Community | March 18, 2010 | 139 comments

Idaho first to sign law against health care reform

Image
ibrake4rappers13
Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care reform Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.
But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.
Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states_9
  1. groups:
    Community,   Conservatives for America
  2. tags:
    Socialism
  3.     
    |

139 comments // Idaho first to sign law against health care reform

  • Birdmanbob4
    • 0
      Birdmanbob4  
    • Image

    • Home » Opinion » CommentaryFriday, March 19, 2010
      KUHNER: Impeach the president?Rate this story

      /critic/1/1/79/411469/vote/?r=/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president//critic/1/2/79/411469/vote/?r=/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president//critic/1/3/79/411469/vote/?r=/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president//critic/1/4/79/411469/vote/?r=/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president//critic/1/5/79/411469/vote/?r=/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/Average 4.36
      after 61 votes
      Login or register to rate this story
      The 'Slaughter Solution' would violate the ConstitutionFont Size -+PrintEmailCommentTweet this!Yahoo! BuzzShareArticle
      Comments (518)Click-2-ListenMore Commentary Stories
      ROOT: Outdated union red tape strangles recovery
      HANSON: Proud to help - and to fly our flag
      BERMAN: Charities behaving badly
      MARTIN: Good idea but costly outcome
      By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

      The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House.

      Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.

      This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.

      Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

      The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave.

      OTHER TWT STORIES:
      • Democrats make final reform push
      • Health-vote ally Nelson to get a new hospital for Nebraska
      • Obama backs plan to legalize illegals
      • Poll finds stubborn suspicion of census

      Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energy-rich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-and-control bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans.

      Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda.

      Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country, dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it.

      Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come.

      Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

      The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

      It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government - meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office.

      It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.

      Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.

    • 1 year ago
  • bashirdr
    • 0
      bashirdr  
    • Birdmanbob4:

      That was a lot to read. I have just a couple of brief points.

      1. I believe what you are talking about is the Reconciliation process, yes? Did you know the last six or so times it was used, it was the republicans who used it.

      2. Everyone on the left says most americans favor health care reform, and everyone on the right says most are against it. I would treat any heavily-leaning poll numbers with exteme skepticism.

      3. Everytime a big socialist change like this has occureed (social security, medicare, etc.), it was always accompanied by "socialist apocalypse" talk from the right. We still live in a free society, and we still will after health care reform sets in. Anyone can see that what is really going on is republicans are trying to keep the democrats from succeeding, so they can claim the party is ineffective come election time.

    • 1 year ago
  • hammywill
    • 0
      hammywill  
    • bashirdr:

      "I believe what you are talking about is the Reconciliation process, yes? Did you know the last six or so times it was used, it was the republicans who used it"

      The last 6 or 7 times Republicans were the ones who kicked me in the balls. So this means this time, it is alright for the Democrats to do it? Everyone in Congress is a hypocrite, and that is the most asinine argument in favor of the reconciliation process I have ever heard. "Well they did it too." Are you serious with that?

    • 1 year ago
  • trut
  • bashirdr
    • 0
      bashirdr  
    • hammywill:

      I was reacting to the attitude of republicans that the dems are invoking an "arcane procedure meant to sidestep a fair vote" or whatever they are saying. So they will condemn it as evil, unless it happens to fit their own agenda. My point being that there is no use debating the merits of reconciliation because individual opinions fluctuate based on agenda.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  

    • So riddle me this Ibrake? Why then doesn't the Sovereign state of Idaho put an end to Health Insurance Corporate Tyranny? IF they are so wanting to preserve the constitution, why are they allowing the abomination of corporate personhood to stand unchallenged?

      To me the whole declaration is empty and has no teeth if you don't put an end to Health Insurance profits.

      Healthcare should be non-profit. Insurance companies should not be allowed to make unlimited profits, their profits should be regulated tightly so that people are not robbed. It is for the common good that we need to have tight regulation of these markets.

    • 1 year ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • 0
      ibrake4rappers13  

    • IDAHO HEALTH FREEDOM ACT

      The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment.

      The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services.

      It is hereby declared that the public policy of the state of Idaho, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable rights of liberty, is that every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty.

    • 1 year ago
  • JonRaymond
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  

    • Hay Birdman Na na na na Bo Bo Stick you head in Do Do! LMAO no one cares what you stupid people think .... and your argument was like reading a hitler youth manifesto on crack. try getting off your computer and get a life.

    • 1 year ago
  • Birdmanbob4
  • Birdmanbob4
  • Birdmanbob4
    • 0
      Birdmanbob4  

    • The former Pennsylvania Senator joins us to compare the contentious issues of 2005 and how that debate reflects on the current legislative situation.



      8 commentsFebruary 25, 2010 at 12:05 am - Hot Metal Media
      Dateline: Pittsburgh, PA RELATED LINKS
      •Tips/Feedback: thebcast@gmail.com
      •Twitter: @thebcast
      •AOL IM: bcastlive
      •Audio-Only Podcast
      Terry February 25th, 2010 - 12:13 am
      Go to H3ll you Zionist p1g. Go kiss Hagee’s butt some more you cultist.

      Name Calling? February 25th, 2010 - 7:45 am
      Terry…Do you think calling people names does anything other than to show you have no brains?

      GuyAverage February 25th, 2010 - 8:27 am
      Not only does it show a lack of brains by Terry, it shows a lack of guts. That is symbolic of The Left in the whole Bloodless Coup that they have orchestrated over the past year in the USA. With their co-conspirators in the DownStream Media A.K.A. Ministry Of Propaganda, they have brought the USA to the simultaneous point of Constitutional Irrelevance and financial collapse. Throw in de facto slavery on top of that and you have a trifecta.

      We will fight this down to our last breath.

      http://guyaverage.blogspot.com

      tax-paying-legal-citizen February 25th, 2010 - 9:42 am
      Natural Born Citizen, and former President, Ronald Regan said: “One of the traditional methods of imposing Statism or Socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project,” he said in the recording.
      But he said most people in America oppose “socialized medicine” when given the choice. “From here, it’s a short step to all the rest of socialism,” Reagan said. Then a private citizen Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine. Hear what he said in his own words, then weep at the state of this union including its lack of any comprehensible leadership, now just 50 years later:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuzMYIXhTE

      NOQTR4TR8RS February 25th, 2010 - 10:22 am
      @9:58-12:02 in the video.

      So, it seems that the Republicans were not opposed to misusing Budget Reconciliation to pass non-budget related legislation when they were in the majority – just like the Democrats are considering today. Probably seemed a minor thing at the time, just bending the rules a a little bit to keep things moving. Now, with the radical Dems in the majority, we see that when you set bad precedent with “minor” legislation, you’re more than likely going to have to live with unpleasant consequences later. Elections have consequences, and thanks to their bending of the rules, the Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on.

      Billy February 25th, 2010 - 12:08 pm
      If you want a REAL explanation of reconciliation from somebody who is not a compulsive liar, go here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sjJPJ2sQaw&feature=player_embedded

      Reconciliation is how healthcare legislation gets passed in this country. That’s a fact. The so-called nuclear option is something invented by Republicans to undermine democracy. They’re two completely different things.

      Please remember, Republicans… You are stupid people. That’s why your leaders are so comfortable lying to you.

    • 1 year ago
  • Birdmanbob4
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • Birdmanbob4:

      Birdmanbob4, the constitution was trashed long ago when they created the Federal Reserve and they allowed corporate personhood to become a legal reality. Give it up already with the dire predictions.

      If you are railing against the bill because its a giant giveaway to the Insurance Industry, I might be able to support your position, but if you are just spreading fear and calling the left communists, then I have to start repeating myself and tell you to please stop shouting.

      Typing in all caps is shouting and it doesn't make people take you seriously, it just makes you look like a nut.

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • artemis6:

      Though you were not directly addressing your question to me,
      if you would tolerate my answering it anyway, here's my take on it:
      The American Revolution & Constitutional Congress which created
      the United States of America formulated a Constitutional Republic.
      Jefferson refused to endorse it unless and until a Bill of Rights was
      first ratified by all the colonies. They made the first amendment foremost
      because THAT is the Democracy you were refering to, Artemis 6.
      You must know we still have a Democracy, because you're using an
      Internet news service website to freely express your ideas, and thus
      participate in the Democratic process. ( As John Adams said; " Read,
      Think. then Write" ) The Postal Sevice had a stamp issued back during
      the Bicentennial year of 1976 illustrating pen and paper as the building
      blocks of Democracy. As Walter Chronkite said: " The freedom of the Press
      isn't simply an Institution in a Democracy... It IS the Democracy" I rest my case.
      People often confuse Democracy with the Democratic Party. Originaly
      Jefferson was the head of the Democratic Republican Party which split
      into the 2 wings we know of today, and were both absorbed by Corporate
      control after the time of Lincolns, then Kennedy's assasinations. So we
      have a one party sytem-the Corporate Party masquerading as democrats
      and republicans until we can survive long enough to reform the corruption
      of the original Constitutional design. That's where the Internet comes in-to
      replace the abysmal failure of television & radio & newspapers to function
      as bona fide Democratic Instutions. No news there. As kids nowadays say while
      graphicaly representing italics with both hands outstreched like eagle wings:
      Like, "shocking" !!! Back in the U.S., back in the U.S., back in the U.S.S.R.

    • 1 year ago
  • 2hellnwait
  • Birdmanbob4
    • 0
      Birdmanbob4  

    • http://www.breitbart.tv/blue-dog-leader-slaughter-solution-is-poison/
      AT LEAST KNOW THE TRUTH BY LISTINING TO THIS DEM CONGRESS WOMAN.....
      Blue Dog Leader: ‘Slaughter Solution’ Is ‘Poison’




      "While deeming – like reconciliation – has been used by Republicans and Democrats in the past, the context in which it would be used in this case leads me to conclude that it would poison an already terribly partisan atmosphere and leave the Congress even less able to find bipartisan solutions to fiscal problems that are on the verge of becoming overwhelming.”



      29 commentsMarch 18, 2010 at 6:30 pm -
      Dateline: Washington DC RELATED LINKS
      •NRCC: Blue Dog Leader: ‘Slaughter Solution’ Is “Poison”
      CrisD March 18th, 2010 - 6:40 pm
      YOU HEARD IT RIGHT, FOLKS!!!

      FISCAL PROBLEMS THAT ARE ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING OVERWHELMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Wake up!!!!! We are BROKE!!!!!!

      CrisD March 18th, 2010 - 6:42 pm
      These commies were hoping to take your money and liberties and pass them around for a final banquet!!

      father_moray March 18th, 2010 - 6:48 pm
      Let them consume their own toxins…time for a new democrat Party minus the Mao Factor…without any vestiges of Obamm…only does GOOD RIDDENCE TO OBAMM = FREEDOM AGAIN.

      father_moray March 18th, 2010 - 6:52 pm
      Different Note: I see the CLASSMATES.COM ad on the right. I signed up/signed off because I was besieged by MEGA-SPAM mail…apparently these pricks sell your info to the Galaxy…frack ‘em…one opinion’s worth…frack ‘em again.

      Qw March 18th, 2010 - 6:54 pm
      NO TO OBAMAOCARE
      http://www.chooseliberty.org/hcaudio.aspx?pid=s01

      Wisconsin
      (Status: 8682 signatures)
      strongwisconsin.com/healthcare

      NOQTR4TR8RS March 18th, 2010 - 7:02 pm
      Congresswoman Sandlin, in this video, is the first Democrat I have heard since the Bush administration, to even mention the fact that our fiscal problems are even remotely unmanageable. That’s one voice, out of several hundred, who is not either lying, or delusional. The rest of them, without exception, tell us nonsense like, “we must spend our way out of the recession”, etc. etc.

      A tip of the hat to the lady from South Dakota, for speaking the truth.

      It is the Bilderberg…Obama the Bush…taking America down one big spending bill at a time with the help of his Demcoratzi henchmen ‘loons’!

      KEEP CALLING/EMAILING AND DO NOT GO THROUGH THE GENERAL SWITCHBOARD IN WASHINGTON TO TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK!

      IT WILL BE OVERLOADED AND YOU WILL NOT GET THROUGH!

      ————————————–

      JUST EIGHT (8) MORE MONTHS TO “D” DAY II !

      1. WE “THE PEOPLE” ARE INFORMED!
      2. WE “THE PEOPLE” ARE INVOLVED!
      3. WE “THE PEOPLE” ARE GETTING OUT THE VOTE!

      ONE (1) SLUG DOWN…FIFTY-NINE (59) SLUGS TO GO – GUARANTEED!

      RogerCfromSD March 18th, 2010 - 7:46 pm
      I consider any Democrat who acts in the best interests of this country to be an American. The rest are anything but.

      pescado March 18th, 2010 - 7:47 pm
      I didn’t even hear what she said.I just want to hit it!! Look at those lips!

      SanFranciscoGo March 18th, 2010 - 7:58 pm
      Herseth Sandlin God Bless You.

      always blaming someone else for their dirt? March 18th, 2010 - 7:59 pm
      while they are quick to claim “well the republicans used it….”
      they fail to grasp that it has NEVER been used to clobber 1/6 of the economy!!!!
      it has never been used on something that affects every physical individual with regard
      to their persons. this is unprecedented and so far from its prior use that it is
      hardly worth debate but the demos keep bringing it up as a crutch to keep one leg half straight…. well the leg is crooked non-the-less.

      JD Mix March 18th, 2010 - 8:16 pm
      WOW!

      And EVERYBODY dogged President Bush for bringing up the looming Social Security crisis and he was forced to shelve any plans for fixing it.

      Then, when he tried to move aggressively forward to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the REGULATORS were excoriated and run out of town by a furious Barney Franks and Chris Dodd, forcing President Bush to shelve those plans as well.

      We would be living in a very different America today if the lying leftist media and Democrat Stalinist Socialists had been been confronted and stopped dead in their tracks at the time… How about we learn our lessons from the pages of our history and make the right choices while we still can.
      -IMPEACH ALL those who have verifiably abused their power against the Constitution and bring them to trial.
      -BAN and criminalize Communism, Marxism, and Facism. REPEAL the Stimulus packages outright, even those diguised as ‘jobs’ bills.
      -DIVEST government holdings in ALL business activities and corporations.
      -RELEASE our energy resources for immediate development.
      -CONFRONT Islamic Terrorism and Islamic Facism
      -SECURE our borders, ports, and airports.
      -WITHDRAW from the dictator-infested UN
      -DEFEND our allies and form a new global alliance if necessary to uphold peace and eliminate dictators such as those who run amok in Africa but are immune from UN scrutiny.
      -TRANSFORM America BACK to her Constitutional roots to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to include the BANNING of abortion FOREVER as a Constitutional Ammendment.

      If any of this offends you, please feel free to EMIGRATE to Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, or any other country you feel a greater affinity for. You sure as h*ll are not welcome here.

      arw March 18th, 2010 - 8:20 pm
      Unfortunately, that is the plan. Bring down the system — so that they can change it.

      Lady liberty March 18th, 2010 - 9:08 pm
      Call tell them VOTE NO on HC Bill… 877- S O B U S O B (LOL) got to love that irony ….

      Dave, Tn March 18th, 2010 - 9:08 pm
      There are still blue dogs in the CriminalCom party? I thought they’d all retired already.

      john March 18th, 2010 - 9:58 pm
      So where are they voting on this bill???
      .

      uberVU - social comments March 18th, 2010 - 9:58 pm
      Social comments and analytics for this post…

      This post was mentioned on Twitter by DavidTheroux: Blue Dog Dem: “Deeming” bills is “poison” http://tinyurl.com/ycsuvod #Liberty #Revolution #Teaparty #YAL #C4L #TCOT #TLOT…

      CAP Sorros March 18th, 2010 - 10:13 pm
      To bad you haven;t been played by OBAMA and PELOSI – Soon you will not be needed

      watch the video and you will see – listen closley @ 3:10

      Were screwed!

      http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/03/delatorre_video.html

      WINGSIDE March 19th, 2010 - 12:33 am
      Red Dog One to Blue Dog Leader…….You have bandits at one o’clock

      Joker Face March 19th, 2010 - 12:37 am
      Say goodbye to the old Democrat party of the old rag time hippies like Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and Dodd. Inside word has it they WILL NOT get the votes and the “deem & pass” will not pass either. We are saved America! We are saved!

      Qw March 19th, 2010 - 1:15 am
      STOP OBAMAOCARE

      Here is a view of how each representative voted last November and their current status. Make sure they hear from you.
      Click to call or write the Democrats and tell them to vote ‘NO!
      http://www.nrcc.org/codered/targets

      Status:
      NO 205
      YES 202
      UNDECIDED 24
      216 “NO” votes Needed to stop this Bill

      Liberty March 19th, 2010 - 1:21 am
      This is poison! I have never seen America divided so.

      Great cartoon about Congress “violating” the will of the people at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/category/health-care/

      Campbell Brown - CNN March 19th, 2010 - 8:57 am
      If the Democrat party was like this woman, I’d work with it more. But right now, the top leadership in the sinking ship is a bunch of old hippies and the party actually needs to die to itself and become reborn.

      I'm Gumby damn it! March 19th, 2010 - 9:31 am
      If they cram through this poison they’ll have to worry about lead poison.

    • 1 year ago
  • Birdmanbob4
    • 0
      Birdmanbob4  
    • Image

    • (((((DEEM AND PASS))))) (((((NO VOTE WILL TAKE PLACE)))))) JUST THROW THR CONSTITUTION OUT THE FRIGGIN WINDOW ... House Dem: Slaughter Rule Lacks ‘Honesty and Transparency,’ Will Vote For It Anyway March 18, 2010 at 6:33 pm - CNS News http://www.breitbart.tv/house-dem-slaughter-rule-lacks-honesty-and-transparency-...
      Dateline: Washington DC
      “I wish we weren’t doing it this way, you know. I understand the Republicans did (in the past), but that’s no excuse for both sides. Let’s be up front, be out there and fight. But at the end of the day, if I’m forced to vote on it, will I? Yes. Because of those 700 Pennsylvanians that lose their health care today and I don’t want that to happen.” 13 commentsBlue Dog Leader: ‘Slaughter Solution’ Is ‘Poison’ March 18, 2010 at 6:30 pm -
      Dateline: Washington DC
      "While deeming – like reconciliation – has been used by Republicans and Democrats in the past, the context in which it would be used in this case leads me to conclude that it would poison an already terribly partisan atmosphere and leave the Congress even less able to find bipartisan solutions to fiscal problems that are on the verge of becoming overwhelming.”

    • 1 year ago
  • masterzip
    • 0
      masterzip  

    • Big business wins again, and again and again and again....
      maybe Idaho will declare a war too so they can spend their money wisely...

    • 1 year ago
  • RoBot_rOcKer
    • 0
      RoBot_rOcKer  

    • everybody helping everybody else thats what i think of when i think about socialism, everybody sacrifices a little to help out everyone. i dont see how this is seen as immoral and evil. since when was helping your neighbour evil? but i do think that there should be requirements to get it and if you dont meet those requirements then you have to pay more it seems fair to me. if people chose to live an unhealthy life then they should pay a little bit more that just seems sensible if you get obese from overeating all the time or you get lung cancer from smokeing other people shouldnt be obligated to pay for that.

    • 1 year ago
  • thewarnerla
  • CaptSutter
  • CaptSutter
    • +1
      CaptSutter  

    • You don't need the mandate, if you fix the system so that the insurance companies ago back to the 10% margin rather than 30% and you get rid of pre-existing conditions that 97% will buy insurance and you have your risk-pool.

      The only reason you have the mandate was because these bible thumping conservatives said we needed it, when we decide to follow their advice they decide to sue.....

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • FlexSF
    • +1
      FlexSF  

    • Now the nation is expected to pick up the medical tab for uninsured Idaho residents. It is a republican, bible thumping, black hole, fly over state, and absolutely good for nothing, and deserves to fall into the abyss of irrelevance!

    • 1 year ago
  • bashirdr
    • +2
      bashirdr  

    • I don't understand why people can't see the need to force Americans to have health coverage. It's really not that complicated!

      Let's say we pass major reform, and insurance companies can't deny you coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Then NO ONE would get coverage. Why bother? Just wait until you get sick, and then get insurance. But oops, wait, that's not "insurance" anymore.

      Insurance works like this: you pay your premiums every month, and the sum of all those premiums over your lifetime is supposed to be MORE than you would expect to pay to your doctor for whatever care you need. Key word: expect. Some people need more care than they could have ever possibly afforded, and that's why we have insurance. That's also how insurance companies stay in business and how people afford coverage.

      The other problem is how expensive health care is today. So expensive that premiums would have to be sky high to be more than the expected value of your care. No one would get coverage; it would be too expensive. So instead insurance companies lure you in with low premiums and then slam you when you try to file a claim.

      The solution: nationwide legislation that reforms health care, cuts costs, creates a bigger pool of insurees, and lowers risk, thereby allowing lower premiums that everyone can afford. Someone's actually already working on this. His name starts with B and ends with arack Obama.

    • 1 year ago
  • AldousHuxley
  • pos_nir
    • 0
      pos_nir  

    • In japan its also mandatory to have health insurance , it may seem bad but at least when your health insurance refuses to pay you can take them to court like with car insurance , main concern here is stupid people who agree with politicians when they make a fuss about nothing wake up and realize they are paid by insurance companys who dont want this law passed even though you will be paying out for it it will by law have to protect you like car insurance , if your smart enough to read the health insurances small print haha

    • 1 year ago
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  

    • Fuck idaho, it,s full of Arian Nation rasists pissed they lost all there potato picking jobs to the migrant mexicans who work harder than they do for even less. Seems like the smallest contributers to our national tax pool think they can call the shots on what we the majority can spend. now whos out of their mind? An one last thing fuck car insurance, all you conservitive fucks pay taxes and have no more say in what thats spent on than you do now so shut up sit the fuck down stop making your pathetic threats against the persident like any of you crazy fucks stood a chance in hell of getting near him...... and we will see if you have enough votes at the next election to get to have your way with that national pool of tax money. for crist sake we all have to pay for this, thats what manditory meens so shut the fuck up about how liberals are lazy and dont pay their way we ALL GET TO PAY! GET IT? NOW FUCK OFF!

    • 1 year ago
  • AldousHuxley
  • FlexSF
    • 0
      FlexSF  
    • hombre76:

      I agree with some of your post, but the Mexicans deserve more credit. Idaho's potatoes are so bad they're converted into instant mashed potato flakes.

      Boycott Idaho, and fly over it!

    • 1 year ago
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  
    • AldousHuxley:

      I see you J_Jammer and all I hear is OMFG!!! Theres a Nigger in the white house! LMAO! ... and all us pot smoking , in the words of cartman (cause thats all you and those like you are) GODDAMN HIPPIES!!!! voted him in to office. Go eat a bowl of dicks and stew on that. BIATCH!

    • 1 year ago
  • Birdmanbob4
    • -2
      Birdmanbob4  
    • Image

    • Hayek Versus Keynes: anyone who thinks that Motivation is not the Key to getting out of this mess should go to BIRDMANBOB SCHOOL! Donald Markwell
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search
      For the Montgomery, Alabama, talk radio personality, Don Markwell, see Don Markwell

      Professor Donald John 'Don' Markwell (born April 19, 1959) is an Australian social scientist and college president.[1] In February 2009 the Rhodes Trust announced that Professor Markwell would succeed Sir Colin Lucas as Warden of Rhodes House.

      Markwell's works include contributions to international relations, political science, the history of economic thought, public law, and education.

      His John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace[2] has been widely cited in the Keynesian revival of 2008 for its emphasis on international economic cooperation (including the international coordination of economic policies and the development of international economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank) and on economic causes of war and economic means to promote peace.[3] This is one of a number of Markwell's publications on John Maynard Keynes[4], and on idealism (international relations) (especially interwar idealists, such as Sir Alfred Zimmern[5], Florence Stawell, and Keynes). Markwell's contributions to international relations are in the tradition of Hedley Bull, adding an emphasis on economic determinants of order in the international society of states.

      Markwell's writings in political science and public law have been especially concerned with constitutional issues, including federalism, constitutional conventions in the Westminster system, and the monarchy and republicanism in Commonwealth countries, including the reserve powers.[6] He uncovered the extensive history of consultations of judges of the High Court of Australia (such as Sir Samuel Griffith and Sir Edmund Barton) by Governor-Generals of Australia.[7] He worked closely with the former Governor-General of Australia, Sir Zelman Cowen, in the writing of A public life: the memoirs of Zelman Cowen[8].

      Rhodes Scholar for Queensland for 1981, Markwell was educated at the University of Queensland, University of Oxford, and Princeton University. He was Fellow and Tutor in Politics at Merton College, University of Oxford, from 1986 to 1997; Warden (president) of Trinity College (University of Melbourne) from 1997 to 2007; and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) (provost?) of the University of Western Australia from 2007.

      Markwell's 'A large and liberal education': higher education for the 21st century[9][6] reflects his advocacy of broad undergraduate education (liberal education), improving teaching and learning in universities[10], equity and access, the value of collegiate education[7] and student engagement, and the importance of educational philanthropy.

      In 2007-2009, Markwell led a curriculum review at the University of Western Australia which has proposed significant curriculum reform.[8]

      Contents [hide]
      1 See also
      2 References
      3 Books
      4 External links
      [edit] See also
      Sir Zelman Cowen
      Idealism (international relations)
      John Maynard Keynes
      Keynesian economics
      The Keynesian Resurgence of 2008 / 2009
      Hedley Bull
      Sir Alfred Zimmern
      Liberal education
      [edit] References
      1.^ [1]
      2.^ Donald Markwell (2006), John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
      3.^ Eg,
      4.^ Eg, Donald Markwell (2000), Keynes and Australia, Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia. [2] Donald Markwell (2009), Keynes and International Economic and Political Relations, Trinity Paper No. 33, Trinity College, University of Melbourne.[3]
      5.^ Eg, Donald Markwell (1986), 'Sir Alfred Zimmern Revisited: Fifty Years On', Review of International Studies.
      6.^ Eg, Donald Markwell (1987), The Crown and Australia, London: University of London - [4]. "Constitutional conventions", in Brian Galligan & Winsome Roberts (eds), The Oxford Companion to Australian Politics, Oxford University Press, 2007.
      7.^ Donald Markwell (1999), 'Griffith, Barton and the Early Governor-Generals: Aspects of Australia's Constitutional Development', Public Law Review.
      8.^ Zelman Cowen (2006), A public life: The memoirs of Zelman Cowen, Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.
      9.'^ Donald Markwell(2007), A large and liberal education': higher education for the 21st century, Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing & Trinity College, University of Melbourne
      10.^ [5]
      [edit] Books
      George Brandis, Tom Harley, Don Markwell (eds) (1984), Liberals face the future: essays on Australian liberalism, Oxford & Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
      D J Markwell (1987), The Crown and Australia, London: University of London.[9]
      Donald Markwell (2000), Keynes and Australia, Sydney: Reserve Bank of Australia.[10]
      Donald Markwell (ed) (2003), Improving Teaching and Learning in Universities, B-HERT NEWS, Business-Higher Education Round Table, Melbourne [11]
      Sir Zelman Cowen (2006), A public life: The memoirs of Zelman Cowen, Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.
      Donald Markwell (2006), John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace, Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
      Donald Markwell (2007), 'A large and liberal education': higher education for the 21st century, Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing & Trinity College, University of Melbourne.
      Donald Markwell (2009), Keynes and International Economic and Political Relations, Trinity Paper No. 33, Trinity College, University of Melbourne.[12] See also [13]
      [edit] External links
      Review by Paola Subacchi of Markwell's John Maynard Keynes and International Relations[14]
      Review by Michael S Lawlor of Markwell's John Maynard Keynes and International Relations [15]
      Discussion of Markwell's John Maynard Keynes and International Relations [16]
      Keynes and International Economic and Political Relattions, Trinity Paper No. 33, Trinity College, University of Melbourne, 2009 [17] [18]
      Improving Teaching and Learning in Universities, B-HERT NEWS, Business-Higher Education Round Table, Melbourne, 2003 [19]
      Biodata on University of Western Australia website[20]
      Trinity College, University of Melbourne - 'A large and liberal education': higher education for the 21st century[21]
      Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Markwell"
      Categories: 1959 births | Living people | Historians of economic thought | International economists | International relations scholars | Princeton University alumni | Wardens of Rhodes House | Australian economists | Australian social scientists | Australian political scientistsViews
      ArticleDiscussionEdit this pageHistoryPersonal tools
      Try BetaLog in / create accountNavigation
      Main page
      Contents
      Featured content
      Current events
      Random article
      Search
      Interaction
      About Wikipedia
      Community portal
      Recent changes
      Contact Wikipedia
      Donate to Wikipedia
      Help
      Toolbox
      What links here
      Related changes
      Upload file
      Special pages
      Printable version
      Permanent link
      Cite this page
      Languages
      Français
      This page was last modified on 28 December 2009 at 15:49.
      Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
      Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
      Contact usPrivacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimers

    • 1 year ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • It's pretty limited and I don't like the requirement bullshit, but hopefully it will be a step in the right direction. We'll see.

      Edit : I just realized that I posted this in the Idaho story instead of the healthcare story. In my first sentence, I'm talking about healthcare, not the Idaho measure.

    • 1 year ago
  • JonRaymond
  • FlexSF
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • JonRaymond
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • jubal
  • Sezah
  • Birdmanbob4
    • -2
      Birdmanbob4  

    • This is what every gun totin God lovin proud American was afraid of from the get go... if this goes down Nancy style and this President Signs this in to Law ((((WITH NO VOTE))))....Well God help the Secret Service who have a duty to stand in the way of Harm ...those are the only one I will feel sory for!

    • 1 year ago
  • Saladin
  • FlexSF
  • common_sense_please
    • +7
      common_sense_please  

    • Actually its the Congress who took insurance lobbyist money and created the mandate that we all buy insurance not President Obama (although he does support it so he gets a slap for that). And its the entire Congress who threw out ALL the positives in health care reform and kept the only crappy thing about it--the individual mandate because NONE of them have the guts to simply cut off the insurance companies and tell them to fuck off and let health care become a non-profit. Or here's a radical concept simply put in a spending cap on ALL medical procedures so that people can afford to pay for their medical costs out of pocket and don't have to buy insurance at all--it worked for over a hundred or so years until the insurance companies and drug companies came along and said both patient and doctor now have to follow their rules and their decisions or else.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
  • PressCore
  • GodsnLiberals
    • -3
      GodsnLiberals  

    • its plain and simple..I DO NOT TRUST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH MY HEALTHCARE...

      and i dont give a shit if its a republican or a democrat in office..

    • 1 year ago
  • trut
    • +2
      trut  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      Fine take your chances with the new Wal-Mart coverage, I am sure they will treat you the way you deserve to be treated.
      Where I live, we are not infested with foreigners like you are so I do feel something for you. Poor bastard, protect your border before you don't have one!!

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
  • common_sense_please
  • Crenshaw_Brothers
  • FlexSF
    • 0
      FlexSF  
    • artemis6:

      The U.S. Postal system is not a government entity. It is a private business, and it's employees are not federal employees. It is closed on federal holidays, but it is not a federal entity.

    • 1 year ago
  • jefftego
    • +3
      jefftego  

    • I wonder how many people who are against reform actually pay for their own health insurance. I'm not talking about having to make contributions to their employer sponsored health insurance, but actually pay for it completely out of pocket. I'm just asking b/c my insurance went up 15% over the last 2 years, and then 25% this year. No health issues, no pre-existing conditions. The insurance for my wife and I are now our second highest expense, second only to our mortgage. WTF.

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
    • +3
      artemis6  

    • I am VERY familiar with Idaho . There are a few enclaves for the rich one or two actual cities , the rest impoverished former logging and mining communities . Or those who could not move away . Education is poorly funded , so there is little to no chance the economy will rebound . No widespread educated work force . It still has some beautiful forest an hot springs in protected wilderness . This will hurt them even more . What respectable employer will want to go there ?

    • 1 year ago
  • Haruki_Hirasawa
  • Dagum
  • GodsnLiberals
  • trut
  • GodsnLiberals
    • -2
      GodsnLiberals  
    • trut:

      dont tell the liberals that..they would TAX THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR DOG..hahahahhahahah..to cover your welfare check..come to think of it..i would not be surprised if you declared your dog as a dependent to cheat on your taxes..

      CRIMINALLY MINDED PEOPLE ...i swear

    • 1 year ago
  • trut
  • CaptB
  • current89
    • +1
      current89  

    • State rights are fairly limited, especially since the civil war, and even more so after LBJ. In the end, the Federal Government has the final say on most issues, health care reform will be the same.

    • 1 year ago
  • GodsnLiberals
  • Drach
  • GodsnLiberals
  • versasrev
    • +1
      versasrev  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      The only federal law in regards to same sex marriage, was the defense of marriage act. In a nutshell it allowed states to not abide by the marriage laws of other states... As any state that favors it's citizens over the citizens of another states is illegal. I really don't feel like breaking out the handy constitution right now so I'll just end it by saying this... The defense of marriage act was a work around for the judicial review process and the legal precedent of states discriminating against other citizens; because specifically banning same sex marriage could have caused real problems.

    • 1 year ago
  • GodsnLiberals
  • versasrev
    • +1
      versasrev  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      Ultimately the law allows states to make/follow only their own marriage laws. Before this law it was legally possible to force all other states to recognize gay marriage, if any other state made it legal.

      Anyway the bill was passed early in the Bush admin, and stopped one avenue of litigation for the issue of gay marriage, although other ways still exist the Supreme Court has so far refused to take up the issue.

      The strategy for the whole issue seems to be to do nothing about it on the Federal level, and to be honest I don't foresee that changing anytime soon.

    • 1 year ago
  • versasrev
    • +1
      versasrev  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      In this particular case the states really don't seem to have any legal standing. They can make the state attorney general sue the federal government all they want, however that doesn't mean anything. They have to go to a federal court, and federal courts highly favor the Federal Government, besides they have no constitutional grounds to sue over this issue.

      However an individual could sue the Fed gov for them stepping outside of there constitutional bounds, as it is a monetary requirement outside of taxation and they have no authority under such circumstances...

    • 1 year ago
  • jaystyx
  • ahiguy
    • -1
      ahiguy  
    • jaystyx:

      Lets see now, you exercise dissent, yet voice intolerance that Idaho exercises their voice in dissent? - - typical liberalism, dissension is fine as long it is in agreement with the party doctrine, right?

    • 1 year ago
  • jaystyx
  • GodsnLiberals
  • advertisehere
  • GodsnLiberals
  • RaceBannon
    • +3
      RaceBannon  
    • Image

    • fyi - this isn't socialized healthcare its a massive corporate compromise, but I'll wait and see. I read some summaries, and versions of the proposal and some of it is nice, but a lot of it is just wrong.

      Every american is required to buy insurance, but:

      1. Medicaid coverage is now extended for those living above the poverty line, but anyone below is still fucked. So you have to at least be working to get anything and if your poor, well you still are poor.

      2. Small business owners collectively will receive roughly a 40 billion tax credit to assist their cost. I'm thrilled but I work with europeans and 1 american.. so sure thats cool?

      3. Families making less than $88,000/ year can have their health coverage subsidized if they can't make ends meet.

      There's a lot more and you can read it here, and I'll be honest its a very unclear read:

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

      Knowing the history of the two countries I lived in myself, I had universal healthcare because I have dual citizenship. I'm curious to see if this actually pans out in the direction other countries have had since the end of the second world war. Its a very odd step in some direction. I'm just not sure which direction that is anymore.

      Btw if this fails I can also explain the expat process of moving to EU countries if anyone wants to know. Just some friendly advice

    • 1 year ago
  • PressCore
    • 0
      PressCore  
    • RaceBannon:

      http://2.th

      Corporate welfare to bailout the "ailing" Insurance Monopoly,
      since the Banksters & Wall Street got away with it last year in 2009.
      By extorting money from unconsenting people, and thus creating
      a Slave market by Coercion under the pretense of Constitutional
      authority they are setting a dangerous anti Democratic precedant
      where 1.Corporations are allowed to set themselves up as the
      de facto Government they own as their property. And 2. the Gummint
      that results is the Corporate enforcement arm lording over we serfs
      in a modern feudal system. PISS ON THAT !!! You know they might
      have spared themselves exposure as people without integrity had they
      at least appealed to We the People to first back them in reforming
      the bastard insurance companies who routinely Discriminate against
      citizens for pre existing health conditions. But instead they openly
      mocked the real power by proclaining they could do something they
      cannot, which is to change the Statutory language exempting Big
      Insurance from its long enjoyed Monopoly status. The Gummint's
      actual monentary bankruptcy occurred 40 years ago. But their
      moral bankruptcy Nixon was refering to came long before that
      when they started deluding themselves they could "vote" themselves
      legitimate Constitutional authority as Corporate clerks. Lincoln told
      people: " All authority the Government has is based on the People's
      consent to be governed" The States like Virginia and Idaho are in
      the news now because of the new American Revolution against Fascism.
      As Mussolini said: " The perfection of Corporate Government IS Fascism "

    • 1 year ago
  • GodsnLiberals
    • -1
      GodsnLiberals  
    • RaceBannon:

      fine and dandy..

      where is the federal goverment's resume' for this job??

      name one thing that this entity had done that went okay.......NAME ONE..

      should i name one to my favor?????????? THE US POST OFFICE

    • 1 year ago
  • goldbean
  • GodsnLiberals
  • versasrev
  • hammywill
  • GodsnLiberals
    • -1
      GodsnLiberals  
    • hammywill:

      gave you that computer..and gave you the internet to connect to current tv

      ..what had the government done for you??? is it that trillions of dollars that was promised to you that eventually ended up given to banks??????????

      what is it that makes you soo confident that these people who promised you an impeached republican..the end of our war on middle east..i mean where are these promises?????? AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOUR RUNNING ON A LAST SHRED OF FAITH..that these people that lied to you are going to do the best for you????

      hey remember they never gave you shit.......

      by the way..remember this is the same government that most liberals were calling fascists a few years ago..AND NOW you are giving my health-care to them because your alliance to the DNC??????????

    • 1 year ago
  • RaceBannon
    • +1
      RaceBannon  
    • GodsnLiberals:

      wrong!! The internet came from scientist working for the military who worked for the government. Funded by your taxes, well if you pay taxes of course.

      I can also list every single invention that came out of nasa

      private companies

      umm the best so far is the shamwow , it doesn't pollute anything as far as I know...

      Check and mate

    • 1 year ago
  • RaceBannon
  • I_Heart_MAMBOSAUCE
    • +1
      I_Heart_MAMBOSAUCE  

    • Though i do support health care reform, this whole being forced to buy health insurance thing does not sit well with me. I dont want to be forced to spend my money on anything.

    • 1 year ago
  • emarston
  • Crenshaw_Brothers
  • crob80227
    • +6
      crob80227  

    • Excerpt: "The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide."

      And the Republicans are opposed to this...why?

      Personally we'd ALL perfer a single-payer system, but since the asshat Republicans are obsessed with preventing that, then this is a decent first step to getting us to a more universal system. The pre-existing conditions provision alone is worth passing this bill, isn't it?

      If 5 people buy insurance and 100,000 DON'T buy insurance....is there enough money coming into the system to pay for the 100,000 who don't have insurance? You have to have everyone pay into the system.

      Obama addressed all this in the healthcare Summitt. You have to have everyone participate in order to get costs under control. It's mathematics and basic economics....and the reason why every single nation on earth uses single-payer or a form thereof!

      Right now we have 5 heart attack victims with insurance going to the ER and 25 hart attack victims also going to the ER. The hospital saves the lives of all 30 heart attack victims.....but only gets PAID for 4 of them (1 insurance company refused to pay on the grounds that the patient had acne and thus that pre-existing condition nullifed the insurance and they never pay the hospital a penny). So....did the hospital make money or lose money by giving away free heart attack repair surgery to 26 patients? See, this is why we need everyone to participate at some level.

    • 1 year ago
  • JohnA
    • +1
      JohnA  
    • crob80227:

      Because it covers them with my tax dollars and I don't want to pay for your health care. I have a tough enough time paying for my own, let alone millions of welfare cases and illegal aliens. And don't give me any crap about prices going down, it's bullshit. Prices never go down, never. And if a politician ever tells you he will cut spending you can guarantee he is lying. Once they start taking it out of your paycheck, it never stops.

    • 1 year ago
  • EverChanging
    • +2
      EverChanging  
    • crob80227:

      You are aware you already pay for the uninsured. In order for hospitals to to keep seeing people that have to raise costs because there are bills out there that are unpaid.

      Uninsured end up going to ERs because they can't afford to go to a doctor's office because they can't afford the upfront cost, so they go to the ER and get billed 100% more i.e. $150 doctor's visit to a $1500 ER visit...

      Just because someone doesn't have insurance doesn't mean they are a bum or a "welfare" case. Good hard working people can't even afford insurance. People who have lost their jobs in this economic crisis now have no insurance.

      This the UNITED States of America. No one is worth more than another. I would be more than happy to pay a little from my wages to help my fellow Americans and know that they can be happy and healthy.

      Being alive is a right! Not a privilege!

    • 1 year ago
  • RaceBannon
  • RaceBannon
    • +2
      RaceBannon  
    • crob80227:

      also a hospital should not be concerned with money, only healing. I talk to doctors overseas in socialist societies and to them this kind of thinking to them in their field in dishonorable.

    • 1 year ago
  • crob80227
    • +4
      crob80227  
    • JohnA:

      "Because it covers them with my tax dollars and I don't want to pay for your health care."

      What about people who pay for our highways....but don't own a car?

      What about people who pay for our schools....but don't have any children?

      a) we live in a society and, no, you can't just pay for the things only YOU use. So get over it and man up (sorry to be harsh, but you do need to grow up and realize life isn't 100 percent fair. I didn't want to pay for Bush's Iraq war with my tax dollars either...but life isn't fair so Bush racked up a $2 trillion dollar war on MY debit card which I now get to pay off. We don't always get what we want when we live in a democracy and a cultural melting pot.)

      b) your costs are going to go DOWN once we switch over to single-payer or universal. It's just basic mathematics. Simply repeating, "I hate the government!" 100 times in a row doesn't change the math that, yes, our costs will go down and things will get cheaper once we have everyone paying into the system and remove the indurance company middle men from the healthcare process.

    • 1 year ago
  • crob80227
    • +2
      crob80227  
    • EverChanging:

      Well said EverChanging. Simply funneling the uninsured into ER's and spending $1500 instead of $150 is the "system" we've been using for decades now...and it clearly isn't the most efficent cost effective way to deliver healthcare to the populace.

    • 1 year ago
  • JohnA
  • JohnA
    • -1
      JohnA  
    • crob80227:

      You call adding 30 million deadbeats to the system who won't be paying a dime and expecting the price to go down "basic mathematics"? I'd call it "voodoo economics". You're right about one thing, life isn't fair. Sometimes you have to work and earn what you have instead of expecting the government to hand it to you on a silver platter with the taxpayers footing the bill. Sounds like you need to grow up and realize that little fact of life.

    • 1 year ago
  • GodsnLiberals
12
1 - 100 of 139
more from Community:
from the community

top videos