Christopher Shays, Republican candidate for United States Senate released this statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.
"The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the individual healthcare mandate just reaffirms the need to send someone to the United States Senate who has the ability to repeal this destructive law. Obamacare is one of the worst government infringements on our individual liberties and personal freedoms in my generation. This was a power grab of the U.S. health care system by Chris Murphy, a Democratic Congress and the Obama Administration.
The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s healthcare plan is constitutional based on the fact that the individual mandate is a tax, in spite of the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Administration repeatedly insisted it was not a tax. This hypocrisy is why Americans have a right to be fed up with Washington.
Obamacare is increasing health insurance premiums, reducing patient choice, threatening the quality of care, and impeding medical progress. On top of that, six years of Obamacare ‘benefits’ are paid for with ten years of taxes.
Obamacare takes $500 billion away from Medicare, a vital program for our senior citizens that was already heading for insolvency, and uses it for other purposes.
Now more than ever we need experienced leaders who can navigate the process so that we can repeal the President’s so-called “Affordable Healthcare Act.”
The federal government does have a role in healthcare, such as Medicare, Medicaid, community-based healthcare programs, and providing healthcare to veterans, and active military. But a federal mandate was always the wrong approach. We need a patient/doctor approach that promotes both quality care and cost savings and allows citizens within each state to determine the kind of healthcare programs they want. The right direction for healthcare reform includes tort reform, healthcare pooling and purchase across state lines.
If I’m elected to the United States Senate I am determined to repeal Obamacare, and I have the experience and knowledge to do it.”
Editor's note: This article originally was published on Monday, July 16. The time stamp has been changed for layout purposes on the Home page of Darien Patch.
FK, myriad authorities who KNOW Obama much better than you, such as Van Jones, Frances Fox Piven, Dinesh DiSouza, Victor Davis Hanson, Pamela Geller, Stanley Kurtz, Dr. John Drew (Obama's Occidental classmate), Paul Kengor and many, many more have rightly identified Obama (or at least his intentions) as socialist or worse!! Those who are not willfully blind will be interested in this first-hand testament to Obama's "socialism": "I was President Obama’s college classmate at Columbia University, Class of '83. Almost every one of my classmates were openly socialist or Marxist, with many of these leftist radicals calling for an end to capitalism and “bringing down the system” by destroying the U.S. economy with entitlements, debt, and crisis. "That’s why I have predicted in thousands of media interviews from the first days of Obama's presidency that Obama is a radical, with a deep-seated hatred of business owners, a desire to demonize us and destroy America’s faith in capitalism, and a plan to bring down the system by overwhelming our economy with debt and crisis -- just as we all learned and discussed at Columbia in our college days."... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/17/obama-and-our-government-have-hurt-me-not-helped-me-every-step-way/
Could you please document that study? Can I guess you obtained it from a far left publication? Or maybe a personal injury lawyer website... Can you show statistically how it was harder for victims to find lawyers? Are you saying lawyers left Texas? Or that they were less willing to take cases? Wonder why that would be ? Texas capped the noneconomic award at 250k..but didnt cap anything else. Now personal injury lawyers feel as though 75k plus 1/3 of damages would not be worth helping a legitimate victim? There is ample evidence to back up the notion that tort reform would reduce medical costs. Ample... dont delude yourself that the threat of civil suits raise costs....the only thing in question would be if malpractice would increase without the threat of high awards.
YOu just typed over 15 words without calling me a bigot? I see that you had no words with a B in them, so that would explain it.... keyboard issues....
If you have a business, you didnt build it.. hmmm he has said it now 3 times, and so does elizabeth warren...same exact mantra...but fred ridiculously says "wow -how many playbooks are there?" great question --do you really think only 1 playbook exists? Is that your take in the world....that group over there has a playbook, and to suggest someone else has a playbook , reflects a bizarre paranoia? Man this guy cant think. Yep fred there is the saul alinsky playbook--the DNC playbook the MSNBC playbook... and ( sit down fred) there are actually others who have certain methodologies. Your favorite is to say " he IS NOT!!! and You act like a conservative blogger!!!! (really? wow you act like a liberal blogger, but Im willing to provide facts and evidence when furthering my concepts...youre style is " you are wrong, you blogger!! ( not rolling my eyes. My eyes show genuine concern for you. Sincere concern!)
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/25/random_thoughts
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-2402096.html From the article: A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.
I agree with Romney. And if you read I say that its fair to say that businessmen dont do it alone either. That the notion of " I did it all on my own" is ridicuolous. So, I agree with Romney when he says you didnt do it all on your own. Obama says "You didnt build it." If Romney had said you are not the reason you are here--that would be as offensive as Obama. But he said you had help..... which I agree with--both in business and in nearly everything.
5:23 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012 Luca -- I've grown bored of you. Now you say youre reading. Haha Cant reply with that definition, that would ruin your argument--so the best thing is to say " Oh....I know longer have interest in what you say." But then, of course, idiotically, you tell me you read what I say--- awesome thought process. You think you 'got me" with the "how many playbooks blah blah..." One ? Yeah dude... of the billions of people on this planet or the hundreds of millions of people in this country, fred tries to riducule by saying " how many playbooks are there? More than 1??? Duh. Oh (in yogi bear voice) yes Fred there is only 1 playbook, Have you dismissed any arguments today, because they have an association with Fox? haha...Ill bet you have... let me go and see the objectivity on your news source --msnbc where the hostility is rampant, and the ridicule is just beyond the scope....
(BTW - nice assumption. I watched MSNBC years ago, came to the conclusion that it was awful, and never watched it again.)
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." He was saying that small business owners didn't build the bridges and roads that they rely on. To suggest otherwise is a deliberate distortion of his words.
It's like no one can say anything without it being distorted. We are not even immune to that kind of distortion here on this web site. There are certain people here who love to take what you've said and feed it back to you in distorted form, then demand that you explain the misrepresentation.
- Abraham Lincoln
Telling people that there were going to be Death Panels, or that this was a government takeover of health care certainly worked to create opposition to the law. Unfortunately neither claim is or was ever true. Republican politicians were united in opposition to the law solely to deny Obama a political victory (see Sen. Demint's Waterloo comment). When people actually learn about what is included in the Law they are more likely to be in favor of it. The provisions around not denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, or no lifetime cap, or allowing those 26 and under to be on their parent's policies are all popular provisions. And don't forget that the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is an idea that originated with the Republican party.
-Abraham Lincoln, "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions" address before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois" January 27, 1838
But, consider, many of the claims that the Obama administration and Democracts have made about the law are also sensationalism mascarading as fact. The most obvious is the also the biggest one - the O administration has repeatedly claimed that the level, type and quality of care will not suffer under the Act while at the same time not adding to the net cost to taxpayers. This is simply not true. If you suddenly give healthcare coverage to millions of americans, you either have to spend more money doing it or you have to cut the quality or scale of servics offered. There is no pixie dust that makes more and better healthcare suddenly appear for free.
Here's another one of my favorite quotes from our 40th president and also very appropriate: "As government expands, liberty contracts"
as you start your diatribe with "the division that exists ...is attributable to republicans.... and end with 'dont forget the individual mandate is an idea that origninated with the republican PARTY (I emphasise party, because you also take exception to mischaracterizations). Now put the first and last sentence togther.... If the individual mandate had the support of the republican party and didnt pass--then who opposed it? The democrats? If that is the case, then you should hesitate a bit about blaming the division on republicans. However, if the individual mandate was not accepted by either the republicans or democrats as a whole, when initially proposed, then either you are overstating the idea that the republican party was for it or you have to blame democrats for not accepting it when first proposed.... either way you have boxed yourself in...sorry.
as you start your diatribe with "the division that exists ...is attributable to republicans.... and end with 'dont forget the individual mandate is an idea that origninated with the republican PARTY (I emphasise party, because you also take exception to mischaracterizations). Now put the first and last sentence togther.... If the individual mandate had the support of the republican party and didnt pass--then who opposed it? The democrats? If that is the case, then you should hesitate a bit about blaming the division on republicans. However, if the individual mandate was not accepted by either the republicans or democrats as a whole, when initially proposed, then either you are overstating the idea that the republican party was for it or you have to blame democrats for not accepting it when first proposed.... either way you have boxed yourself in...sorry.
What makes me think that when they start paying that, obama will still villify them as making too much? He needs someone to blame--that's his style...and I dont think he will stop at 43% ..... the guy doesnt make things better....he just targets people.