly broken. Here’s hoping the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare this month.

The other survey gives us more information on just how rancid physicians think ObamaCare is.

Some screenshots I took from the survey:

And:

So other than the fact that doctors will have less control over medical decisions while government bureaucrats will have far MORE control, and other than the fact that it’s going to escalate the process of driving doctors out of medicine when we ALREADY HAVE A DOCTOR SHORTAGE, ObamaCare is hunky dory.

Well, maybe not so hunky dory.  There’s a lot more crap wrong with this ObamaCare turd:

For Physicians, Obamacare a Net Negative
Posted on 15 June 2012 by jmorris
By Jeremy Morris, Associate Editor, US Daily Review.

Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare and leader in permanent and locum tenens physician staffing for over 30 years, endorsed the results of a new survey by its parent company that finds that a “D” is the mean grade physicians give the health law, despite its primary intention to reduce the cost of healthcare and provide coverage for the uninsured. Physicians who said they were very knowledgeable about the law were even more negative.

The survey was conducted online from May 25 to June 4, 2012. Invitations for the survey were emailed to physicians who had been placed by Jackson Healthcare staffing companies and those who had not. Respondents were self-selected, with 2,694 physicians completing the survey. (The error range for this survey at the 95-percent confidence level is +/- 1.9 percent.)

In addition, the survey shows 68 percent of American physicians disagree that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare,” will have a positive impact on physician/patient relationship.

Only 12 percent of physicians said the law provides needed healthcare reform. A majority of physicians said the ACA would not improve healthcare’s quality, rising costs or patients’ control over their own health care. They also said it would worsen the amount of control physicians have over their practice decisions.

The only positive rating physicians gave the ACA was related to access. Fifty-four percent of respondents said the new law will increase patients’ access to care. The health law is estimated to drive 13 million new Medicaid enrollees beginning in 2014.

“Physician opinions are important since they are a primary driver of healthcare decisions and costs,” said Richard L. Jackson, chairman and CEO of Jackson Healthcare, a national healthcare staffing company. “Overall, they believe the law does not meet its intended objectives, negatively impacts the patient-physician relationship and hinders their ability to control the treatment of their patients.”

One important provision in the law set to take effect next year is the Independent Payment Advisory Board charged with finding savings in Medicare. Sixty-four percent of physicians said it would have a negative impact on patient care.

Among other key survey findings:

  • 70 percent said ACA would not stem rising healthcare costs.
  • 66 percent said ACA would give physicians less control over their practice decisions.
  • 61 percent said ACA would not improve the quality of healthcare.
  • 55 percent said Congress should scrap ACA and start over.
  • 49 percent said ACA would give patients less control over their healthcare.
  • 35 percent said it did nothing to reform healthcare.
  • 31 percent said ACA didn’t go far enough and a single-payer system is needed.
  • 22 percent said ACA went too far and impedes a physician’s ability to practice medicine.

“Improving the quality of patient care and managing rising healthcare costs are undoubtedly the two biggest issues facing physician practices today, and this survey certainly indicates the new health law is doing little to address these key challenges,” said Tony Stajduhar, president of the Permanent Recruitment Division, Jackson & Coker. “With a shortage of physicians already projected in the coming years, especially among permanent physicians, we need to actively engage this key group in discussions regarding healthcare reform that will bring about impactful changes in our current healthcare system―in turn, positively influencing recruitment and retention within this profession.”

To view the survey or learn more click here.

According to a statement, “Jackson & Coker believes that all hospitals, clinics, physician practices, and patients should have access to a physician whether for a day, a lifetime, or any of life’s changes in between. For over three decades, Jackson & Coker has been uniting physicians and hospitals to ensure that all patients’ needs are met by providing physicians for as little as a day and as long as a lifetime. The firm specializes in doctor opportunities for physicians at any stage of their professional career. Headquartered in metro Atlanta, the physician recruitment firm has earned a reputation for placing exceptionally qualified candidates in commercial and government practice opportunities. Recruiters work in two divisions of the company: Permanent Placement, which places providers in over 40 medical specialties in permanent placement jobs, and locum tenens, a staffing model that recruits medical providers (physicians and CRNAs) for temporary vacancies. Jackson & Coker’s in-house client credentialing specialists perform comprehensive credentialing services that adhere to the highest industry standards, with a dedicated individual for each specialty team.”

The “Obama Akbar!” liberals who most support ObamaCare frankly don’t care if it is evil and will kill people by medical neglect.  In fact, the worse it is, and the more people die because of ObamaCare, the better – because that would lead to the next step in liberal’s most cherished dreams of a state-controlled society.  Because the sad, pathetic, tragic fact of the matter is that the bigger and more intrusive government becomes and the more wildly said government fails, the more essential still bigger and still more intrusive government becomes.  If a small, limited government that conservatives yearn for has a crisis, most people aren’t gravely impacted.  If you have the sort of giant government bureaucracy that liberals dream of and it has a crisis, people will suffer by the hundreds of millions.  If we had a catastrophic collapse of the government – and believe me, one is coming SOON – you can rest assured that millions of frightened, hungry people would demand the government step in and help them – which is precisely what liberals want.  The system crashes, liberals seize power, and they never look back.  And it won’t even MATTER that they were the ones who created the collapse in the first place.  We’ve already seen this story before.

Update, 6/28/12: Well I was wrong – and very right.  SCOTUS issued one of its quibbling decisions in which it played around with the regime’s draconian Medicaid threats against the states while asserting that the mandate was a tax even though Obama and the Democrat Party swore up one side and down the other that it was NOT a tax.  But overall, as long as you play bait-and-switch and arbitrarily declare what Obama and Congress said was not a tax to be a tax, it’s “constitutional.”  All the Supreme Court had to do to not be “activist” in Democrat demagoguery was to rewrite the clear intent of the law to use the Commerce Clause rather than Congress’ taxing powers.  Which of course is pretty damned activist, isn’t it?

It is also the largest tax of the American middle class in the history of the Republic.

Obama is now a documented liar on his pledge to the middle class:

BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase – not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Obama promised it over and over:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people:  if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.

And:

I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And in interviews with former Democrat spin doctors turned mainstream media “journalsits” Obama responded to questions:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

But Obama lied to you.  It IS a tax increase.  It is a supermassive tax increase, in fact.  And now the middle class is burdened with the largest tax increase in American history and it won’t be single dimes, but lots and lots of dollars, that Americans will find themselves paying.  Like everything this cynical, dishonest president does, it will be sneaky: it won’t be all that much in year one beginning AFTER the election in 2013, but it will be more in year two and quite a bit more in year three.

You just wait and see how much you are going to pay for this monstrosity as it increasingly starts to blow up as it gets implemented.

There is already a $17 TRILLION funding gap in this monstrosity.  And you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Not only the absolute number but even the rate of those without insurance has INCREASED since ObamaCare was passed.  And ObamaCare has raised the cost of medicine; the average family is paying over $2,000 more in health insurance premiums in a number of states since ObamaCare was passed.  And that was EXACTLY what was predicted as compared to what would have happened HAD OBAMACARE NOT EXISTED, according to the CBO.  But now we’re finding that health premiums are increasing by as much as 1,112 percent.  And the Supreme Court decision today will likely cause this escalating cost spike to shoot at an even higher trajectory into the stratosphere.

Let me put this into the context of the Star Wars fight of good versus totalitarian big government-gone insane evil: “Help me, Mitty Won Romnobi.  You’re my only hope.”

Please use your presidential lightsaber to slice this Death Panel to pieces before it’s too late.

ObamaCare Declared Unconstitutional – Not That Democrats Give A Damn About The Constitution

February 1, 2011

ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  But Democrats could frankly care less what that meaningless moldy old document says.

Twenty-six states demanded that ObamaCare be declared unconstitutional in this decision, not counting Virginia which previously got its own successful decision against ObamaCare.

Federal District Judge Roger Vinson’s incredibly well-reasoned Constitution-based decision is available here.

A good article on this story was written by David Whelan for Forbes:

Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled today that the primary mechanism used by the health reform legislation to achieve universal insurance coverage–the individual mandate–is illegal. If his ruling stands it would void the 2,700 page, $938 billion health reform bill passed last year.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications,” Vinson writes.

With this ruling, and a similar one in December by Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia, it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of whether ObamaCare stands. Two other lawsuits–one in Michigan and one in Virginia–were thrown out by other federal district judges last year who ruled the constitutional challenge lacked merit.

Most analysts were expecting a ruling in favor of the 26 states hoping to overturn the bill. Vinson, in an earlier ruling, suggested that the federal fine for not buying insurance is more of a penalty than a tax. If it’s a penalty, the legislation relies on a broad interpretation of federal regulatory powers. If it’s a tax, as the Department of Justice’s lawyers argued, it’s much more difficult to make a constitutional objection.

In today’s ruling Vinson considered two arguments made by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit. The first was the legislation forces states to expand Medicaid in a way that’s unaffordable. Vinson quickly dispatches that legal theory, pointing out that Medicaid is and always has been a voluntary program.

The second argument revolves around the individual mandate. The health reform legislation makes it illegal for insurers to discriminate against patients regardless of their health. With that change there’s a risk that only sick people would buy insurance and healthy people would wait or be priced out of the market. To address that problem, the bill forces everyone who does not have insurance to buy it. The combination of “guaranteed issue” and the “individual mandate” is the beating heart of the health bill.

While the new rules banning medical underwriting are popular, the individual mandate has bred resentment. The bill’s authors never anticipated the mandate would become a ripe target for legal challenges.

The argument that’s had the most traction is based on the limitations of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause explicitly allows the federal government regulate interstate commerce. But it also has been used to justify federal laws that affect other kinds of economic activity. The question raised by the lawsuit against the health reform bill is whether refusing to buy insurance constitutes interstate commerce. In his ruling Vinson says that in the past the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate activities like growing marijuana or navigating a waterway, but not used to force someone to do something they weren’t already doing. “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause,” he writes.

Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.

Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

Judge Vinson marshalled quite a few opinions against ObamaCare.  Interestingly, one of them was Obama’s himself.

From the Washington Times:

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Democrats have established quite a recent history in thumbing their noses at the Constitution.

Charles Krauthammer had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th about Democrats literally boycotting the reading of the Constitution on the House floor:

KRAUTHAMMER:  “It is truly astonishing. One member of Congress called it a long, dull document.  The New York Times editorial reading of the Constitution in the House is presumptuous.  Liberals got in trouble in the 60s and 70s for being on the wrong side of the flag and the anti-war demonstrations and now three decades later, they want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.

The Constitution, after all – when these members were sworn in today, that they did not swear to defend the country or the army or the people; it was to defend the Constitution. That is the essence of America, and it is what makes us unique and why we are a country not of blood or race but ideas.  For liberals to think that there is actually an advantage in dismissing reading the Constitution and the requirement of having a constitutional reason to introduce a bill is real bad politics.”

It wasn’t just “bad politics.”  Krauthammer underscored that better than anyone.  It was contemptible citizenship.  It was the act of unAmerican people.

One Democrat actually called the reading of the U.S. Constitution “propaganda,” adding that a reading of the Constitution amounted to “total nonsense.”  He added that Republicans were reading it “like a sacred text.”  When, of course, so many Democrats treat it more like toilet paper.  Liberal Ezra Klein added historical ignorance to his moral ignorance by saying that the Constitution is confusing, having been written “a hundred years ago,” and that it is no longer binding.  Obviously, liberal Ezra Klein is an ignorant fool.

It is beyond official at this point.  We can separate the population of the United States of America into two groups: the American people and the unAmerican people.  And the Democrat Party has become the party of the unAmericans.

UnAmericans don’t give a damn about America.  They want to change it, pervert it, warp it, distort it.  They want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been.  And they call their effort “hope and change.”

Mind you, that’s “hope and change” in the direction set by Karl Marx; never the one set by George Washington.

A Muslim extremist named Tayyip Erdogan had this to say about democracy, comparing democracy to a bus: “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”  Democrats were elected democratically; and then they started imposing their 2,700 pages of fascism using every procedural gimmick in the book.  Nancy Pelosi actually said:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Let’s take another bus tour to how we got ObamaCare shoved down our throat:

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:

Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.

Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:

Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”

Rep. Stark: “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.  now the basis for that would be how does that affect other people.”

Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states.  The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”

Rep. Stark: “The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country.”

Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:

Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document.  Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.  Because it never was about the Constitution or even about any right to privacy; it was always about using whatever rhetorical argument they wanted to get the result they wanted.  So they said we had a right to privacy until the right to privacy got in their way.

If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship?  How do you stop tyranny?  How do you stop totalitarian big government?

And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:

Democrat Rep. John Dingell:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.

Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:

Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running.  And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them.  And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]

Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”

Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)

Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)

Here’s the Youtube audio of that exchange:

Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats.  And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.

And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.

Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:

“Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.

They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”

The audio of the interview is available here.

That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for.  Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.

Yeah, that’s right.  Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky.  Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people “extreme” because they actually take their Constitution seriously.  But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here).  This is a woman who said:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

Marxism and communism is not extreme.  Nope.  It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy.  What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.

Democrats spent over a year imposing 2,700 pages of unconstitutional “laws” upon a people who never wanted it.  And now, amazingly, they’re demanding that Republicans merely recognize that it’s done and over with, and move on.

Fortunately, Republicans DO care about the Constitution.  And they’re going to fight Democrats for the soul of this country.

If Democrats give a damn about the American people, they will join Republicans in demanding that this verdict go immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final judgment.  Rule 11 of the Supreme Court allows particularly important cases that are of imperative public importance to gain such an emergency hearing.  But only if both sides agree.  If Democrats don’t demand this, they will continue to do even more harm in keeping the American people in the dark about how to plan.  Businesses will continue to hold off on hiring, and the economy will continue to suffer until this decision is finalized.