Question by future: Will the frivilous, politically motivated lawsuits against the Healthcare Bill be dismissed…?
…exactly as the frivilous “Birther” lawsuits were?
Then they’ll claim “Obama spent millions to COVER UP the facts” – lol!
Fox TV is so predictable – it’s like figuring out what a room full of Kindergarteners are up to.
The Bill is not unconstitutional – please stop believing the partisan, yellow-journalism hacks on Fox TV.
Best answer:
Answer by Mathais Kwabena
no, because everybody is going to benefit from it.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Popular Posts:
- Medicare Tax? Health Care for the Elderly? Let’s look at the facts about the proposed Medicare Tax … and a medical care program for the aged that already exists! What’s the hurry here? The supporters of the proposed Medicare Tax would have you believe that passage of this controversial bill is urgent … that persons over 5 are deprived of needed medical care because they can’t pay for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Kerr-Mills Law, passed by Congress in 1960 – enabled individual states to guarantee to every elderly person who needs help the health care he or she requires. We call this health program … Health Opportunity for the Elderly. Thousands of people every day are being helped by its generous benefits. And unlike Medicare, which would substantially increase your Social Security Tax payroll deductions, existing programs are being paid for now by a part of your present tax dollar! Medicare? NO. Health Care for the Elderly? YES! ….. 1964 American Medical Association Ad, A5157.
- H.R. 3590 – The Health Care Reform Bill as passed on March 21, 2010 — Complete text signed by President Barack Obama (also known as “Health Reform” and … Act 2009 / 2010″) 2,409 pages — Searchable
- 2012 U.S. Healthcare PPACA: Supreme Court Decision and What Really Matters to Doctors and Hospitals
- Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill HR3200 – Key Points
- I need pros and cons about Obama’s healthcare reform bill…?
Considering the huge unfunded state mandates in the new law, not to mention the Constitutional issues, I don’t see why you would use the term, frivolous.
Yes because the suits that I have seen thus far are based on fanciful legal arguments and/or ignore approximately 60 years of Supreme Court precedent when attempting to support their claims. The Commerce Clause arguments are particularly fallacious because the legislation specifically designates the mandates as taxes and as such the Court will defer to the taxing authority of the federal government. The suits will never even make it to the Supreme Court docket.
Yeah.. the frivolous ones – will be.
The rest will be a real challenge to (what you’re calling) a HEALTH BILL… on the basis of OVERSTEPPING what CAN be done by our government.
Obama is a Marxist. The “end justifies the means”. So the fact Obama is circumventing Senate filibuster rules matters little to stupid media fawning elites. Obama is the most arrogant President in history. For all you stupid Obama voters out there, do you dopes realize that this the alleged stupid “benefits” you get from this thing don’t take effect until 2014(but the taxes on You, yes You middle class and poor persons, take effect immediately). Would you buy an insurance policy from your insurance company where you pay premiums for 4 years and get no benefits? Apparently too many Obama voters would. They would rather accept the lie from this false prophet Obama even though in reality what is being promised by Obama is just that, a lie.
I am sorry you think the Constitution is “frivolous”, but then so does your President. And by the way, check your spelling next time.
No as States Attorney Generals do not file frivolous suits they know better