Obamacare is the law of the land

But so is Roe v Wade and DOMA.  And so was Dred Scott. And separate but equal and every other Jim Crow law for that matter.

Laws are enacted and repealed — well not so much repealed anymore. But simply being the law of the land doesn’t entitle it from alteration or repeal. I expect my Representatives and Senators to hinder bad law…that’s their job.


  1. Amen!

    Not to mention… It’s the EXECUTIVE’s job to EXECUTE law. But, Obama has unilaterally changed this “law of the land”. Anyone who would throw “settled law” in our face should have a major problem with ONE MAN deciding whether or not it should be followed.

  2. Just got word from my company that “due to changes in healthcare legislation” our private healthcare premiums will be going up. I find out in November just how much. YAY!

    • I just got the notice today. The emvelope said that there was important info about how the ACA was going to effect my insurance. Im one of the lucky ones. Being a federal employee my insurance already meets the minimum standards and wont change….for now.

  3. I expect my representatives to: 1) not pass bad laws; and 2) “hinder” or repeal bad laws in a way consistent with the Constitution and common sense. ObamaCare, plain and simple, is the law of the land and it should be funded until its repealed.

    • I still have a problem with it. The Senate majority leader at the time classified the ACA as a spending bill so that it would only take 51 votes to pass instead of the usual 60 which it wouldnt have gotten. It was voted on before nearly anyone read it. The ACA is the text book example of how Democrats believe its ok to behave legislatively. Just do what you want regardless of law or rules because their way is whats best whether you know it or not.

      • John,

        That’s something that should have been dealt with at the time. It wasn’t, so now the bill is law and we should fund it. You can’t cry “foul” four years after the fact just because it’s now ready to go into full effect.

  4. paynehollow says:

    But if a law passes – and survives legal challenges and multiple attempts to overturn it – then it IS the law of the land. It’s not like Congress (ie, “We,” ie, our representatives) can pass laws but then say, “Yah, we’re not going to fund the laws we pass, though…” Paying their bills is part of their job.

    None of us likes every policy passed and the costs that might be associated with them. The process – if you don’t like a policy – is to muster the votes necessary to overturn it. Not paying your bills that you don’t like is not an option. They are legally obliged to pay for their own programs they voted in.

    • They are not legally obligated to fund every program. In fact its congress’ job to decide what to fund.

      I suppose you then supported the slavery and jim crow laws and the Defense of Marriage Act right? DOMA is law.

  5. paynehollow says:

    John, do you think that if a corporation’s board of directors implemented a plan that cost $x and 1/4 of the board didn’t approve of it, that the 1/4 minority should be allowed to make some ruling that causes that company to say, “You know what? We’re not going to pay our bills we’ve accrued/instituted…”? Or do you think they should be expected to, you know, actually pay their bills?

    Of course, we all have to pay our bills. If my wife spends something I didn’t agree with, it’s not like I can say, “Well, we’re not going to pay for that visa bill!” We all have to pay for what we buy.


  6. paynehollow says:

    And for what it’s worth, I don’t necessarily agree with the whole of the ACA. Doesn’t matter that I might not like it all, though, it’s the law of the land.

  7. paynehollow says:

    Yes, I opposed slavery and DOMA, and would have/do work to overturn it. Legally. By winning over the majority of my fellow citizens with logical arguments. Not by refusing to pay my bills until the majority goes along with me.

    And if the majority of our representatives opposed ACA, it wouldn’t have passed. THEY voted for it.

    John, do you think that if we vote to invade another nation, that Congress can rationally/morally choose to not pay their soldiers they sent overseas and not supply them with their weaponry and food?

  8. paynehollow says:


    Funny how you dont think 1/4 should be able to change the rules because of their sensibilities but we should change rules because of .01%.

    But I’m not saying that .01% of us want something. Make it happen or we’ll destroy the nation. I’m saying, “here’s the rationale for agreeing with this point…” and winning over my fellow citizens with reason and morality.

    (and I don’t even know what topic you’re speaking of for .01%, but I’m guessing it has something to do with homosexuality…)

  9. paynehollow says:

    ? Are you saying that a current congress does not have to pay the bills incurred by the former congress? Surely not.


  10. paynehollow says:

    It is the Affordable Care ACT, a program voted on and supported by the majority of our representatives whom we put in place. We are obliged to pay our bills.

    • No it no longer is supported by the majority of our representatives. Hence the shutdown. We are no obligated to fund it. It is the congress who decides whether to fund it.

      You really should read the constitution some time. Youd learn a lot.

  11. Terrance,

    Whether an act or law is funded is always and has always been decided by Congress. It is in their realm of duty to decide to fund or not fund. There’s no “should” about funding, but only about funding a specific law or bill based on the merits of the law. Obamacare is stupid law. Any legal means to stop it are worthwhile and righteous.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: