Supreme Court upholds President Obama's health care bill

[ralpht]

Any thoughts on this?

[chidrummer]

Finally!!!! a Supreme Court decision you can believe in.

[ralpht]

What I find extremely interesting is Justice Roberts, a dyed in the wool Conservative, Sided with the President and voted to uphold the law.

[chidrummer]

Roberts seems to be saying that although the Federal Government would have no right to the mandate under the Commerce Clause [[ I would argue that), they do under the Federal Tax Code [[true that). If you equate the fine for
remaining uninsured [[and therefore not being individually responsible, Republicans!!!) as a form a tax [[which in practice, it is) then The Feds already have this power and therefore are in compliance with the Constitution and Federal statues.

Kind of the long way around if you ask me, but Roberts got to the right parking spot anyway. Good for him. The four dissenting opinions pretty much reek of partisanship [[big surprise there). All and all a good day for democracy. My hope is that down the line a bit, we will move away from all this contrivance and simply transition into a single payer format and join the rest of the civilized world.

[Roberta75]

Any thoughts on this?

Sending praise the Lord and thanks and blessings to the Supreme Court. This was the right thing to do and my God continue to bless President Obama.

Roberta

[chidrummer]

Faux News?! getting it wrong,as usual, but CNN ought to have known better. Great PhotoShop:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/h...154347515.html

[soulster]

What I find extremely interesting is Justice Roberts, a dyed in the wool Conservative, Sided with the President and voted to uphold the law.

Yeah! They can't pin this one on the "Obama liberal" supreme court! LOL! Just like with the SB1070 ruling, this is another win for Obama!

I talked with a couple of hard-right conservatives this morning and they were not happy, to say the least! One said that the Supreme Court doesn't have any regard for the law! Ha!

[Jerry Oz]

Very interesting. I wondered who involved taxation as a consideration to begin with? I doubt the solicitor general used it. Did the opposition bring it up as point to overturn the law and give the majority the rationale to support it? That would be GREAT!

[antceleb12]

I'm going to have to dissent on this one. I am not in favor of "Obamacare." One of the main issues I have with it is that the government should not try to fix this mess by forcing small businesses to buy into expensive insurance plans, or by making those Americans who cannot afford insurance to pay a penalty. Paying a penalty for not being able to afford, or get, insurance? A former director of mine is gay, and because he is, he could not get proper life insurance [[we live basically in the "Bible Beltway"). A couple of years ago he suffered a heart attack. Because he couldn't get insurance, he has to pay, out of pocket, for his medical bills and medications for the rest of his life. Fortunately, he now has some insurance that is picking up some of the costs [[which he is struggling to afford). However, if he didn't have that, he would have to have paid a penalty on top of these bills he has. Instead of cornering Americans into buying insurance that many don't have the luxury of paying for, or don't have a job that puts them on their plan, the government should examine and fix the issues within healthcare.

There are other issues of which I won't get into here, but that is one of my reasons why I don't support this bill.

[Jerry Oz]

If ACA is not the solution, tell me what is being done so that I am not paying for the health care of millions of Americans who don't have insurance, yet use medical services? They drive up the cost of my insurance and medical care by increasing demand for limited supply of services.

So, is it fair that I am forced to pay more so that some can get it for free? Government has refused to fix the problem with healthcare and that's what led to this act. From my own perspective, in 20 years of performing basically the same job, I went from having a plan with a $10 co-pay to a plan that has a $2,100 deductible. Should I have a prescription, I pay the full cost of it until my deductible is met. Same for my doctors' visits. I come to work sick sometimes because it costs too much to visit the doctor when the full cost comes out of pocket until the deductible is met. People railing against the bill have no problem with Americans with insurance footing the bill of those without.

[jobeterob]

As I remember, that Jeffrey Tobin guy from CNN thought this never had a chance; and he was very wrong.

Sometimes, conservative judges can also be conservative in their desire to interfere with the right of a Government to legislate and perhaps Justice Roberts thinks that way.

[antceleb12]

If ACA is not the solution, tell me what is being done so that I am not paying for the health care of millions of Americans who don't have insurance, yet use medical services? They drive up the cost of my insurance and medical care by increasing demand for limited supply of services.

So, is it fair that I am forced to pay more so that some can get it for free? Government has refused to fix the problem with healthcare and that's what led to this act. From my own perspective, in 20 years of performing basically the same job, I went from having a plan with a $10 co-pay to a plan that has a $2,100 deductible. Should I have a prescription, I pay the full cost of it until my deductible is met. Same for my doctors' visits. I come to work sick sometimes because it costs too much to visit the doctor when the full cost comes out of pocket until the deductible is met. People railing against the bill have no problem with Americans with insurance footing the bill of those without.

I am against the bill because it still screws over so many people as the current situation does. Now would I physically vote against it? No. While I don't agree with many aspects of the bill, I realize that with or without this bill, our U.S. healthcare has and will have its share of problems.

While the bill IS helping A LOT of people, it is also hurting A LOT of people. I am no politician and I don't know how to fix the healthcare system so it works out for everyone. And I know that isn't possible, at least not in the foreseeable future. But what I do know is that taxing people who can't afford, or don't opt for, the more expensive healthcare plans is not the answer.

According to John Boehner, about 87 million Americans might lose access to their current healthcare providers. About 80% of small businesses could lose their current coverage.
Plus, the ACA is rewarding 'quality' rather than 'quantity'. Yes, that's a plus in that better treatment centers get rewarded, however, the bill could cut the amount of physicians available to treat Americans - resulting in a lessened quality of care provided by a smaller selection of physicians who are overworked trying to account for the increasing number of patients covered by this bill.

Also, billions of dollars in annual fees will be imposed upon manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescriptions , with new taxes on sales of devices. Basically, these fees will trickle down to higher product prices and healthcare premiums. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with this bill, healthcare costs could rise from the $2.1 billion from 2011 to $18.2 billion in 2018.

Now I realize there are many, many ways in which people are effected POSITIVELY by this bill, but I don't like the adverse affects that come with this bill.

Again, I won't vote against it, either, because either way, our healthcare system sucks. And it's gonna keep having problems even with this new bill in place. Either way, someone's not gonna be happy.

[soulster]

According to John Boehner, about 87 million Americans might lose access to their current healthcare providers. About 80% of small businesses could lose their current coverage.

He's wrong.

[Jerry Oz]

If you take John Boehner to be an objective voice in this debate, then God bless you. Boehner can spot what's wrong with a lot, but as Speaker of the House, he can't find one thing to fix. What's his job again? That's right, to obstruct and counter anything [[good or bad) that this president does. What a joke.

[smark21]

One of the ironic aspects of the entire American healthcare debate is that the individual mandate was originally proposed by the right wing think tank the Heritage Foundation. Obama’s healthcare plan is essentially the same plan that was put into law in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor and in 2008 during his failed bid for the GOP nomination, Romney ran on his health care plan. But when Obama decided to endorse the individual mandate, conservatives turned against it en masse even though they were the ones who first proposed it.

[antceleb12]

If you take John Boehner to be an objective voice in this debate, then God bless you. Boehner can spot what's wrong with a lot, but as Speaker of the House, he can't find one thing to fix. What's his job again? That's right, to obstruct and counter anything [[good or bad) that this president does. What a joke.

I don't know much about Boehner, and don't consider myself a Democrat OR a Republican. What I got from Boehner was only the statistics [[87 mil Americans/80% of small businesses), so if that's questionable, I'll do more research on that. But still, I am concerned about how the quality of care will change, as well as the prices and premiums. I don't have much faith that things will be cheaper for everyone. For some people, sure; but for others, things will either remain the same or become more expensive.

One of the ironic aspects of the entire American healthcare debate is that the individual mandate was originally proposed by the right wing think tank the Heritage Foundation. Obama’s healthcare plan is essentially the same plan that was put into law in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor and in 2008 during his failed bid for the GOP nomination, Romney ran on his health care plan. But when Obama decided to endorse the individual mandate, conservatives turned against it en masse even though they were the ones who first proposed it.

That's very interesting. I'll have to look into that one. So are you saying that Obama's health care plan was essentially Romney's?

[Jerry Oz]

That's very interesting. I'll have to look into that one. So are you saying that Obama's health care plan was essentially Romney's?

President Obama has proposed initiatives beyond this that were first put forth by the GOP. Whenever he tries to get them to buy on, they refuse to support their own proposals because they refuse to do anything that he can take credit for, even if he has to share the credit.

[Roberta75]

I am against the bill because it still screws over so many people as the current situation does. Now would I physically vote against it? No. While I don't agree with many aspects of the bill, I realize that with or without this bill, our U.S. healthcare has and will have its share of problems.

While the bill IS helping A LOT of people, it is also hurting A LOT of people. I am no politician and I don't know how to fix the healthcare system so it works out for everyone. And I know that isn't possible, at least not in the foreseeable future. But what I do know is that taxing people who can't afford, or don't opt for, the more expensive healthcare plans is not the answer.

According to John Boehner, about 87 million Americans might lose access to their current healthcare providers. About 80% of small businesses could lose their current coverage.
Plus, the ACA is rewarding 'quality' rather than 'quantity'. Yes, that's a plus in that better treatment centers get rewarded, however, the bill could cut the amount of physicians available to treat Americans - resulting in a lessened quality of care provided by a smaller selection of physicians who are overworked trying to account for the increasing number of patients covered by this bill.

Also, billions of dollars in annual fees will be imposed upon manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescriptions , with new taxes on sales of devices. Basically, these fees will trickle down to higher product prices and healthcare premiums. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with this bill, healthcare costs could rise from the $2.1 billion from 2011 to $18.2 billion in 2018.

Now I realize there are many, many ways in which people are effected POSITIVELY by this bill, but I don't like the adverse affects that come with this bill.

Again, I won't vote against it, either, because either way, our healthcare system sucks. And it's gonna keep having problems even with this new bill in place. Either way, someone's not gonna be happy.

John Boehner is using scare tactics which is what the Republicans do when cornered. Do you watch Fox News a lot? I'm reading a lot of Republican/Fox News talking points in your post.

Roberta

[antceleb12]

President Obama has proposed initiatives beyond this that were first put forth by the GOP. Whenever he tries to get them to buy on, they refuse to support their own proposals because they refuse to do anything that he can take credit for, even if he has to share the credit.

I can't say I'm surprised in the least. This is partly why I hate involving myself with politics...they drive me up a wall!

John Boehner is using scare tactics which is what the Republicans do when cornered. Do you watch Fox News a lot? I'm reading a lot of Republican/Fox News talking points in your post.

I actually don't! The Republican side of me you're seeing is my father, lol. Great, great man, but stubborn and opinionated, too. Can't shake the Republican out of him.

[soulster]

I can't say I'm surprised in the least. This is partly why I hate involving myself with politics...they drive me up a wall!



I actually don't! The Republican side of me you're seeing is my father, lol. Great, great man, but stubborn and opinionated, too. Can't shake the Republican out of him.

Sounds like my friend Kathy! Her father is so far-right that he thinks Clinton was responsible for us invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

[soulster]

President Obama has proposed initiatives beyond this that were first put forth by the GOP. Whenever he tries to get them to buy on, they refuse to support their own proposals because they refuse to do anything that he can take credit for, even if he has to share the credit.

That's right! All of these things: universal health care coverage, immigration reform and the DREAM act, were both republican ideas and bills, and were put forth by prominent republicans until a Democrat tried to make them law. So far, Obama is the only one who has had the balls to actually do anything about it. Republicans hate it when liberals and/or Democrats have the spine to do anything bold.

[antceleb12]

Republicans hate it when liberals and/or Democrats have the spine to do anything bold.

Not all are like that! Maybe just the ones in public office, lol. My father has always been very, very fair when it came to politics. In fact, I thought he should have gone into it. I've met many Republicans who are completely fair and can admit when a Democrat is right. I've also met Republicans who are as close minded as a bigot. But then again, I've met Democrats who were both of those things.

[soulster]

I've also met Republicans who are as close minded as a bigot.

Yup. That describes virtually every single republican i've ever met.

[smark21]

Here's an article that perfectly sums up the debate:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...way-comes.html

[tamla617]

i cant understand why anyone wouldnt want people to have health care

[MotownSteve]

Did anyone notice that in the clip where Mitch McConnell criticizes the Supreme Court's decision, he is essentially alone?

[soulster]

i cant understand why anyone wouldnt want people to have health care

They don't care. For them, it's all about them not wanting the government telling them they have to have insurance. For the rest of them, they care about the ability for the insurance companies to make a profit. I talk to people like this, and they all have lots of money. They never have to worry about medical coverage.

Did anyone notice that in the clip where Mitch McConnell criticizes the Supreme Court's decision, he is essentially alone?

I saw a clip on either Faux or CNN where some guy wanted to impeach...Justice Elena Kagan because Obama appointed her. These republicans have really lost their minds!

[Jerry Oz]

Not all are like that! Maybe just the ones in public office, lol.

The ones in public office signed a pledge from Grover Nordquist to NEVER raise taxes. As in: no situation possible would they consider it.

Although nobody wants to raise taxes, to swear to a position where it's not even to be considered is the height of partisan politics. Check out the votes in Congress over the last three years. Whereas some Democrats swing to the Republican side, you'll find almost zero Republicans voting in favor of anything the president supports. If you were a Republican in Washington and you tried to work across party lines, you would be a one-term congressman. So, when you say not all are like that, where are the ones who disagree? Your dad still supports these tools, so he is like that in action, if not in words.

[antceleb12]

Your dad still supports these tools, so he is like that in action, if not in words.

Incorrect. My father supports almost no one is public office. He is a Republican in terms of his beliefs and ideas, but not in terms of who he supports. He is very frustrated with both the Republican and Democratic parties. Frankly, I don't know who he votes for, and frankly, I don't care. He's a good man with only the best interest in this country, and he is a Republican. It is possible for good people to be Republicans.

[marv2]

"Oh Happy Day"! Now it is onward and upward I hope. I also hope that the American public will demand further action out of Congress to move along legislation affecting the economy.

[marv2]

They don't care. For them, it's all about them not wanting the government telling them they have to have insurance. For the rest of them, they care about the ability for the insurance companies to make a profit. I talk to people like this, and they all have lots of money. They never have to worry about medical coverage.

I saw a clip on either Faux or CNN where some guy wanted to impeach...Justice Elena Kagan because Obama appointed her. These republicans have really lost their minds!

Don't you find it a little ironic that you MUST have auto insurance in this country, but not health insurance?

[Jerry Oz]

Incorrect. My father supports almost no one is public office. He is a Republican in terms of his beliefs and ideas, but not in terms of who he supports. He is very frustrated with both the Republican and Democratic parties. Frankly, I don't know who he votes for, and frankly, I don't care. He's a good man with only the best interest in this country, and he is a Republican. It is possible for good people to be Republicans.

Antceleb12: I wasn't disparaging your father, just stating that by supporting the people in question, he is endorsing their actions. That's not a value judgment on him, just a point I was making. It's not even to say that I'm right, just bearing a different opinion.

[Jerry Oz]

Don't you find it a little ironic that you MUST have auto insurance in this country, but not health insurance?

For me, the irony is that the middle classes supports the "country club" health plans for the 1% and also the "free" health care for the uninsured. Now that somebody has finally tried to do something [[whether it is the best plan, or not) the loudest parties on record are the rich and many of those who feel comfortable walking into emergency rooms for band-aids, not caring that by doing so, my insurance premiums skyrocket.

[StuBass1]

Don't you find it a little ironic that you MUST have auto insurance in this country, but not health insurance?

This is not true. There is no federal law requiring automobile insurance. Those are State laws, where driving a car is a privilidge...not a right. The question, which the Supreme Court decided was whether the Federal Government under the Commerce clause could require citizens to purchase a product by mandate. The Supreme Court [[Justice Roberts) skirted that issue by calling the mandate a tax [[which the Federal Government has the right to levy taxes), despite the fact that the health care legislation was promoted as a mandate...not a tax. States have rights to pass laws that the Federal Government does not as stated in The Constitution. Anything not clearly mandated to the Federal Government in The Constitution reverts to the authority of the States.

[MotownSteve]

What gets me is the republicans only talk about getting rid of the whole plan. Dollars to donuts says most of them don't know everything in it. Instead of talking about getting rid of something that passed the legislative, executive and judicial branches, they should move forward and offer modifications to what may be wrong with the plan. My own feeling is that while it does have faults, it is better than anything that has gone before. Just my two cents.

[soulster]

Don't you find it a little ironic that you MUST have auto insurance in this country, but not health insurance?

I posed that exact question to someone last night, and they argued that no one is forced to drive. It was a cop-out answer. Unfortunately, I was at a dinner with friends and wasn't about to get into it with her. She was financially well-off.

[Jerry Oz]

I posed that exact question to someone last night, and they argued that no one is forced to drive. It was a cop-out answer. Unfortunately, I was at a dinner with friends and wasn't about to get into it with her. She was financially well-off.

Soulster, the response to that over-used answer is that nobody is forced to use health care, either. Just as you have to be financially prepared to drive a car, you now have to be financially capable of paying your doctor's bills.

[StuBass1]

I posed that exact question to someone last night, and they argued that no one is forced to drive. It was a cop-out answer. Unfortunately, I was at a dinner with friends and wasn't about to get into it with her. She was financially well-off.

Hey Soulster...how goes it?

As I mentioned in my previous post, and perhaps you missed your Government class the day the 10th Amendment to The U.S. Constitution was discussed...any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government is given back to the individual states, which is why things like driving regulations are a state by state right...not anything the Federal Government has any power over, thus the states can regulate driving privilidges as they see fit, so long as the regulations do not infringe on the bill of rights to the U.S constitution. Federal health care mandates and state regulated driving regulations are two entirely different things. The Federal government ONLY has the powers granted to it by the States as expressed in the U.S Constitution. That concept is referred to as Federalism. The justification for Federally run health care is a part of the Commerce clause in the U.S Constitution. In other words...The States [[who created the Federal government) has certain rights which would be anything not specifically spelled out as a Federal right in the U.S Constitution.

[soulster]

Hey Soulster...how goes it?

As I mentioned in my previous post, and perhaps you missed your Government class the day the 10th Amendment to The U.S. Constitution was discussed...any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government is given back to the individual states, which is why things like driving regulations are a state by state right...not anything the Federal Government has any power over, thus the states can regulate driving privilidges as they see fit, so long as the regulations do not infringe on the bill of rights to the U.S constitution. Federal health care mandates and state regulated driving regulations are two entirely different things. The Federal government ONLY has the powers granted to it by the States as expressed in the U.S Constitution. That concept is referred to as Federalism. The justification for Federally run health care is a part of the Commerce clause in the U.S Constitution. In other words...The States [[who created the Federal government) has certain rights which would be anything not specifically spelled out as a Federal right in the U.S Constitution.

And did you read John Robert's ruling? Here is the key to it:

"Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it."

You see, the republicans are hoping the public won't look too closely at the ruling. You see, Obama knew all of this because, remember, he is a Constitutional lawyer.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...#ixzz1zEOepHtF

[StuBass1]

Yes...Roberts ruling was interesting because despite the President insisting the mandate was NOT a tax, Roberts found that it was indeed a tax, and since Congress has the right to tax, was able to uphold the entire law. Had Roberts taken the position that the mandate was a penalty, then Roberts would have been forced to rule against such a mandate, since the Federal Government cannot force a citizen to purchase a product...in this case health insurance. Roberts treaded this one very carefully, but his justification was that the IRS was charged with enforcing the tax. Now...the only issue is President Obamas pledge to not raise taxes on people making less than 250K a year. That pledge has fallen by the wayside with this new health insurance "tax". Lots of political ramifications here.

[Jerry Oz]

I make less than 250K. How will this affect me? I already have insurance. Call it a tax if you want to, but people who used to use the services that drive up my premiums now will be required to have insurance for them. This is not complicated. It's not about whether the government has the authority to do it. It was made into a win or lose situation and somehow, the squeaky wheels lost. Surprise, surprise. And we'll see where the political ramifications fall. The people who didn't like the law probably weren't going to vote for the president anyway, for whatever reason.

[soulster]

Yes...Roberts ruling was interesting because despite the President insisting the mandate was NOT a tax, Roberts found that it was indeed a tax, and since Congress has the right to tax, was able to uphold the entire law. Had Roberts taken the position that the mandate was a penalty, then Roberts would have been forced to rule against such a mandate, since the Federal Government cannot force a citizen to purchase a product...in this case health insurance. Roberts treaded this one very carefully, but his justification was that the IRS was charged with enforcing the tax. Now...the only issue is President Obamas pledge to not raise taxes on people making less than 250K a year. That pledge has fallen by the wayside with this new health insurance "tax". Lots of political ramifications here.

You and the republicans are still wrong. The only ones who will be taxed are the wealthy who can afford their own insurance, but don't have it, the drug companies, and certain business...like tanning salons. The middle class will not be taxed. On top of that, the tax penalty will not even be enforced! Don't be sucked in by the republican lies that you are hearing today. They just want you to vote for Romney in November, that's all. And, even if they could repeal the "Obamney care", they will have a hard time trying. Just try telling all those senior citizens that you will take away their medicare and lower drug prescriptions! Tell all those immigrant children who were dragged here by their parents that they will have to go back into hiding. Tell all those in the healthcare profession that your will vote for people who seek to take away their new jobs because you don't like what John Roberts did. It ain't gonna happen! Tell women that you will vote for the party that will act hard to restrict health care for women, and remove the right for them to take care of their bodies, and they will instill religiously based strictures on them. Tell gays you want to vote for a party that will force them back into the closet.

I know you call yourself an "independent", but you should stop listening to the republicans. They are lying to you just to get your vote, while Obama is doing all he can to help get out country working again.

The tea-baggers who don't like this law don't want government to work. They don't want Obama to succeed. For the government to actually work will take away their arguments, their purpose for opposition. It will hurt the 1%'ers and corporate America.

[StuBass1]

I don't listen to Republicans or anyone else. I study the issues and the law. My insurance premiums have gone up dramatically since the health care legislation passed. Politicians didn't have to tell me that...my paycheck has told me that. Also, do you realize that the health care legislation actually CUTS medicare funding? Read the law...all 2000+ pages of it. Problem is that many small and mid-sized businesses are not expanding or hiring due to the added costs. Once again...it's not politicians telling me that...it's business owners I personally speak with. There are some good elements to the legislation...pre existing condition coverage, etc...but once the Federal government gets it's hands on anything...it usually gets all F'd up. I've also spoken with Doctors...some in my own family who believe that they will no longer be able to practice patient oriented medicine and fewer students are opting for medical school. Great...more patients and fewer docs being forced to practice "cook book" medicine. Not what I'd call world class medical care.

[juicefree20]

The bottom line is this...

If you were rich enough to afford insurance before, you're good. If you were amongst the poorest & received P.A., you're good. The ones who get screwed & have always gotten screwed have been the working class, especially the working class whom weren't fortunate enough to have worked on a unionized job, therefore being UNABLE to get affordable insurance.

Ironically, many of those are the ones whom seem to be carping the most about this, while being the ones with the most to lose should a health crisis strike them, their spouse or their children.

They're the one who have to worry about losing their home as the cost for hospitalization or treatment for a severe ailment escalates. A lifetime of savings wiped out & lives negatively altered, likely forever because of a lack of a health care system that works for not just the wealthy [[who can afford it) or the poor [[who receive aid), but one which works for EVERYONE.

That this is the situation in what is bragged about being the "greatest" country on earth in unthinkable, as it is unnecessary.

But as long as we have unreasonable, greedy, self-serving people who seem to believe that the only ones whom are entitled to a decent life are themselves, we'll be having arguments such as this until the end of time. It always seems to be "WE" need to suck it up in order for the wealthy to retain their wealth or to be bailed-out. But when something needs to be done for the greater good for ALL, somehow, it then becomes "I".

As in "despite the fact that "I" benefit from all sorts of tax loopholes & the like, "I" shouldn't have to be taxed proportionate to my wealth because if "I" am taxed more fairly, then "I" won't create all of those jobs that "I" wasn't going to create anyway, or have already outsourced or downsized away to begin with."

No "great" nation would want the stench of any of this on their hands, nor in their noses. But somehow, all too many Americans seem to be able to take a deep breath, then wade right through the middle of the smell, somehow believing that none of the smell rubs off on them. And what great "truth" is employed to make them seemingly lose touch with the fact that it has been them whom have been bearing an unfair burden for decades?

"Blame those lazy, ''nigras'', "spics", "mexicans", [[fill in the ethnicity) because none of them finish school, none of them want to work, they use their food stamps to buy drugs & whisky & get high & listen to rap music all day. They all they do is have babies...oh yeah, even though the WPA & welfare WAS NOT created for them in the first place, that damned welfare is what's killing this country!! And what about those damned eeellegal aliens who come here & take all of those jobs, jobs that we really don't want to begin with & never did, with wages than are pretty much what a 15 year-old gets for allowance each week."

But why let any of that get in the way or a really good spin-job? I guess that makes it a little easier when you can blame those "other" folks or "enemies", rather than those who truly "love'' you.

Personally I say, "Don't love me so much". But I guess that's just me.

A blessed country, soon to be cursed all because of their own greed, lack of true concern & lack of compassion for those whom aren't/weren't as fortunate as to have grabbed the brass ring due to their OWN lack of drive, laziness, sense of entitlement, fill in the talking point.

Somehow, a lot of these affluent people labor under the false idea that out of the billions of people on this planet, that through their wisdom, superior skills & great minds have accomplished all that they have all on their own.

Nothing quite like a great delusion to set one's mind at ease. That we're even debating obvious nonsense such as this after the passing of decades is absolutely brain-dead, bordering on lunacy.

"Third World Status" coming soon to a townhouse near you.

[Jerry Oz]

"Third World Status" coming soon to a townhouse near you.

Heck of a way to state it. I read recently where some Libertarian billionaire publicized his principles and among them was "we have to realize that sometimes people die as a result of being poor". Essentially, why should I feel bad if that bum can't afford health insurance? It sucks to be him but I have my own problems. That puts the mindset in focus for who really is against the ACA.

[juicefree20]

Jerry,

It pains me to say it, it scares me to think about it. But when you see & hear how people think these days, what kind of a future can I tell my little grandson that he has?

I'm a 60's kid & I remember all of those schoobooks like "On Cherry Street", "Green Light Go" & the like & the after-school shows like "J.T." where they told us how despite growing up in the ghetto, that despite having to overcome obstacles that we all could make it.

Now college grads are graduating only to discover that they've entered a job force with no jobs & few if any which will pay them according to their sheepskins. Now it wasn't like that when I graduated high school when there was still such a things called an "entry level" job, one in which you could actually work your way up the ladder.

This generation, these folks aren't even trying to sell that crap to these kids today. They're trying to sell them a bunch of empty dreams where boogeymen & immigrant threats lurk everywhere & if only we can rid ourselves of those types of miscreants, we'll all have candies & nuts for Christmas.

These kids know that that's a load of bullshit, just as the kids who protested back in the days of the Civil Rights Era & protested the hypocrisy surrounding the folks who wanted to keep others down, as well as the hypocrisy of sending young Americans to Vietnam to die for shit that had nothing to do with them while protecting the kids of the "chosen" ones. The difference is that these kids aren't going to be marching, they're going to be shooting.

Compared to us, this is the first generation which has been stripped of the one things which is essential to survive & to keep one pushing away at the grindstone...

HOPE!

And as we're seeing on the 11:00 news, the most that many are hoping for is that they get lucky enough to get a crappy barely-over minimim wage job & HOPE that they don't get shot down in the street, or be downsized or outsourced into oblivion. Because despite all of the bullshit excuses that certain politicians try to offer us as to why the rich shouldn't be taxed, the realization is not one of those outsourced jobs are ever coming back here. We have more candidates than jobs & I don't understand how anyone could honestly believe that with automation, mechanization & computers doing what it once took hundreds to do, that these jobs will ever come back.

It doesn't work like that & never did. It's like saying that 75 - 64 =210

The math just doesn't add up & never will.

It's one hell of a thing when a country & the most affluent amongst it actively conspire to rob it's own life blood of their future.

It's a hell of a thing!

[Jerry Oz]

I can't disagree with a thing you've posted. Especially with the immigrant threat. I keep asking people who think we can survive after purging all of the illegals out of the country and sealing up the borders. They don't consider that the reason farmers are keeping prices reasonable is because they're paying undocumented labor >$2.00/hr to pick tomatoes and lettuce. They do that because Americans aren't willing to do the hard work and especially not for the rate of pay that keeps our food cheap. Do you think any farmer would be stupid enough to deny that job to the throng of unemployed U.S. workers? The truth is, nobody wants to do that work.

I also like how the wave of Republican governors set their sites on public workers. Less than ten years after the wave of appreciation we all felt for teachers who were underpaid to do such a difficult and important job, we've set our sites on them because communities can no longer afford them. So, their bargaining rights are being stripped away. "Good" teachers will be the only ones getting raises. The determination of what is "good" is what's going to lead to unintended consequences that affect urban children more than anything else. I submit to you, a teacher who manages to get an average of C+ out of many urban schools [[with children coming to work sleepy, hungry, and discouraged by Mom from succeeding) is much better than a teacher who gets an A average out of suburban schools [[with well-fed children coming from two-parent homes led by parents who are both college graduates).

Now, knowing that your career and future earnings depend on how well you perform, where do you want to teach as you graduate college or gather experience in that profession. The end result will be bad and unmotivated teachers being assigned to urban schools and the educational divide growing. The agenda is clear. They want to lower wages so that they can say more folks are being hired. However, the pay at the top of the scale is growing larger every year. Soon, there will be no middle class to speak of.

[skooldem1]

This is not health care. It is a law that makes you PURCHASE insurance.

[Jerry Oz]

As opposed to mooching off of those who purchase it when it's convenient. There was a situation in Tennessee a couple of years ago when a homeowner who refused to pay the $50/year fee to help maintain the volunteer fire department had his house catch on fire. The fire department showed up but only watered down his neighbor's house [[who paid the fee) to keep the flames from spreading. The non-paying resident's house burned to the ground and he complained that they should have put out his fire and billed him for the expense. In our health care system, everybody is covered by insurance before ACA but a handful of users refused to pay for it. In my own personal opinion, if health care practitioners don't have the ability to deny care, it's appropriate for everyone to purchase insurance. My insurance has skyrocketed over the last 10 years and one of the major contributing factors is charity care, which then is applied to my costs due to limited resources being used by non-paying patients. Pay for it. You're getting something for your premium, whether you use it or not.

[chidrummer]

There's so much misinformation out there, how about some truth? Take the survey and see if you know as much as you think you know:

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz