Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GMScud;781535]No bueno for Obamacare....

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE70U6RY20110131?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews]Judge rules healthcare reform unconstitutional | Reuters[/url][/quote]

That the plaintiffs would receive a favorable decision in this particular suit was expected, but the scope of the decision--invalidation of the entire act--was not. In the other decision to go against the government (the Virginia case), the judge (Henry Hudson, Michale Vick's judge) did not invalidate the entire act. The number of federal court decisions finding the Affordable Care Act consitutional still outnumbers the decisions finding it unconstitutional, but there is no doubt that the Florida case had generated the most attention. Still, all of these federal district court decisions are just the opening acts to the ultimate S.Ct. review. I think it's going to be a very close call up their, but I doubt that the court will invalidate the entire law.

Re: Obama Care
 

Why force people to buy health ins. Why not just allow health providers the right to refuse service if someone does not have coverage or money to pay their bill.

[QUOTE=firstdown;781587]Why force people to buy health ins. Why not just allow health providers the right to refuse service if someone does not have coverage or money to pay their bill.[/QUOTE]

Well, I would imagine that the whole point is that those who support this measure would respond that healthcare shouldn't be refused to anyone who needs it.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;781587]Why force people to buy health ins. Why not just allow health providers the right to refuse service if someone does not have coverage or money to pay their bill.[/quote]
so you would like the poor to not be able to get treatments? i guess all you insurance guys stick together. i say we make car insurance optional. you down with that?

Re: Obama Care
 

They probably won't review the case until next year anyway.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;781619]so you would like the poor to not be able to get treatments? i guess all you insurance guys stick together. i say we make car insurance optional. you down with that?[/quote]

When I say give health providers the right to refuse services I have assumed that there is something in place for the poor. Then the people who choose not to buy coverage either have to show they can pay for services or they are out of luck.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;781587][B]Why force people to buy health ins[/B]. Why not just allow health providers the right to refuse service if someone does not have coverage or money to pay their bill.[/quote]


Why not force people to buy guns too:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/01/sd-lawmakers-propose-mandating-gun-ownership-make-point-health-law/"]South Dakota Lawmakers Propose Mandating Gun Ownership -- to Make Point About Health Law - FoxNews.com[/URL]

oh wait:

[URL="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts"]Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets[/URL]

Re: Obama Care
 

nothing like silly laws that waste our money to try and " prove a point" why not work on some of the real issues like unemployment?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;781721]nothing like silly laws that waste our money to try and " prove a point" why not work on some of the real issues like unemployment?[/quote]


I thought the 1 trillion stimulas was to fix the unemployment issue. Talking about waisted money.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;781673]When I say give health providers the right to refuse services I have assumed that there is something in place for the poor. Then the people who choose not to buy coverage either have to show they can pay for services or they are out of luck.[/quote]

IMO this bill is to provide an alternative more affordable health care option for a segment of US citizens who fall btw the crack of not being poor enough to qualify for free health care (medicaid, SS) but dont make enough money to pay the expensive priv health care options.

The poor and lazy who live off welfare or SS get medicaid free of charge.

If you make over 40k you can probably afford 200-300 a month in priv health care or your employment offers a pay-in program.

If you make 20-30k a year, you probably dont have health ins.

Im sorry, but priv health ins groups prices are out of control, they know it and the gov't knows it.

$165 a month to have a 10k deductible is rediculus. I have to incur and pay 10k in medical expenses in a year before my health ins will kick in a penny is a joke.

There is something in place for the poor who sit around and collect gov't checks. The problem is there isnt anything in place for the poor who actually work for a living. Your better off quiting your day job and living off the gov't w/ free health care, food stamps and section 8 vs working, making 9.50 an hour and hoping you dont suffer an accidental injury that would leave a 20k hospital debt hanging over you.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=over the mountain;781884]IMO this bill is to provide an alternative more affordable health care option for a segment of US citizens who fall btw the crack of not being poor enough to qualify for free health care (medicaid, SS) but dont make enough money to pay the expensive priv health care options.

The poor and lazy who live off welfare or SS get medicaid free of charge.

If you make over 40k you can probably afford 200-300 a month in priv health care or your employment offers a pay-in program.

If you make 20-30k a year, you probably dont have health ins.

Im sorry, but priv health ins groups prices are out of control, they know it and the gov't knows it.

$165 a month to have a 10k deductible is rediculus. I have to incur and pay 10k in medical expenses in a year before my health ins will kick in a penny is a joke.

There is something in place for the poor who sit around and collect gov't checks. The problem is there isnt anything in place for the poor who actually work for a living. Your better off quiting your day job and living off the gov't w/ free health care, food stamps and section 8 vs working, making 9.50 an hour and hoping you don't suffer an accidental injury that would leave a 20k hospital debt hanging over you.[/quote]

Sorry this bill is the first step for the government to take over health care and lead us to a one payer system. Obama has said so himself many times but he tries to ignore his past statements. By the way if you live in the US and are over like 25 and cannot make more then 9.50 an hour then your doing something wrong or need to move. I'm talking normal times not now so much. My buddy with a high school degree has lost 3 jobs in the past 3 years and all but one paid over $20 per hour. He really does not have any marketable skills either. You also need to shop your ins.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;781736]I thought the 1 trillion stimulas was to fix the unemployment issue. Talking about waisted money.[/quote]

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but more jobs were created in 2010 alone than the entire 8 years under Bush. Got that. Google and find me one economist that says the stimulus was wasted money.

[url=http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-year]It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years | NEWS JUNKIE POST[/url]

/[U][COLOR=#670100]http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/[/COLOR][/U]


In terms of unemployment, it's much more complicated than pumping momey into the economy, but I think the president IS doing everything that's in his control to bring unemployment down.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;781900]Google and find me one economist that says the stimulus was wasted money.[/quote]Didn't we already do this?

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html]Allan Meltzer: Why Obamanomics Has Failed - WSJ.com[/url]

[URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/38032-expose-on-the-tea-party-architects-2.html#post734267[/URL]

[quote]In terms of unemployment, it's much more complicated than pumping momey into the economy, but I think the president IS doing everything that's in his control to bring unemployment down.[/quote]Absolutely not. The President's policies are stifling business expansion and job creation.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;781900]I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but more jobs were created in 2010 alone than the entire 8 years under Bush. Got that. Google and find me one economist that says the stimulus was wasted money.

[url=http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-year]It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years | NEWS JUNKIE POST[/url]

/[U][COLOR=#670100]http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/[/COLOR][/U]


In terms of unemployment, it's much more complicated than pumping momey into the economy, but I think the president IS doing everything that's in his control to bring unemployment down.[/quote]

Got to say that's a good way to skew numbers: Compare a full 8 years worth of recession and recoveries with a specific year of data(not only that but only a part of the years data as they narrowed it to private sector job growth.

Note 1, I am not debating Bush's economic plans cuz they aren't worthy of debate.

Note 2, in the table they provided 4 months (the last 4) were negative, and 5 were positive.

Not a very substantive use of stats. Seemed like a simple biased report to tell people who believe what they want to hear.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;781909]Didn't we already do this?

[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html"]Allan Meltzer: Why Obamanomics Has Failed - WSJ.com[/URL]

[URL]http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/38032-expose-on-the-tea-party-architects-2.html#post734267[/URL]

Absolutely not. The President's policies are stifling business expansion and job creation.[/quote]

Hmm...okay, you got me. Find me another one, besides Reagan's boy Meltzer. It just seems non-sensical to me for somone of Meltzer's stature to declare with absolute authority that President Obama's policies have failed after just 18 months in office. And to compare Reagan's first 18 months to Obama's is being completely dishonest and ignoring what each president inherited. We just climbed out of the worst post war recession in history, due to in no small part the success of TARP ( which included baling out Detroit, which worked) and the stimulus program.

With all due respect for Ronald Reagan but there is more and more data to suggest that trickle down economics, on the whole, failed.

But since Meltzer penned this wonderful non-partisan Op for WSJ, the econoomy logged it's biggest Q4 GDP growth in years, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years, and the president has issued an executive order for a federal review of regulations that may be too onerous on big business, I just don't know how you could conclude anything an absolute failure or success in the first 18 months of a presidency.

But the main culprit behind why companies aren't hiring is because, well, they aren't hiring. They're hoarding trillions of dollars in cash, as you know. And the bottom line is companies are doing more with less these days. Corporate profits are strong, the DOW has crossed 12,000, and the outlook for economic expanision in 2011 is more upbeat.

I'm betting if Meltzer was writing that article right now, his tone would be much different.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;781925]Hmm...okay, you got me. Find me another one, besides Reagan's boy Meltzer.[/quote]Click on the second link and there's more.

[quote]And to compare Reagan's first 18 months to Obama's is being completely dishonest and ignoring what each president inherited. We just climbed out of the worst post war recession in history, due to in no small part the success of TARP ( which included baling out Detroit, which worked) and the stimulus program.[/quote]You may be too young to remember, and I was just a pre-teen, but what Carter left for Reagan was worse than what Obama walked in to.

[quote]With all due respect for Ronald Reagan but there is more and more data to suggest that trickle down economics, on the whole, failed. [/quote]Depends on the goals, from a liberal perspective for the gov't to redistribute wealth you would consider it a failure. If the goal was for the private sector to create jobs and expand the economy, it was a wild success.

[quote]But since Meltzer penned this wonderful non-partisan Op for WSJ, the econoomy logged it's biggest Q4 GDP growth in years, Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years, and the president has issued an executive order for a federal review of regulations that may be too onerous on big business, I just don't know how you could conclude anything an absolute failure or success in the first 18 months of a presidency. [/quote]The only reason any of this happened was because of the very loud message the American people sent to Obama and the Dems in Nov. 2010.

[quote]But the main culprit behind why companies aren't hiring is because, well, they aren't hiring. They're hoarding trillions of dollars in cash, as you know. And the bottom line is companies are doing more with less these days. Corporate profits are strong, the DOW has crossed 12,000, and the outlook for economic expanision in 2011 is more upbeat.[/quote]The large companies are hoarding their cash because of uncertainty. No company is going to make large capital expenditures and hire personnel in this economic climate only to have those actions have a net negative effect on the bottom line due to gov't regulations/requirements. Had the Fed (Obama and Congress) let the free market work we'd have been out of this mess a while ago and the hit wouldn't have been so hard.

Good reading:
[URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576109772560128768.html?mod=googlenews_wsj"]Economy Picks Up Steam - WSJ.com[/URL]

From the article: "It took 12 quarters to recoup the losses and, on a per-capita basis, the economy is still not as large as it was before the recession took hold. Such a prolonged recovery is unusual: It took eight quarters to bounce back from the deep recession of the early 1970s."

Antoher one you'll enjoy:
[URL="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/13/so-much-worse-than-carter/print"]The American Spectator : So Much Worse Than Carter[/URL]

From the article: "The precedent for President Obama is not President Reagan, but President Carter. Indeed, he is not on the same trajectory as Carter, he is doing far worse. In 1978, the unemployment rate was 6.1%. Real GDP grew by 5.6%."

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;781900]I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but more jobs were created in 2010 alone than the entire 8 years under Bush. Got that. Google and find me one economist that says the stimulus was wasted money.

[URL="http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-year"]It’s Official: More Private Sector Jobs Created In 2010 Than During Entire Bush Years | NEWS JUNKIE POST[/URL]

/[U][COLOR=#670100]http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/[/COLOR][/U]


In terms of unemployment, it's much more complicated than pumping momey into the economy, but I think the president IS doing everything that's in his control to bring unemployment down.[/quote]

But didn't we also loose more jobs so the net effect is actually less jobs?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;781925]Hmm...okay, you got me. Find me another one, besides Reagan's boy Meltzer. It just seems non-sensical to me for somone of Meltzer's stature to declare with absolute authority that President Obama's policies have failed after just 18 months in office. And to compare Reagan's first 18 months to Obama's is being completely dishonest and ignoring what each president inherited. We just climbed out of the worst post war recession in history, due to in no small part the success of TARP ( which included baling out Detroit, which worked) and the stimulus program.

With all due respect for Ronald Reagan but there is more and more data to suggest that trickle down economics, on the whole, failed.

But since Meltzer penned this wonderful non-partisan Op for WSJ, the [B]econoomy logged it's biggest Q4 GDP growth in years, [/B]Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for another two years, and the president has issued an executive order for a federal review of regulations that may be too onerous on big business, I just don't know how you could conclude anything an absolute failure or success in the first 18 months of a presidency.

But the main culprit behind why companies aren't hiring is because, well, they aren't hiring. They're hoarding trillions of dollars in cash, as you know. And the bottom line is companies are doing more with less these days. Corporate profits are strong, the DOW has crossed 12,000, and the outlook for economic expanision in 2011 is more upbeat.

I'm betting if Meltzer was writing that article right now, his tone would be much different.[/quote]

Thats just twisting numbers to make things look better and both sides are guilty of twisting number. Comparing growth numbers to bad years just makes the numbers look better. If sales dropped off in my office to an all time low and then things started turning around I would not compare my sales to the crappy years I would look at the good years to get a good comparison. The goverment seems to always compare its shitty numbers to more shitty numbers which make them look better.

If I had a bad month and sold only 10 policies and the next month sold 20 and used the goverments math I would have 100% growth. When in the real world I would still be down about 60% from the better months.

Re: Obama Care
 

Looks like Reagan had insurgents in his mist. WARNING, complex material discussed.

[YT]-UGQIkYEBPo[/YT]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;781975]Looks like Reagan had insurgents in his mist. WARNING, complex material discussed.

[/quote]This guy publically mentioned he voted for Obama. Fried also believes the gov't has the right to tax people based on behavior that costs society as a whole.

I guess Reagan was a true leader and wasn't afraid to appoint qualified people who didn't necessarily toe the "party line" 100%.

Anywho, looks like the President needs to abide by the Federal judges decsion, or appeal to the SC.....good luck with that.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;781982]This guy publicly mentioned he voted for Obama. Fried also believes the gov't has the right to tax people based on behavior that costs society as a whole.

I guess Reagan was a true leader and wasn't afraid to appoint qualified people who didn't necessarily toe the "party line" 100%.

Anywho, looks like the President needs to abide by the Federal judges decision, or appeal to the SC.....good luck with that.[/quote]

The government does indeed have the right to tax people based on behavior (see alcohol and cigarette excise tax) but in reality they don't have to justify the reason behind an excise tax at all. You can't knock the guy for supporting Obama and stating the obvious when it comes to the constitutionality of excise taxes. Remember, if it isn't unconstitutional when challenged it is constitutional until the next successful challenge.

The score is 2-2 in lower courts and this sucker is heading to the big boys. It's not only Lord Obama who has to appeal. I doubt the boys in black will follow the prescription of the activist judge in Florida... should be interesting to see what happens. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be consequential.

The irony in all of this of course is that the individual mandate was a republican idea...they now can't wait to run away from it. Romney has no hope.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;781985]The government does indeed have the right to tax people based on behavior (see alcohol and cigarette excise tax) but in reality they don't have to justify the reason behind an excise tax at all. You can't knock the guy for supporting Obama and stating the obvious when it comes to the constitutionality of excise taxes. Remember, if it isn't unconstitutional when challenged it is constitutional until the next successful challenge.

The score is 2-2 in lower courts and this sucker is heading to the big boys. It's not only Lord Obama who has to appeal. I doubt the boys in black will follow the prescription of the activist judge in Florida... should be interesting to see what happens. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be consequential.

The irony in all of this of course is that the individual mandate was a republican idea...they now can't wait to run away from it. Romney has no hope.[/quote]
I said back not sure if was this thread or another how all we need to do is look at the failing reform and syrocketing cost to health care in Mass. to see what the Obama plan will do,

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;781985]The government does indeed have the right to tax people based on behavior (see alcohol and cigarette excise tax) but in reality they don't have to justify the reason behind an excise tax at all.[/quote]Philosopically, debatable. Practically, yes. However the difference here is a person is forced to purchased heath care. If I don't want to pay a tax on cig, beer, gas, etc. I can chose not to buy them.

[quote]You can't knock the guy for supporting Obama[/quote]Again, very much up for debate :laughing-

[quote]The score is 2-2 in lower courts and this sucker is heading to the big boys. It's not only Lord Obama who has to appeal. I doubt the boys in black will follow the prescription of the activist judge in Florida... should be interesting to see what happens. Whatever the ruling it is sure to be consequential.[/quote]At the end of the day I think we'll see a 5-4 ruling against Obamacare.

[quote]The irony in all of this of course is that the individual mandate was a republican idea...they now can't wait to run away from it. Romney has no hope.[/quote]I wouldn't say none, but he's sure dug himself a good sized hole.

Re: Obama Care
 

The reason they want to force people on health care is because that the only way Obama can push this plan. He wants to force the healthy people to buy ins to pay for all the people with conditions that will now get put into the system.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;782028]Philosopically, debatable. Practically, yes. However the difference here is a person is forced to purchased heath care. If I don't want to pay a tax on cig, beer, gas, etc. I can chose not to buy them.

Again, very much up for debate :laughing-

At the end of the day I think we'll see a 5-4 ruling against Obamacare.

I wouldn't say none, but he's sure dug himself a good sized hole.[/quote]

People who own a home get a tax break at the end of the year. You can choose not to buy a home in which case you won't get a tax break..or should I say get renter taxed. You are free to choose. The fee is a tax and waver of the fee is a tax break...it is all a matter of semantics and antics.

Re: Obama Care
 

With all this said if Obama care is overturned I still like to see some type of reform.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;782104]With all this said if Obama care is overturned I still like to see some type of reform.[/quote]

There has to be.

Re: Obama Care
 

Middle class can now get Medcaid.

So they just found this little error in the health care bill that they did not read. Funny how thing are missed when something is not read and I wonder how many other things are hidden in those pages.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43490650/ns/health-health_care]Millions in middle-class could get Medicaid - Health - Health care - msnbc.com[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;807836]Middle class can now get Medcaid.

So they just found this little error in the health care bill that they did not read. Funny how thing are missed when something is not read and I wonder how many other things are hidden in those pages.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43490650/ns/health-health_care]Millions in middle-class could get Medicaid - Health - Health care - msnbc.com[/url][/quote]

So you're saying the bill should have included a clause that excluded middle class from Medicaid thus making the bill longer and harder to read? If only Cain was president...this whole healthcare bill could have been concisely written on 3 pages.

Don't worry, the fixable will be fixed with more words through the amendment process.

Re: Obama Care
 

The well for healthcare reform has been poisoned. Republicans have demagogued a position they once firmly espoused - the individual mandate. Without it, I don't see how we bring down costs, while make healthcare affordable and accessible for everyone. I hear a lot of Republicans talking about repeal and replace, but it's going to be extremely difficult to insure the majority of Americans without including, at the very least, some elements of Affordable Care Act.

Firstdown, Mass residents really like the plan instituted under Romney. It would be nice to see the media cover that story at some point.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;807866]The well for healthcare reform has been poisoned. [B]Republicans have demagogued a position they once firmly espoused - the individual mandate[/B]. Without it, I don't see how we bring down costs, while make healthcare affordable and accessible for everyone. I hear a lot of Republicans talking about repeal and replace, but it's going to be extremely difficult to insure the majority of Americans without including, at the very least, some elements of Affordable Care Act.

Firstdown, Mass residents really like the plan instituted under Romney. It would be nice to see the media cover that story at some point.[/quote]

Your joking right. The Dems had control of all branches of government and could have signed any bill they wanted.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;807855]So you're saying the bill should have included a clause that excluded middle class from Medicaid thus making the bill longer and harder to read? If only Cain was president...this whole healthcare bill could have been concisely written on 3 pages.

Don't worry, the fixable will be fixed with more words through the amendment process.[/quote]


[url=http://www.mrctv.org/videos/jon-stewart-mocks-herman-cain-he-doesnt-read]Jon Stewart Mocks Herman Cain: He Doesn't 'Like to Read' | MRC TV[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;807855]So you're saying the bill should have included a clause that excluded middle class from Medicaid thus making the bill longer and harder to read? If only Cain was president...this whole healthcare bill could have been concisely written on 3 pages.

Don't worry, the fixable will be fixed with more words through the amendment process.[/quote]

No they added wording that would make them covered.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;807875]Your joking right. The Dems had control of all branches of government and could have signed any bill they wanted.[/quote]

It seems yoi're missing the point.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;807889]It seems yoi're missing the point.[/quote]
What did I miss.

Re: Obama Care
 

I'm simply saying the irony of the entire healthcare debate, and this thread, is that Republicans at one time wanted a plan very similar to "Obamacare". Today they act as though it was spawned from the depths of hades.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=12thMan;807904]I'm simply saying the irony of the entire healthcare debate, and this thread, is that Republicans at one time wanted a plan very similar to "Obamacare". Today they act as though it was spawn from the depths of hades.[/quote]

I guess I did miss that one. When did they do that or want that?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;807905]I guess I did miss that one. When did they do that or want that?[/quote]

Some during the Clinton era, some more recently. Since Obama was elected they've all, to a man, walked away from it like it was leprosy. The Heritage Foundation, a very prominent Republican think tank, was for it sometime ago, now they've deemed it unconstitutional.

Here's an article talking about it, there are plenty more out there that might have a more conservative point of view. In their defense, Heritage says their plan wasn't exactly like Obama's and that it didn't require a government takeover. (neither does Obama's plan) To that I say bullpucky because how they were for the individual mandate, yet against the government implementing I'm not quite sure about. Maybe Sliggin can explain that one to me.

[URL="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/04/19/conservatives-run-from-the-individual-mandate-they-once-embraced"]Conservatives Run From the Individual Mandate They Once Embraced - John A. Farrell (usnews.com)[/URL]

Re: Obama Care
 

Ok, now I get what your talking about. I don't know enough about what they had proposed back then and this article does not go into any details. That might be by design or a lazy author.

Re: Obama Care
 

[url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/bush-appointed-former-scalia-clerk-upholds-constitutionality-of-health-care-law.php?ref=fpa]Bush-Appointed Former Scalia Clerk Upholds Constitutionality Of Health Care Law On Appeal | TPMDC[/url]