Liberty and Justice for SOME?!

Universal Healthcare...NOT SO "Universal"

So, the question is: If Obamacare is "the answer," then why are 111 waivers (so far), necessary?

How many lies, did you just hear?  If Obamacare will save us money, please explain this next video:

THE TRUTH IS: OBAMACARE IS A FAILURE!

(Preamble to the US Constitution)

"...promote the general Welfare..."

The whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. Anything provided by the federal government that does NOT benefit EVERY STATE AND CITIZEN ALIKE, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Because this is not "General Welfare," if is "Specific Welfare."  That sounds an awful lot like special interest favors on the taxpayers' dime.

(The Pledge of Allegiance)

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1. to the republic: We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.  A Republic protects the rights of all; A Democracy protects the rights and will of the majority (Two wolves and one sheep deciding what is for dinner).
2. liberty and justice for all: FOR ALL, NOT MOST (See bullet point #1)

We are a nation of Laws, not Men

All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader.^[23] At the same time, the federal government does have considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion,^[24] and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.

Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted a particular interpretation of the "rule of law," and if so, which one. For example, Law Professor John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria," and therefore judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such unwritten and vague criteria.^[25]

James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void.