2012 Tuesday: After the Obamacare ruling

The Supreme Court is due to rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in Obamacare before the end of the month. If the mandate stands, the rest of the law will, too. If it falls, however, there will also be the question of how much of the rest of the law must go with it — and, of course, what to do next.

Along the way, the issue will have an impact on the re-election chances of the man for whom the law was nicknamed. But what kind of impact, and how much?

Up to a point, I think the results have been baked into existing opinion about President Obama and Mitt Romney. The law’s supporters are largely on Obama’s side, and most of its critics are on Romney’s side. There may be some crossover voting for Obama by independents who dislike the law, and vice versa, but if so they’ll be making their decisions for reasons beyond Obamacare — which means the court’s ruling is unlikely to sway them. There may be some change in enthusiasm, but I wouldn’t expect it to be very great. And, given the many possible outcomes, it’s best to wait until we have a ruling to hash out how it might affect voters’ moods.

I said only “up to a point,” however, because I think there’s potential for significant movement depending on how the candidates and their campaigns react to the news.

I think it would be foolish (not to mention churlish) for the Obama campaign to try to blame and paint the Supreme Court as yet another external force arrayed against it. First, rulings issued by the court as recently as yesterday proved that there is no hard ideological schism among the justices. The three 5-4 rulings unveiled Monday included majorities of 1) Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Elena Kagan and Anthony Kennedy; 2) Kennedy, Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts and Stephen Breyer; and 3) Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. In a fourth case that broke 8-1, only Sotomayor dissented. All nine justices found themselves in a majority at least once in these four cases, while only Kennedy and Thomas were in the majority all four times. That’s hardly the picture of a rigidly divided bench.

Second, public opinion falls sharply on the side of believing the mandate is unconstitutional. In a poll taken in February, a month before the court heard oral arguments in the Obamacare case, Gallup found 72 percent of all respondents thought the mandate violated the Constitution, including majorities of both Democrats (56 percent) and those who think the law is “a good thing” (54 percent). More recently, a CBS News/New York Times poll found two-thirds of respondents wanted the court to throw out at least the mandate, including a plurality of Democrats (48 percent).

So, trying to curry favor with voters by castigating the court would be a strategy that ignores public sentiment — not to mention striking yet another blow to Obama’s self-proclaimed desire to be a unifying figure.

As for Romney, he should expect a great deal of media attention to focus on congressional Republicans’ response. No prizes for guessing whether the press will portray the House GOP or Senate Democrats as the main obstacle to a legislative solution should all or part of the law be overturned.

Rather than trying to herd congressional cats as a mere candidate, however, Romney would be well-advised to keep his focus on what he can control — namely, what he would do to remedy the situation if voters give him that opportunity.

This is one way in which his choice of a running mate could materially affect his election prospects, and it’s one of the reasons I think Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal should be at the top of his short list. Before being elected governor, Jindal served as both the head of Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals  — with responsibility for the state’s Medicaid program — and, federally, as a top adviser to the secretary for Health and Human Services. If any potential running mate has the experience and knowledge to help a President Romney devise a sensible solution for health policy, it’s Jindal. (He’d also be a tremendous asset to the campaign when it comes to energy policy and could speak first-hand about how the Obama administration botched the response to the BP oil spill.)

Expect any post-ruling bounce for Obama or Romney to be short-lived until voters have a chance to assess what each man would do going forward. Then, the ruling could have a significant effect on the election.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

231 comments Add your comment

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

June 19th, 2012
11:55 am

What other strategy does obozo have besides attacking and slandering decent, law abiding people?

1961_Xer

June 19th, 2012
11:59 am

I think it would be foolish (not to mention churlish) for the Obama campaign to try to blame and paint the Supreme Court as yet another external force arrayed against it.

Expect the foolish/churlish. This is a “blame everyone but me” president.

As to Bobby Jindal…. I like the guy. I have seen him speak a dozen times. He is a unifier of both parties in his state, and puts the interest of the people of LA above politics. Sure, some folks from both sides are going to hate him, but he is a smart guy with a lot of knowledge of how government works and how the private sector works.

Don't Tread

June 19th, 2012
12:03 pm

“striking yet another blow to Obama’s self-proclaimed desire to be a unifying figure”

Striking down 0bamacare would also strike another blow to 0bama’s desire to make himself the de facto dictator. Of course, the liberals will be tied in knots, as they don’t care whether something is Constitutional or not if it’s something they support.

md

June 19th, 2012
12:16 pm

It doesn’t matter any more……Obama will just rule by executive fiat……he’ll keep the court tied up for at least the remainder of his term wasting millions in taxpayer dollars doing so.

JohnnyReb

June 19th, 2012
12:16 pm

Being optimistic, during the re-do Republicans will need to guard against popular support for pre-existing conditions and keeping adult children on daddy’s policy. Both are entitlements that punish others through higher premiums.

carlosgvv

June 19th, 2012
12:18 pm

I would guess it will figure somewhat in the election if the vote is 5 to 4 and if the majority are ALL either the conservatives or liberals, understanding that one of the justices swings both ways.

ByteMe

June 19th, 2012
12:20 pm

what [Romney] would do to remedy the situation if voters give him that opportunity.

Does anyone clearly know what he would do at all? First he’s against something and claims it’s all Obama’s fault, then he’s for something and claims it’s all Obama’s fault, then the winds change direction….

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
12:25 pm

1961 is right, no matter what happens, Oblamer will find someone to blame other than his regime. That will be his legacy, blame redistribution.

I like Jindal as well, but doubt he will be the one. I just feel Romney’s strategy is to take one of the rust belt states that is currently blue and flip it. To me, I am thinking Portman or Ryan, but don’t want to get off topic.

I just hope the court strikes down the whole caboodle, because if there is one shred left Oblamer is going to try his new found power grab strategy, and prop it up, somehow, with an Executive Order or by having Sebelius write a bunch of regulations that work around congress.

I think that could work in Romney’s favor, if the Court is very critical and Oblamer tries to shove a rescue down the throats of the voters.

The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers

June 19th, 2012
12:28 pm

not to mention striking yet another blow to Obama’s self-proclaimed desire to be a unifying figure.

This clown can’t be delusional enough to see himself as a unifier. He’s turned the classes in this country upon each other, embraced the occutards, blamed everyone else for his inability to improve the economy or anything, and is so rigid he would rather rule by executive order than roll up his sleeves and compromise with the other side. And people are so blind by the color of his skin that they would run to the polls and pull the clown lever.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
12:31 pm

I still think the early money on the mandate being overturned is a good bet, possibly by as much as a 6-3 ruling but more likely a 5-4.

Less likely, but still possible, is that the court strikes down the entire law due to Congressional Democrats stupidly neglecting to put in the standard severability clause into the legislation in their rush to get this through a Congress while their majority lasted in the Senate.

So I’m going to address the “what if’s” on the first point, leaving out my hopeful take on the second point.

First, what happens to the electorate depends on what Obama does if the mandate is struck down. He’s shown an alarming penchant for going around the intent of the legislative branch whenever it suits him. I hope he isn’t so foolish as to try to subvert the ruling of the SCOTUS and try to find alternative funding through Executive Order.

But I wouldn’t put it past him to try.

If he does that, he’s toast in November, given the unfavorable view of this law with the voting public. But his desire to have his signature piece of legislation remain alive would be very strong. I agree with Kyle that he’d be more likely to attack the Court as being activist; not that it will change the outcome of the ruling, but that he would hope it sways voters. Again, a long shot for him due to the inherent dislike of the mandate and the method by which this bill was passed.

And he has to try to do something, because if this ruling goes against him, Obama will have been perceived as wasting an entire year of his Presidency on something that no longer exists, and Romney and the Republicans will jump on that big-time. Expect a lot of “The economy is so bad because he took his eye off the ball to pass an unConstitutional law” kind of message at every campaign stop, not to mention it will be a major focus in any Presidential debates later in the fall.

I think the down-ballot races are affected as well. Pelosi and Reid will have a much tougher time adding or retaining seats if the specter of Obamacare – Part deux looms on the horizon. Why revisit that with a Democrat majority in 2013 when it failed so miserably in 2009?

Finally, House Republicans would be wise to pass individual legislation keeping the favorable parts of Obamacare like no refusal for pre-existing conditions and no cancellation due to catastrophic illness, while adding in tort reform and other sensible reforms, but doing so individually rather than an all-encompassing reform package.

md

June 19th, 2012
12:32 pm

“I would guess it will figure somewhat in the election if the vote is 5 to 4 and if the majority are ALL either the conservatives or liberals, understanding that one of the justices swings both ways.”

Might want to read that one again…..we know what you mean, but it makes no sense.

Red

June 19th, 2012
12:41 pm

A Hindu and a Mormon atop the R ticket- I never thought I would ever live long enough to see that happen.

Kyle Wingfield

June 19th, 2012
12:43 pm

And you might not yet, Red: Jindal is a Catholic.

Jimmy62

June 19th, 2012
12:45 pm

The problem, as always, is George W. Bush.

BS Aplenty

June 19th, 2012
12:46 pm

A part of me, OK, a very small part of me, would ALMOST like to see the court rule that the law is consitutional. Not because I agree with government controlled health care. No, Obamacare is a default solution when you want to control a large segment of the economy NOT provide an efficient, effective system for delivering healthcare to your population.

But IF, the law is confirmed, then the November election could be turned into a mandate on Obamacare. A nice strategic opportunity for Mr. Romney, an opportunity that appears to have great mass appeal. Given your statistics on the composition of the court’s majority over the past several opinions, a confirmation of the law is not out of the question.

JohnnyReb

June 19th, 2012
12:46 pm

I could support Jindal. For those on the Left challenged with what my support for a Romney/Jindal ticket has to do with anything? It means, I would give them money, not that they would need it.

clyde

June 19th, 2012
12:47 pm

We will know soon enough.In the meantime I wait with trepidation.Five people are going to decide my medical future.And with it my financial future.

JohnnyReb

June 19th, 2012
12:49 pm

“The problem, as always, is George W. Bush.”

Hogwash!

The only people who have a problem with W is the Left who won’t vote for Mitt regardless.

The real problem is the fickle who in a weak moment may vote for Barry.

BS Aplenty

June 19th, 2012
12:51 pm

Excuse me, that would be “…a referendum on Obamacare.”

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
12:54 pm

Seems to be a Lib free Tuesday today. Guess they are all studying the electoral map, changing before their eyes.

tiredofIT

June 19th, 2012
12:54 pm

“Second, public opinion falls sharply on the side of believing the mandate is unconstitutional.” These people can’t even set their digital clocks.

hatorade drinker

June 19th, 2012
12:55 pm

Ha ha haaaaaaa. Kyle, they pay you for such shallow and baseless thinking?

where is the healthcare solution from romney, apart from now being on board to dismantle something of his own creation, just because that’s what his party wants now that their soultion from 1992 has been implemented by someone not on their side?

Red

June 19th, 2012
1:02 pm

Of course you are correct, Jindal converted from Hindu to Catholic- so let me correct my previous post:

A Catholic and a Mormon atop the R ticket- I never thought I would ever live long enough to see that happen.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
1:03 pm

“where is the healthcare solution from romney”

First of all, you have engaged in a deflection.

Second, I suggest you read the GOP’s position on health care reform. It’s out there if you truly wish to educate yourself.

stands for decibels

June 19th, 2012
1:07 pm

I think it would be foolish (not to mention churlish) for the Obama campaign to try to blame and paint the Supreme Court as yet another external force arrayed against it.

Perhaps. But it would be foolish for the Obama campaign not to recognize that the public’s approval of this branch of government pretty low of late, and that a supreme court ruling probably doesn’t have the weight of moral authority that it once had.

Which is another way of saying, a decision that doesn’t go their way has to be managed somehow, and public displeasure at the Court would play a role.

md

June 19th, 2012
1:08 pm

“where is the healthcare solution from romney”

Not paying attention huh?

He said he favors the States deciding how they want to handle it……which makes a heck of a lot more sense……50 laboratories working on the problem vs one halfbaked monster bill fraught with one party ideology…………..

Darwin

June 19th, 2012
1:10 pm

Republican voter: I was for Romneycare before I was against Obamacare.

md

June 19th, 2012
1:11 pm

“public displeasure at the Court”

And that displeasure is usually relative to which side “won”…….so it should have no real bearing as each side will vote according to side anyway.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
1:17 pm

Obama, a unifier? Why I thought only republicant’s are unifiers!! i mean look how they unified the whole nation on that popular war in Iraq…..oh wait……

ummm….okay, let’s try this one – Look how they unified the state of Florida over the Terri Schiavo fiasco by using their “limited government” manifest destiny cry by denying Schiavo’s husband’s legal court granted petition to end her suffering….why the whole country was for that ……………..oh wait……………

hmmmmm………….I know!! Look how they unify the country on subjects like gay marriage by preaching a doctrine of love and support of gays and………….WOW! Not that one…………..

unification………….hmmm…………

OK got it!! Look how the republican’t unified the country in unforgiveable debt by cutting taxes unnecessrily, doing away with the Pay/go system in Congress, refusing to see inconsistencies in reporting on Wall Street, creating two wars, squandering a surplus AND with a republican president, congress and senate, STILL found a way to blame everyone but themselves for their predicament!!!

Whew! I KNEW I could find a great “unifying” example!!!!! :)

Cosby

June 19th, 2012
1:21 pm

Do not bet that it will be striken down. With Sotomyer and Kagel sitting on the bench, any radical thinking can be had. Obama and his pal holder, have become “Rulers” and defied the constitution time and time again. One wonders why congress has relented its power to the “Ruler”. So I urge all to think, if the Supreme Court does rule agains Obama, Harry and Nancy, does that mean they will accept it decision..naa they will ignore it as this administration has ignored the constitution from the first day. Obama, Harry, Nancy and Holder should all be tried on treason

Kyle Wingfield

June 19th, 2012
1:23 pm

stands: Actually, 44 percent is not all that far from Obama’s own approval rating. The Gallup poll conducted at the same time, and referenced in the Times’ story, put Obama at 46 percent. And disapproval is higher for him: The Times’ poll put the court’s approval/disapproval at 44/36; Gallup had Obama’s at 46/46. So the court was +8 while Obama was at +0.

I repeat: I’d tread carefully here if I were Obama.

Tommy Maddox

June 19th, 2012
1:24 pm

Hey Darwin:

“Romneycare” was a State’s law enacted by a State’s Democratic Legislature done at the behest of the State’s constituency. Other than the fact that it was passed by a Democratic Legislature, the similarities end there.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
1:35 pm

Tommy – a Republican Governor didn’t veto it; he SIGNED it; (after he helped to create it).

I find it very intersting how republicans have a limited recollection of history…………….

md

June 19th, 2012
1:36 pm

“in unforgiveable debt by cutting taxes unnecessrily”

Yet neither side is advocating for those cuts to be reinstated…….but one is practicing non-unity by wanting to raise them only on the other guy………….

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
1:37 pm

Kyle — Lots of people don’t even answer those polls. In 2008 the polls put McCain ahead of Obama — guess what happened next………….

md

June 19th, 2012
1:38 pm

“a Republican Governor didn’t veto it; he SIGNED it; (after he helped to create it).”

As the leader of a State……..one of 50……which means the others were still free to do as they pleased without one ideology dictating the terms……..

mike

June 19th, 2012
1:39 pm

What’s funny is most people this care bill would help have been fooled, bam boozled and just plain lied to about this bill. Hey nothing wrong with morons voting against their own best interests. Actually I hope ole Mitt gets in there. Then he will really screw the middle and lower classes in this country. You guys will deserve exactly what happens.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
1:40 pm

Debbie, the Republican governor didn’t veto it, because his legislature was made up with a 90% Democrat to Republican mix. Any veto would have been quickly overridden.

I find it very interesting that liberals have a limited knowledge of the political reality of the Massachusetts legislature.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
1:42 pm

Yet neither side is advocating for those cuts to be reinstated…….but one is practicing non-unity by wanting to raise them only on the other guy…………

The “other guy” was the one who benefitted from the cuts.

Oh History Loving Republican, History Loving Republican….wherefore art thou?

Deny thy father Satan and refuse his name;
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn to the truth
And I’ll no longer be a doubter.

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy:
Thou art thyself, though not Democrat or an Independent.
What’s republican? It is nor hand nor foot,
Nor arm nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet;

So Republican would, were he not Rrepublcian call’d,
Retain that dear perfection of such things as history and such things as law or such things as debt, which he owes
Without that title.

md

June 19th, 2012
1:43 pm

“What’s funny is most people this care bill would help have been fooled, bam boozled and just plain lied to about this bill.”

Absolutely correct…..it was sold as a healthcare bill, when in reality it is another monster entitlement program added to a stable of already unaffordable entitlement programs.

Subsidies for those making as little as 88K a year……are you freaking kidding me??

Peter Currie

June 19th, 2012
1:44 pm

Obamacare is at least a step toward the egalitarianism Jesus tried to teach us. Heathcare is a basic human need/right and should not be treated as a privelege. As I remember from the Bible, He healed all with his miracles, not just those who could afford it. He preached, above all, equality and the need to help those who couldn’t afford. He taught the ethics of giving without reciprocity. What would Jesus say today, conservative Christians?

md

June 19th, 2012
1:45 pm

“The “other guy” was the one who benefitted from the cuts. ”

Hmmm….everybody gets a cut and somehow it is logical that only one segment that received those cuts benefited………

Yep…..makes sense to someone……..

Red

June 19th, 2012
1:46 pm

RE: “Romneycare” was a State’s law enacted by a State’s Democratic Legislature done at the behest of the State’s constituency. Other than the fact that it was passed by a Democratic Legislature, the similarities end there.

Taking that to its natural conclusion, should the 13th amendment be repealed in order to let the state’s decide on their own?

Kyle Wingfield

June 19th, 2012
1:47 pm

Debbie: The polls — by which I mean the Real Clear Politics average of polls — had McCain ahead for exactly nine days between April 15 and Election Day, all in early September.

So, what’s your point?

stands for decibels

June 19th, 2012
1:48 pm

Actually, 44 percent is not all that far from Obama’s own approval rating.

Correct. But that’s held pretty steady the past couple of years. What’s changed is public confidence in what used to be seen as a somewhat, or perhaps mostly, non-partisan entity.

(I don’t claim to know all that much about the history of public perception regarding the court; I do know that many years ago there were calls from the right to impeach a couple of justices, but it’s been a long time since we’ve been down that road.)

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
1:48 pm

As the leader of a State……..one of 50……which means the others were still free to do as they pleased without one ideology dictating the terms……

He still has the power to veto if he was so strongly against something. That guy in New Jersey, (republican governor), vetoed a law that wanted to give gay people the right to marry. You gotta give him credit for his balls, maybe not for his policies, but he had the balls to back up his words.

Mitt on the other hand…………well, he didn’t do it. So now he gets to play “victim”. Amazing.

md

June 19th, 2012
1:48 pm

“Heathcare is a basic human need/right and should not be treated as a privelege.”

So, free food for everybody??

If we are going to make it a right, then everybody is going to have to start making the exact same choices in life……..which will never happen…….so screw that “right”.

“pursuit of happiness” understands that humans make choices……….

Kyle Wingfield

June 19th, 2012
1:50 pm

Red: That is a “natural conclusion” only if you equate not having insurance with being a slave.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
1:50 pm

Kyle – you just made my point for me. Thanks.

1961_Xer

June 19th, 2012
1:50 pm

The “50 states” version of Obamacare at least has a chance. Let me explain….

If the richest states in our nation cannot enact health care programs the work within their own borders, then the country… as a whole… cannot do so. You see, the SAME CITIZENS that finance healthcare on a national level also do so on a state level.

Example: if New Hampshire, the richest state (per capita) in the country, cannot enact state healthcare for their own citizens due to financial reasons, then there is no way that North Carolina or Louisiana (the poorest per capita states) can do so.

Corporations and 51% of taxpaying wage earners are going to pay for this, regardless of whether they are paying to the state or to the Federal government. The Feds do not have “more money” for healthcare, as all of the money is coming out of the same pool of taxpayer’s pockets. Sure, the Feds can borrow more than states, but using that as an excuse for healthcare at the federal level immediately implies that the plan will go broke at some point in the future. Like I said, the same people are paying for it no matter the level of government it is implemented. So if it cannot be implemented at the state level in rich states… and be successful… then a Federal/national plan simply will not work. It would rely on an EVEN HIGHER tax burden on those wealthy states’ taxpayers as now they would not only be funding the poor in their own state, but for the poor in other, poorer, states as well.

Once you view all taxpayers (individuals and businesses) as a single source of revenue, then you understand that if rich states cannot implement universal healthcare for their own citizens, then poorer states cannot do so and the country as a whole cannot do so.

Massachusetts is a perfect example. It is one of the top 10 “rich” states It is geographically small with a high concentration of excellent sources of healthcare. If any state can successfully implement a state system (RomneyCare), then it would be Mass. If a rich state like Massachusetts needs money for their plan, who can give it to them? The Feds? That is taking more money from the same people through a different channel. Other States? Which ones? Alabama? Wyoming? These states cannot even afford to finance their OWN plans, much less subsidize one of the richest states in the nation. In fact, quite the opposite is true: in an Obamacare scenerio, The poorer states, of which Alabama is one, will rely on richer states, like Mass, to subsidize their state. So when you read something like:

In 2012, health care will consume a majority (54%) of the state’s budget. Among the states, is that the highest proportion? It believe so. Massachusetts is the health spending king.

then you wonder how Massachusetts will also be able to subsidize poorer states in a national health care scenerio.

The ONLY way that the Feds would make a difference is to force healthcare providers to take less…. MUCH LESS… on a national level. That, or they will need ration healthcare via faceless bureaucracies, choosing who gets what healthcare and how much. One example is that obese patients , who use about 70% of the healthcare dollars in this country, would be required to lose weight and be compliant with their medications, or get cut off of the public health care dole. Which politician, you ask, will be willing to cut off 35% of their constituents? None. Which doctor, you ask, will be willing to give 12 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to practice medicine will be willing to take less than $100k in salary? None.

Hard choices have to be made BEFORE a law is passed because it is impossible to make them after a law is passed. There is no political will to do so (see “Medicare”) after a law is passed.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
1:51 pm

“Heathcare is a basic human need/right and should not be treated as a privelege.”

Really, Peter Currie?

Please explain how something can be a “right” when it requires the active participation of another person; i.e. the health care provider, whether they agree to provide the service or not.

md

June 19th, 2012
1:52 pm

“He still has the power to veto if he was so strongly against something. ”

Seriously?? It takes a smarter man to know when the deck is stacked against him…..there have been many many instances where vetoes may be in order but never happen as basic math dictates the course.

It happens in Congress all the time……they know when they have the numbers before they ever bring a bill to the floor…….it’s about the numbers silly.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
1:54 pm

Righty Whities can’t stand a Muslim from Kenya, but you think they are going to accept a Catholic from India, second in line to a Mormon?

Kyle Wingfield

June 19th, 2012
1:56 pm

Finn: They already do. You’ve been too busy shouting about race to notice.

Kyle Wingfield

June 19th, 2012
1:57 pm

In your mind alone, Debbie.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
1:59 pm

Please explain how something can be a “right” when it requires the active participation of another person; i.e. the health care provider, whether they agree to provide the service or not

So, national defense is not a right that we get for being tax-paying, law abiding citizens? It does rely on another person, ie, the soldier, whether they agree to provide the service or not

firefighters, police, postal carriers, teachers?

If we don’t get any protections or schooling, what exactly are we paying taxes for? Why are we all in this together? Why are we acting like a “society”?

md

June 19th, 2012
1:59 pm

“Hard choices have to be made BEFORE a law is passed because it is impossible to make them after a law is passed.’

Hence the primary reason the dems crammed the aca through……it was all about getting something on the books while they had the ability to do so, didn’t really matter what it was as long as it was on the books.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:03 pm

I agree it’s not a “right” but it is something that the better off countries set in place for their citizens as a “quality of life” amenity.

And no, their countries aren’t all collapsing: Finland, Germany, Japan, France, Singapore, Austria, Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, UAE, Saudi Arabia…

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:05 pm

….Canada, Australia, Denmark,

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
2:07 pm

Kyle – I had said that not all people participate in polls and some polls had McCain over Obama. You agreed. Where’s the problem?

===============

Hence the primary reason the dems crammed the aca through……

Wow!! Another instance of “Why republicans Can’t remember basic history”.

Crammed huh? I guess those MONTHS of debate, televised on CNN, that US House channel, AND followed in every newspaper AND on Faux news, just wasn’t enough huh? The mandates were fought over, changed, re-arranged, republican initiatives added, (and then the republicans promptly pretended that they didn’t actually MEAN what they said), the thing rewritten at least a dozen times over the course of MONTHS, yet, it was “crammed” through.

A-Freaking-Mazing!

ragnar danneskjold

June 19th, 2012
2:08 pm

My guess is that ObamaCare has roughly the same public approval as Kelo (the eminent domain case where the leftists carried the day (with the moderate, Justice Kennedy, of course). Kelo is one of those cases that has damaged the reputation of the court; the ObamaCare ruling will have a similar effect, positive for the court if the law is stricken, and negative for the court if the law is upheld.

md

June 19th, 2012
2:08 pm

As for the WWJD argument…….I’m pretty sure the fellow would also have told the masses that it is their responsibility to take advantage of a free education vs choosing to drop out and become a burden on society……you think??

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
2:09 pm

Seriously?? It takes a smarter man to know when the deck is stacked against him…..

Excuses,excuses, excuses………………..

Kyle Wingfield

June 19th, 2012
2:10 pm

Debbie: The fact that he led in the polls for a short time, almost two months before the election, proves … what point? It certainly says nothing about whether “not all people participate in polls,” which is obviously true but also irrelevant.

DawgDad

June 19th, 2012
2:10 pm

Kyle, this ruling is FAR more consequential than any single Presidential election. Forefathers have fought and died for less.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:11 pm

In those countries, people don’t go bankrupt from their medical bills.

All it takes is one accident: you, your spouse, your parent, your child could be in a car wreck tomorrow and completely wipe you out. Oh, you have a good job? Ever hear of wage garnishment?

Only in America!

md

June 19th, 2012
2:13 pm

“And no, their countries aren’t all collapsing”

Finn……and the operative word may be “yet”……..many on your list have a debt to gdp ratio over 85% with japan sitting at 208%…………..just because they have it doesn’t equate to being able to afford it..

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
2:15 pm

Finn, in case you missed it, a national defense; i.e. public safety, is specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution.

Health care is not.

md

June 19th, 2012
2:16 pm

“Wow!! Another instance of “Why republicans Can’t remember basic history”.”

Ummm, yes Deb,,,,,,crammed. Perhaps your history is a bit foggy about them having to use reconciliation to finish the process. Go ask Ms Snowe from Maine as to why she felt betrayed, as she was the one that gave the vote to get the bill out of committee……..and “betrayed” were her words.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
2:16 pm

Debbie, crammed is an appropriate term for what happened, as the public was, and remains solidly against this plan, yet Congress and the President still went through with it despite that nationwide opposition.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:16 pm

Oh, where do I stand on Obamacare? I hope they rule against it. We need single payer, not insurance company subsidies.

md

June 19th, 2012
2:18 pm

“Excuses,excuses, excuses………………..”

Obama must be having an effect on me……….

Road Scholar

June 19th, 2012
2:19 pm

Whether or not it is constitutional, the repubs have said if they win the election they will scuttle the whole law. Then they will begin to pass pieces; which pieces is your guess, although many pieces originated from Repub ideas to begin with. If they pass it piece by piece, your children may see something by the time they die! Molasses in January at the north pole moves faster than Congress, esp a repub congress, unless there are tax cuts for the rich involved!

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:20 pm

health care is not a public safety? LOL

Ever heard of influenza? plague? Ebola? Bird flu, typhoid fever? Yellow fever?

When the poorer kids get sick but still go to school because mom and dad don’t have paid vacation days or sick days, and, in turn, get your kids sick, how do you like that? How is that not a public threat?

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:23 pm

Republicans aren’t going to fix anything. The last move they made on healthcare was the prescription plan debacle that added how much to the public debt?

Smooth move! The really thought that one through…

md

June 19th, 2012
2:24 pm

“When the poorer kids get sick but still go to school because mom and dad don’t have paid vacation days or sick days, and, in turn, get your kids sick, how do you like that?”

Uh oh……I see a “give everybody vacation and sick days” bill on the horizon……must be the next logical step after banning too big soda’s and whatever else is bad for society craze……

DawgDad

June 19th, 2012
2:24 pm

“When the poorer kids get sick but still go to school because mom and dad don’t have paid vacation days or sick days, and, in turn, get your kids sick, how do you like that? How is that not a public threat?”

Oh, the horror! Have to ask, just HOW IS IT we are even here?

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:28 pm

What you get when Republicans meddle in healthcare? The Prescription Drug plan! Woohoo.

Let’s look at this gem:

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[28][29] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill’s passage.

wikipedia.com

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
2:29 pm

md: Ummm, yes Deb,,,,,,crammed. Perhaps your history is a bit foggy about them having to use reconciliation to finish the process. Go ask Ms Snowe from Maine as to why she felt betrayed, as she was the one that gave the vote to get the bill out of committee……..and “betrayed” were her words.

I don’t know or don’t care why she feels that way. She still VOTED for it. If she was so morally opopsed, she would’ve voted AGAINST it. Period.

tiberius: Debbie, crammed is an appropriate term for what happened, as the public was, and remains solidly against this plan, yet Congress and the President still went through with it despite that nationwide opposition

Congress and then President Bush, STILL went through with the Iraq war although public opinon was decidedly AGAINST it. You’ll have give me a better analogy than that.

md: Obama must be having an effect on me……….

Too funny!!

Peter Currie

June 19th, 2012
2:30 pm

So, free food for everybody??

Well, md, as I’ll call you because you and the rest of the “experts” on this blog of hate mongering wussies won’t even reveal their identities (nameless, hiding behind aliases), yes. If people are starving because they don’t have food, feed them. If people are sick, help make them better. I wish I was as well read as you probably are in Christian dogma, but I believe this is exactly what Jesus taught. Somewhere along the line, anger and fear has replaced what we used to call humanity. Remember that word?

md, I’d hide my identity, too, if I were you. Shame on you, Christian.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:30 pm

Medicare Part D! Love it!

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
2:32 pm

“health care is not a public safety?”

No, it is not.

GFY

June 19th, 2012
2:35 pm

Good thing someone is making Deb’s point because she certainly is not……..somewhat confused on her point to begin with but who am I but a knuckle dragging male without the ability to “evolve” on certain issues.

fair and balanced

June 19th, 2012
2:35 pm

If Obamacare is thrown out by by the Court, will Republicans push to repeal EMTALA which is pure socialized medicine passed by Reagan which is driving health care costs up? Will they also repeal the free Medicare drug give away that Bush passed?
Will insurers be able to hold onto those rebates of millions of dollars in excess profits they are getting ready to disburse?
Where does Romney stand on these issues?

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
2:35 pm

Republicans aren’t going to fix anything. The last move they made on healthcare was the prescription plan debacle that added how much to the public debt?

And I’m wondering……..how long did the “public” have to weigh in on this bill before it was CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS? Oh wait, repubs don’t cram, only dems………… :roll:

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
2:35 pm

Debbie, while I disagree with the Iraq war completely, and have since the very beginning, it is not even remotely similar.

There were actually opposition votes to go into Iraq – not so on health care reform.

Crammed. You may not like it, but you can’t argue against it, which shows since you used a deflection to try to make your point.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
2:38 pm

but who am I but a knuckle dragging male without the ability to “evolve” on certain issues

OMG too funny!! I read that and damn near fell on the floor laughing!! don’t know if you resemble your description of yourself, but if you do, at least you have a sense of HUMOR about it!!!

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:38 pm

Republicans don’t cram, Debbie, they drug you first with the witless Faux News and then slide it down while you are distracted.

Middle of the Road

June 19th, 2012
2:40 pm

Well, I generally agree that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. That said, it saddens me to think of how many Americans wither away without reasonable and affordable health care. Visits to a hospital emergency room is only a stop-gag measure at best. If we want to save American lives I can think of better ways to spend our precious tax dollars than on our brave yet bloated and oversized military.

And as for giving Romney a pass on Romneycare… sure there was no real point in vetoing the bill as it surely would have been overturned by the Democratic supermajority. But he helped to write the bill and afterwards was quite proud of the bill. In fact, the USA Today posted an op-ed of his (July 30 2009) pleading with the President to adopt the tenets of his own state’s program. He did criticize the public option; but otherwise in every significant way he supported what would eventually be called Obamacare. So IMHO this shouldn’t be a campaign issue for either party.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
2:40 pm

Peter, assuming that is your real name, you are putting Government in Jesus’ place. Jesus said “render to Caesar” not turn government into a monument to my teachings. Government, is by nature, not religious. It represents atheist as well. Jesus was telling you, if you believe in him, to do these things voluntarily for your fellow man. He gave no commands for government to do these things.

And lastly, he said judge not, lest ye be so judged. So, get out there and do as you believe, and leave government to do the things it was designed to do, by the Constitution.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
2:41 pm

Thousands of people were involved in the writing of that bill and it took months to get it all together. Congress had no right to defer so they could listen to the same old objections over and over again. Congress acted, it passed.

Learn to deal.

My team lost! They cheated! They crammed it down! They didn’t call the plays legibly (ie, they didn’t even read it!)

independent thinker

June 19th, 2012
2:43 pm

Tiberius:

“”"”Please explain how something can be a “right” when it requires the active participation of another person; i.e. the health care provider, whether they agree to provide the service or not.”"”

I assume Mr. Tiberius has no right to fire services, police services and emergency room services because those other persons know what a malcontent he is and
just like Bookman have the right to deny him the time of day.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
2:47 pm

fair and balanced

I have no problem with throwing out those two programs you mentioned. W and the GOP often get off track trying to play the bipartisan game and in trying to gain favor with the MSM. The Medicare Part D, plan which Dems love and was expanded by Oblamer, is a stain on W’s already poor record of accomplishment, IMO. We can not afford either of these programs and certainly can not afford Oblamercare.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
2:49 pm

independent “thinker” (there’s a laugh), I have the right to all of the above services (except emergency room services – I disagree with that) because they are defined in the Constitution and through the courts as “public safety” functions, and of course I pay for them through my taxes.

Healthcare as an all-encompassing program enjoys no such right in the Constitution, nor are they paid for with taxes in this bill.

sirwinston

June 19th, 2012
2:54 pm

In the last 8 or14 years little was said about all living here in the US get or have some type of medical-care insurance. Same should apply with burial or death insurance because in most cases; the burden falls on the county or other to make disposal of the deceased. Health insurance for those that look for others to cover have indeed met with negative results…but most medical facilities won’t turn the really sick or emergency patients away. We hav witness a lot of comments about the President Health Insurance but when it happen to you or a family member…that insurance comes in very handi. No insurance make’s things a little complicated because with all of the risk and possible law suits upon doctors…they are less likely to want to serve that particular medical condition; but do it anyway with a degree that nothing would come back to haunt him or her. Medical insurance is necessary but should not be forced upon anyone and those that don’t have or get it take a big risk. It is not about big government; pushing, or demanding anything upon anyone or anybody….however, you and your family along with everyone else needs some medical insurance. It is easy to take sick, be in accidents and when any of that happen; you would want to be treated. I am not blaming anyone for making their opinions but only to say that living in this world is not easy; hand outs are hard to come by and people are not giving as much to chairties as they use too! Can we all look deep to see why we must do our part in acquiring some medical insurance that will one day save our lives and the lives of our family members.

Peter Currie

June 19th, 2012
2:55 pm

Peter, assuming that is your real name, you are putting Government in Jesus’ place.

Rafe, assuming that is YOUR real name, I am not putting gov’t in Jesus’ place. I was simply trying to inject a sense of humanity in an otherwise hateful discourse. I thought appealing to the “Moral Majority’s” sense of morals, and specifically their leader’s teachings in this venture, Jesus, I might remind them of their spiritual committment to brotherhood, compassion, and empathy. Didn’t mean to evoke literality, which should never stand in comparison to spirituality.

Peter Currie

June 19th, 2012
2:58 pm

By the way, Rafe, loved your singing on the Andy Griffith show.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
2:58 pm

Tiberius: There were actually opposition votes to go into Iraq – not so on health care reform.

I thought every last republican voted AGAINST it as well as a few dems………….. — [republicans + history = come on are you fraking kidding me?!?]

Crammed. You may not like it, but you can’t argue against it, which shows since you used a deflection to try to make your point.

I was trying to make a correlation not a deflection AND it was NOT crammed.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
3:01 pm

Do you actually READ the comments posted, Debbie, or do you just post indiscriminately to be heard?

I suggest you re-read the posts about “opposition votes” again.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
3:03 pm

sir winston and Peter Currie, if government was supposed to be “moral”, we wouldn’t have the 1st Amendment keeping government from establishing a national religion.

DawgDad

June 19th, 2012
3:04 pm

“the SAME CITIZENS that finance healthcare on a national level also do so on a state level”

The Federal Government can borrow, endlessly, or print money. Which is exactly what will happen, in addition to the rationing, lower quality care, and massive corruption.

Middle of the Road

June 19th, 2012
3:15 pm

Tiberius. Please don’t equate religion with morality. There are both good and bad religions, churches, clergy and congregations. Don’t forget that Nazi Germany was predominantly Protestant and Catholic.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
3:19 pm

I don’t, Middle of the Road, but since both posters decided to go down the religious-based route, I wanted to point out that one man’s morality is another man’s sin.

The LAST thing we want government to embark on is a policy based on some nebulous idea of “morality”, given that most of those ideas are rooted in a particular religion.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
3:28 pm

Finn: Republicans don’t cram, Debbie, they drug you first with the witless Faux News and then slide it down while you are distracted

Eww Finn — that sounds like date rape!

Peter Currie

June 19th, 2012
3:31 pm

Tiberius,
I think you’re confusing “religion” with “morality.”
Goodbye, all. Got important things to do. Enjoy your hatefest.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
3:33 pm

I don’t hate, Peter.

But in the immortal words of Mr. T, “I pity da fool!”

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
3:34 pm

tiberius: Do you actually READ the comments posted, Debbie, or do you just post indiscriminately to be heard? I suggest you re-read the posts about “opposition votes” again.

IDK — I mean what part of “EVERY Republican voted against HCA as did some Dems”, (in answer to your There were actually opposition votes to go into Iraq – not so on health care reform @ 2:35).

I thought it was a pretty simple answer, but…who knows……..

Don't Tread

June 19th, 2012
3:43 pm

“republican initiatives added”…Really?

0bama/Pelosi/Reid had to twist THEIR OWN party members’ arms to get it passed, including the “Cornhusker Kickback” and an executive order promising that funds would not be used for abortions (easily reversed in the future, should it be upheld). Then there was the “reconciliation” gimmick they had to employ for final passage.

Republicans had to “sit in the back”…remember that little phrase? And you say other people can’t remember history.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
3:47 pm

had to twist THEIR OWN party members’ arms to get it passed

Yeah, that’s called negotiation. That’s how things get done.

Oh, silly me. You Cons have even forgotten what the word “compromise” really means, haven’t you?

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
3:54 pm

This 2012-2013 school year, thanks to a bill pushed through by governor Bobby Jindal, thousands of students in Louisiana will receive state voucher money, transferred from public school funding, to attend private religious schools, some of which teach from a Christian curriculum that suggests the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution and states that the alleged creature, which has never been demonstrated to even exist, has been tracked by submarine and is probably a plesiosaur. The curriculum also claims that a Japanese fishing boat caught a dinosaur.

alternet.org

Don't Tread

June 19th, 2012
3:56 pm

“You Cons have even forgotten what the word “compromise” really means, haven’t you?”

“Compromise” with liberals usually means liberals won’t hold their end of the deal. I remember a “compromise” that involved raising taxes and cutting spending…taxes got raised but spending kept right on going.

I’m sure the executive order “compromise” will be negated just as quickly.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 19th, 2012
4:00 pm

To simplify it, Debbie, there were NO Republican votes to pass health care reform – a Democrat administration initiative, yet there were Democrat votes to go into Iraq in a Republican administration initiative.

Get it now?

That is why your initial response was, and remains, flawed.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 19th, 2012
4:00 pm

Just WOW:

A Beka Book and Bob Jones University Press textbooks say the following:
• Only ten percent of Africans can read or write, because Christian mission schools have been shut down by communists.
• “the [Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross… In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians.”
• “God used the ‘Trail of Tears’ to bring many Indians to Christ.”
• It “cannot be shown scientifically that that man-made pollutants will one day drastically reduce the depth of the atmosphere’s ozone layer.”
• “God has provided certain ‘checks and balances’ in creation to prevent many of the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists.”
• the Great Depression was exaggerated by propagandists, including John Steinbeck, to advance a socialist agenda.
• “Unions have always been plagued by socialists and anarchists who use laborers to destroy the free-enterprise system that hardworking Americans have created.”
• Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential win was due to an imaginary economic crisis created by the media.
• “The greatest struggle of all time, the Battle of Armageddon, will occur in the Middle East when Christ returns to set up his kingdom on earth.”

as reported in alternet.org

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
4:18 pm

Republicans had to “sit in the back”…remember that little phrase? And you say other people can’t remember history.

You remember bitter revisionist history. I don’t blame you though. I usually listen to Boortz, mainly because sometimes i find him funny and he keeps me awake during some very boring working hours); anyway here lately ALL bortz talks about is Obama, Obama, OBAMA, O-B-A-M-A…. constantly day after day after day after day.

And in his diatribe, all he does is spew hateful rhetoric, after hateful rhetoric. It’s like he’s indoctrinating his audience into a hate filled inclusionary rage aimed towards one man. It’s frightening and it smacks of brain washing.

Now, anyone with a computer and a search engine can find out that 98% of everything he says is a distorted untruth, (wth only 2% being factual); yet his audience REFUSES to find the truth for themselves.

They just want to be fed lie after lie after lie. He whips them up into this hate filled frenzy that’s gonna explode one day. I’m just waiting for a listener to go out and cause a major riot, killing innocent people in the process, get jailed, get a good lawyer, and name Boortz as his co-defendant. It’s only a matter of time.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward - Again)

June 19th, 2012
4:23 pm

After the Obozocare Ruling…Americans will have some of their liberty returned to them after Obozo’s failed power grab.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward - Again)

June 19th, 2012
4:25 pm

DebbieDoRight: 98% of everything [Boortz] says is a distorted untruth
———

Should be easy for you to cite one or two examples, then.

Scott Thrower

June 19th, 2012
4:25 pm

If any or all of Obamacare gets tossed, he will inevitably find a way to blame George W. Bush.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
4:27 pm

“God used the ‘Trail of Tears’ to bring many Indians to Christ.”
• It “cannot be shown scientifically that that man-made pollutants will one day drastically reduce the depth of the atmosphere’s ozone layer.”
• “God has provided certain ‘checks and balances’ in creation to prevent many of the global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists.”
• the Great Depression was exaggerated by propagandists, including John Steinbeck, to advance a socialist agenda.

OMG It’s just like George Orwell said in 1984 and again in Animal Farm:

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’

Animal Farm:

“ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
4:35 pm

Tiberius stole my thunder, there is no morals in government. If there were, things like the soldier killed in Little Rock by a Muslim terrorist, would have received benefits for being killed in action, instead of having the government throw his case to the state courts and deny him benefits. Agent Brian Terry’s family would have been treated fairly and we would know how and why he was killed.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
4:37 pm

There are no morals in government vs there is no morals. The family of the soldier killed would have received benefits.

Schools in Mayberry were not very at teaching English or typing.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
4:42 pm

LBB – Obama’s cabinet was the reason we got stuck with Solyndra in the first place

NOT FACTUAL

the loan guarantee program that awarded half a billion dollars in guarantees to Solyndra “was supported by President Bush.” The program was created on Bush’s watch by a law he signed and promoted. The program grew under the Obama administration, which ultimately awarded Solyndra’s loan guarantee under a new section of the law created by the stimulus. The Bush administration, though, promoted the loan guarantee program, and Bush himself touted it on his way out of office. There’s also evidence his administration specifically prioritized Solyndra’s project

.

Don't Tread

June 19th, 2012
4:46 pm

“You remember bitter revisionist history”…You really can’t make this stuff up.

The “you gotta ride in the back” comment was part of one of your Dear Leader’s speeches (right before the butt-whooping you people got in 2010). But I don’t expect you to remember that little piece of history either. (Please, continue on with the Boortz deflection.)

I suppose those midterm election losses were “revisionist history”, too. :roll:

(They were actually a great day for freedom, as your people lost their monopoly on power.)

killerj

June 19th, 2012
4:54 pm

What an understatement about dividing the country,tell me again about the voting when he was elected? Holy sheep sh-t batman.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
4:58 pm

Finn you and Debbie find your truth in places not explored by many, that is for sure.

As far as those religious schools, you don’t have to eat the whole fish to benefit. Lots of people of different faiths choose parochial schools over the government schools. The government schools are so bad and teach so much government dependence, that I would take one of those religious schools for my kids. I had rather try to dispossess them of few squirrelly religious doctrines, than try to correct most everything they learned at school, and teach them what they didn’t learn.

I would like to see one of those text books from Bob Jones and Louisiana, sounds like some the USA subsidizes for the Arabs, where they lie about and blame Jews for everything under the sun. Kinda like “Oblamer blames GWB for sins of the world treatment”.

Have you seen one or are you just quoting some kook website? Do you have any titles, authors?

JohnnyReb

June 19th, 2012
4:59 pm

I get called out by the Left constantly wanting a link or a backup to prove this or that.

Debbie, you need to post something to back up your 4:42. I think it came to you in a dream.

What I have heard is the Bush Administration passed the Solyndra loan to Obama with a recommendation not to approve.

md

June 19th, 2012
5:02 pm

“I don’t know or don’t care why she feels that way. She still VOTED for it. If she was so morally opopsed, she would’ve voted AGAINST it. Period”

Deb…..brush up on that foggy history….she DID vote against it, because the dems betrayed her. The betrayal occurred when she allowed the bill to get out of committee on the promise (by the dems) that they would allow amendments, etc…….they didn’t. They stuck it to her when she was trying to play fair.

carlosgvv

June 19th, 2012
5:02 pm

md – 12″32

You know what it means but it makes no sense? THAT makes no sense.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
5:03 pm

Debbie,

I know you didn’t do it deliberately (hah), but you do know that after Bush and company looked at Solyndra they found the loan unwise, in that it likely would not be repaid because the company was very weak financially. They decided not to make the loan.

Oblamer reconsidered, as Solyndra would be a highlight for his new green energy program. He ordered the Energy Dept to look at it again, since Bush adm had turned them down. He later had them make the loan over protests from some in the chain. Now, the whole story, has been told.

Junior Samples

June 19th, 2012
5:04 pm

Kyle….
“the Obama administration botched the response to the BP oil spill”

Seriously? And a republican administration would do what? Drill more?

“Heckuva job, BP?”

Unless by “botched” you mean they didn’t shut down ALL DRILLING from BP, investigate all third parties involved, allow scientists outside the oil industry to decide what’s best for the gulf region, etc…
You mean those kind of things?

md

June 19th, 2012
5:04 pm

St Peter,

You might want to brush up on the definitions of “can’t” and “won’t”……I’d hazard a guess that Jesus wanted us all to help out the cant’s (which I think most everybody agrees we should), but I’d also hazard a guess that he’d admonish the wont’s and tell them to buck up to their societal responsibilities……..it is after all a two way street.

And I’m a heathen by the way……….

Don't Tread

June 19th, 2012
5:05 pm

Maybe Debbie hasn’t read Obama Administration Offers $535 Million Loan Guarantee to Solyndra, Inc. (Dated March 20, 2009) Bush left office in January, 2009.

But it’s his fault anyway. :roll:

JohnnyReb

June 19th, 2012
5:07 pm

Here’s a link to an ABC news report on the Bush administration two weeks before Obama took office recommending the loan be shelved.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/solyndra-loan-now-treasury-launching-investigation/story?id=14521917&page=2

md

June 19th, 2012
5:12 pm

“You know what it means but it makes no sense? THAT makes no sense.”

Go read it again…..if there are 4 and 4 with one swing vote, there can not be a majority of either cons or libs…….but as I said, we know what you meant. Which should be that either ALL cons or libs vote in similar fashion.

The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers

June 19th, 2012
5:17 pm

And in his diatribe, all he does is spew hateful rhetoric, after hateful rhetoric. It’s like he’s indoctrinating his audience into a hate filled inclusionary rage aimed towards one man. It’s frightening and it smacks of brain washing.

Debbie, a majority of Americans view the individual mandate as against the constitution. Yet your Emperor O’blamer claims most Americans want O’blamer care. Who’s the brain-washer now??

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 19th, 2012
5:21 pm

DebbieDoRight, you crashed and burned with that one.

Is that all ya got?

The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers

June 19th, 2012
5:22 pm

Really Debbie, Solyndra?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/solyndra-s-733-million-plant-had-whistling-robots-spa-showers.html

Amazing what campaign contributions and lobbying can do in this administration. And would you care to talk about the protection of executive bonuses after the bankruptcy?

The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers

June 19th, 2012
5:24 pm

Debbie, there’s been a recall on your voter registration card. Re-apply, you might get to vote in 2016…

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 19th, 2012
5:26 pm

And surely if it was Our President Bush who started the loan program that led to Obozo’s Solyndra disaster, there must be many examples of Bush-funded businesses that went belly up, right? After all, Obozo won a Nobel prize and is the smartest man alive.

Funny that all the failures are on Obozo’s watch.

Maybe because his loans went to campaign donors and bundlers.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
5:29 pm

Gotta go to a meeting but for all the “Debbie You are CRAZZZYY” folks, here’s the link where I got my information regarding Solyndra. And remember, I stated that the things Boortz said about Solyndra was not truly factual — I didn’t say it was an out and out LIE, (although he DOES do that sometimes too).

click down to the “Our RUling” part, (last paragraph); then tell me I’m making this stuff up OR that I changed one word of the conclusion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/17/david-plouffe/solyndra-loan-george-w-bush-david-plouffe/

Don't Tread

June 19th, 2012
5:31 pm

David Plouffe says so? Really? Gosh, it must be fact then! (David Plouffe is a senior adviser to President Barack Obama)

You go ahead and head on out to that DNC meeting.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
5:33 pm

Here’s one for the road (dont thank me — I do this outta love…)

The director of the Energy Department’s loan programs under former President George W. Bush said he likely would have backed the controversial restructuring of the now-bankrupt solar company Solyndra’s federal loan package, which has become a focal point for Republicans attacking the Obama administration’s handling of the financing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/185153-bush-era-loan-chief-probably-would-have-made-the-same-decision-on-solyndra

Gotta go! Later Gators.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

June 19th, 2012
5:35 pm

President Barack Obama’s campaign wants to turn Mitt Romney into the candidate of old, straight, white men.

With 5 more months to go and absolutely no chance of obozo running on his sorry record, how much more infantile will he get?

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

June 19th, 2012
5:36 pm

David Plouffe says so? Really? Gosh, it must be fact then! (David Plouffe is a senior adviser to President Barack Obama

Politifact found it to be FACTUAL. Are you saying that Politicfact is BIASED in its assumptions? Or are you saying you won’t blieve it because of “____________________” (insert excuse here).

Honestly folks, the only way you believe anything is if it’s from the mouth of a talking republican puppet?

Middle of the Road

June 19th, 2012
5:39 pm

Risking the wrath of all the vitriolic diatribe, what’s strange about the polls regarding Obamacare is that while the overall program is losing popularity, the individual parts are not. Real Clear Politics recently conducted a poll and found out that people favor the following:

Insurance companies should spend more money on health care than on administrative costs.
People should not be denied health insurance because of an illness.
The government should lower health care costs to participants.
The government should help lower class people obtain health care.
Everyone should have access to health care.
The government should not force people to buy health insurance.

All but the last soundbite would indicate a positive feeling toward the program. Which I believe indicates that many people just don’t know what’s actually in Obamacare. Or alternatively, one could conclude that the individual mandate is a deal breaker.

Don Abernethy

June 19th, 2012
5:40 pm

saywhat?

June 19th, 2012
5:41 pm

“Honestly folks, the only way you believe anything is if it’s from the mouth of a talking republican puppet?”

________________________________________________________________________________

DIND! DING! DING! We have a winner!

Dusty

June 19th, 2012
5:42 pm

Well, today is sorta interesting. ObamaCare! I once met one person who thought they might like to have their medical bills paid. Free doctors!!! Free hospitals! Free meds! Yayyyy That’s what they think!! Poor babies!

And Debbie, our lawyer of all things, is blazing away at the evil measures take by Republicans. She doesn’t say much about Iraq(only gently) since her husband was there fighting for us most of the time. Otherwise it is those crazeeee Republicans.

I have also found out that Obama did not waste all that money on energy stuff ’cause BUSH DID IT! Wouldn’t ya know???

And Finn! my goodness, over in Louisiana reading all the screwed up science books in so called “religious” school so he can be a loyal liberal of full investigation against those darn religious schools. Ruining our children!!! Every one of ‘em! Of course nobody has to go to those schools if they don’t want to attend.

Guess I will just have to wait on the Supreme Court and then set up battle stations. Other than that, who is going to pitch for the BRAVES tonight? Now that has me worried!

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
5:43 pm

David Plouffe=Bagdad Bob= Jay the Carney Barker

md

June 19th, 2012
5:48 pm

Obamacare is a giant entitlement program that will wreck havoc on the country if passed…..that is all one needs to know.

We are about to have our backs to the wall on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and adding another entitlement program with subsidies just makes no sense.

Then there is that little matter of millions added to annual administrative costs to the States and poof, there goes more cuts to education. The balanced budget States will have no choice but to cut and then hang on to see if they also have to bail out the too big to fail non-balancing States like CA……..one best hope the SC strikes it down.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
5:49 pm

Dusty

Watch every day, Finn, just kinda disappears around 5. I’m just guessing, his boss doesn’t know he is blogging all day. Never hear from him after 5 or on weekends. He may be a PAID blogger, maybe not by the Dems, but by an unsuspecting employer.

Dusty

June 19th, 2012
5:53 pm

I Report, 5:35

So Obama’s poltical team wants to talk like Romney is the candidate only for old, straight, white men.

Maybe Obama should remind them that his grandmother, many years his caretaker, was a straight, old white woman.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 19th, 2012
5:56 pm

Middle of the Road

Yes, people do like some of it, however, the devil is in the details. That is why they make these “comprehensive” bills so detailed and so long. People who learn the details often are not happy with the unintended consequences and the unstated costs.

As the GOP says, we need to take each item and vote on it after debate and do this in a thoughtful slow way to get what we need and can afford. They should ban “comprehensive” bills as they are used usually for deception purposes. You should be able to read and understand what you are voting for. Obamacare was what 2700 pages, and get if you can, get a look at the Farm Bill the Senate is considering. The amendments are probably 2700 pages long, a little something for everyone.

independent thinker

June 19th, 2012
5:57 pm

Tiberius- Please advise the exact language in the US constitution that gives you a right to any emergency services by a local authority.? There is a right to have a national army but no right that guaranties your personal safety. Congress and the President do have the right to provide for the welfare of US citizens. Obviously in your case you do not believe that includes health care so you disagree with Reagan who believed this included free emergency room care.. I assume you have asequate private insurance and will never need Medicare.

Dusty

June 19th, 2012
6:06 pm

Rafe, 5:49

Finn has all the characteristics of a paid political adversary. I mean who digs up old school texts and stuff like that instead of being the usual loon.

LIke you say, who knows who might be paying him. Obviously, they are not getting much for their money. Obama had 20 paid workers in Georgia last election time..

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)

June 19th, 2012
6:18 pm

DebbieDoRight – A Do Right Woman: The director of the Energy Department’s loan programs under former President George W. Bush said he likely would have backed the controversial restructuring of the now-bankrupt solar company Solyndra’s federal loan package
———————-

Now DebbieDoRight is reduced to blaming Our President Bush for mistakes that didn’t happen.

Come one Debbie, I asked you for one of the many loan failures that must have occurred on intellecutally inferior President Bush’s watch, and this is all you’ve got?

Meanwhile, Nobel winner Obozo has many big expensive failures to his name. Most of his failures ended up enriching his rich campaign bundlers.

Your guy’s a loser.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)

June 19th, 2012
6:20 pm

Dusty: Maybe Obama should remind them that his grandmother, many years his caretaker, was a straight, old white woman.
———————-

Right, but Obozo said she was a “typical white person”.

Obozo: Racist.

MarkV

June 19th, 2012
6:22 pm

Access to health care is a fundamental human right. That does not mean, as the vulgarians of thought would want to interpret it, that everybody has a right to demand and receive medical treatment without paying for it. It does not mean either, however, that the right secured by the mere fact that people who have the money can get the treatment, when those who have not cannot.
(If the people of a country decide to extend the right to the access to medical care to the right to medical care itself, they can. But socialized medicine carries the same problem of inefficiency as socialized economy.)

There is a distinct similarity with the right to liberty. “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted …” Right to liberty would be an empty, abstract right if there were no rules and institutions to secure it – the police, the courts. And this right is not dependent on the ability to pay. Everybody pays for those government services. If a defendant cannot pay for his/her defense, the government must provide means for the defense.

In case of health care, a much more efficient way of securing the access to health care is through a universal insurance. Whether such insurance should be private, public or a combination of both is up to the people to decide.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)

June 19th, 2012
6:25 pm

Beware libtards wanting to guarantee “access” to this or that product or service to the parasite class.

What they’re really arguing for is “access” to your wallet.

getalife

June 19th, 2012
6:27 pm

It will pass because it is corporate welfare.

You cons should love it.

Anyhoo, the reelection campaign of President Obama made a brilliant move on immigration.

The turtle is begging willard to take a position.

The gop are staggered by that brilliant move.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)

June 19th, 2012
6:32 pm

A solid majority of Americans do not “love it” and will be thankful should the Supremes restore our liberty and declare Obozo’s first year on the job a huge waste of time in which he took his eye off the ball and allowed unemployment to rise to over 10%.

F. Sinkwich

June 19th, 2012
6:57 pm

“Anyhoo, the reelection campaign of President Obama made a brilliant move on immigration.”

Getalife luvs him some law breaking by his messiah.

Who saw that coming?

saywhat?

June 19th, 2012
7:17 pm

Dusty
June 19th, 2012
5:53 pm

I Report, 5:35

“So Obama’s poltical team wants to talk like Romney is the candidate only for old, straight, white men.”

Maybe Obama should remind them that his grandmother, many years his caretaker, was a straight, old white woman.
______________________________________________________________________
Maybe somebody should remind Dusty that Obama’s grandmother won’t be voting for Romney, or anybody else for that matter, making her comment, as is usual, pointless.

Liz

June 19th, 2012
7:20 pm

Sharing personal thoughts: Jindal would be a great choice, and good for America, IMHO. He is brilliant, he can think on his feet (totally w/o script), like Jeb Bush. He totally blew me away during the BP disaster.

With regard to the Supreme Court decision, if it looks too partisan, is too partisan, it will hurt the court’s reputation for decades to come and this country. One way or the other.

We, as a country, have decided who is entitled to free services and, or subsidies, whether it be for health care, allowing private jets to land at federally funded airports, oil, food, tobacco farm subsidies industry, … We do this with our votes.

Personally, I believe our country should “loan” money for medical care, if the medical profession believes the procedure/services is medically necessary, for those unable to currently pay, or those denied access to health care insurance, because our constitution grants us the right to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without your health, it is difficult to have those things. Circumstances change in life, where at one time you might be in the bottom 1%, later in life you might be in the top 1%, if only for a little while (it can happen, look all around you). I feel the same about income taxes, every American should pay, or at least own a minimum per year. Run a tab per person, take tax refunds and apply them to the personal debt accounts owned to the US government, if someone dies without paying take their money from their life estates.

We all allowed this national debt to pile up, so we all owe. Fair tax, ending undue influence on the tax code, would do a lot to restore this country.

md

June 19th, 2012
7:44 pm

“Anyhoo, the reelection campaign of President Obama made a brilliant move on immigration.”

If one calls shafting his base a brilliant move…..unemployment among young blacks stands at 41% and he just added another 1 million that folks perceive to be harder workers……….

kelly

June 19th, 2012
7:58 pm

A bad outcome for ACA would be SCOTUS deciding based on public opinion. The public’s opinion doesn’t matter in deciding what is legal/constitutional. Worse would be a partisan divide. We don’t need any more institutions in our society to be suspect. Justice is tainted, Education is failing, Banking is corrupt, Congress is inept, etc. The court needs to explain whatever it decides; too many citizens are affected by the outcome.

fair and balanced

June 19th, 2012
8:17 pm

So nobody wants to repeal EMTALA- Obviously Reagan was right and free socialized medicine paid for by those whose employers provide insurance and a few self employed with quirky ideas on individual responsibility will continue to pay for everyone.

yuzeyurbrane

June 19th, 2012
8:19 pm

Pretty good political analysis Kyle. As to court analysis, we will see how partisan the Court really is. On less controversial issues, I agree that it seems not to be fixed in cement. On health care reform, I don’t know. If the law is struck down, we will still be stuck with the reality that we still have a health care system that provides too little care for too much money. And the Republicans have yet to propose anything that really deals with that. As health care consumes more and more of the GNP, along with a decline in the health of the population, then it is inevitable that we will have to confront this problem again. What will we do? Just have a healthy 70% of the population with the rest solving our problem by dieing prematurely? Could be. And what will that do to the social stability of society? Riots? High crime rates? Those who can afford it will live behind gated communities protected by armed private security guards? Could be. Do even the 1% want that kind of America? I don’t know but food for thought.

@@

June 19th, 2012
8:24 pm

Before being elected governor, Jindal served as both the head of Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals — with responsibility for the state’s Medicaid program — and, federally, as a top adviser to the secretary for Health and Human Services.

Who knew? Certainly not me.

Very impressive.

Having taken so many liberties with our Constitution, I wouldn’t campaign against the SC if I were Obama. He wouldn’t be the first to do it, but he’d be one of the ones who lost as a result.

Independents are probably wondering just how far this president is willing to go with his reformation of America. I know I am.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 19th, 2012
8:28 pm

If the law is struck down, we will still be stuck with the reality that we still have a health care system that provides too little care for too much money. And the Republicans have yet to propose anything that really deals with that.
——–

Neither have the Democrats.

md

June 19th, 2012
8:43 pm

“And the Republicans have yet to propose anything that really deals with that.”

Romney has proposed letting the states handle their own programs, which would give us 50 laboratories working on a solution…….sounds like a plan to me. Much better than letting a known inefficient entity dictate the terms……….

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

June 19th, 2012
8:51 pm

“And interestingly,” CBS adds, “Apparently President Obama got a bit of a lecture from Putin about some other failed transitions that are going on around the world.”

Punked!

Again!

Dusty

June 19th, 2012
9:13 pm

Well, MarkV made a nice speech except his premise is all wrong. He wrote: Access to health care is a fundamental human right. Incorrect.

Access to health care is a fundamental human DESIRE. From primitive people onwards, humans have desired help when they are sick. But nowhere or in the best legal constitution is there any word or suggestion that health care is a fundamental right.

We may decide on universal health care because it is good to take care of all when all cannot take care of themselves. But nowhere is it written that healthcare is a human right any more than saying clothes are a human right or food is a human right or housing is a human right. They are things that are desired but not guaranteed to be available.

Our constitution does not guarantee that all will be made equal by the government. It only allows us to be free to live our own lives, make our decisions, and have no one interfere or overcome that freedom.

We were established “under God”,so we proceed to the morality of “loving one another”. That leaves every citizen to do what he thinks is the best for all. We cannot cure or heal everyone just as we cannot make all the poor into rich citizens. We can only make the effort and the decisions as to what is “best” in our personal estimation for the good of all, rich and poor alike..

I do not think that Obamacare is the best healthcare for all. It is flawed. Therefore I am against it. I do not think the total rule of healthcare is the domain of the government. I think the people will decide what they is best to fill the “needs” of all, not just those who cannot manage on their own.

I salute MarkV for his concern for all but we do not all agree on what is the best way to extend that concern.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward - Again)

June 19th, 2012
9:20 pm

I salute MarkV for his concern for all
———

Why? The greedy hypocrite never donated a dime to charities providing “access” to health care.

MarkV’s “concern” never immunized a child, or removed a tumor.

md

June 19th, 2012
9:25 pm

Good summation Dusty……now be prepared to be labeled the devil reincarnate for not understanding that people just can’t manage themselves and must be cared for by a greater benevolent entity…….

Bill

June 19th, 2012
9:30 pm

You know, as I read this thread of absolute hatred, I really wonder why we even bother to elect a President. I have never seen as much negativism (BTW, I spelled the word correctly). I really wonder what type of Americans we are dealing with (e.g. mmmmm just saying, Johnny Reb, Byte Me). With this group being the “best” representative of “the loyal opposition (also spelled correctly)”, we certainly will continue to be in for interesting times. It certainly would be good to see if this group had anything positive to add – they have not to date.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

June 19th, 2012
9:45 pm

Bill- I think that with lots of hard work, dedication and effort, someday, you might have a clue.

And that concludes my positive thought for the day!

Dusty

June 19th, 2012
9:48 pm

L:il Barry,

I do not know what MarkV does for humanity. I only know what he writes here. He expresses concern for those without good healthcare. I do not agree with his conclusions but he does show concern. That is a good sign.

Dusty

June 19th, 2012
9:51 pm

Thank you, md.

Your comments always make good sense. That makes your approval even better.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)

June 19th, 2012
10:04 pm

Talk is cheap, Dusty. If folks really cared about providing “access” to health care, they would have been donating to charities that made that possible.

Democrats: Greedy hypocrites.

Don't Tread

June 19th, 2012
10:50 pm

“Are you saying that Politicfact is BIASED in its assumptions?”

Let’s see…AJC (liberal newspaper) teaming up with the Tampa Bay Times (liberal newspaper) to create a website that assigns a “rating” to political statements.

No, no bias there. :roll:

Why not get the rest of the alphabet media in there too? They’d have more resources to investigate more stuff!

MarkV

June 19th, 2012
11:22 pm

Dusty @9:13 pm

Well, Dusty made a nice speech, and expressed her opinion. But that is all that it is. Opinion. But when she calls what I have written incorrect, she does not have any argument for that other than her opinion. Apparently she would arguethe same way withThomas Jefferson and all the signatories of the Declaration of Independence as well.

Let’s recall again those words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Dusty: “But nowhere or in the best legal constitution is there any word or suggestion that health care is a fundamental right.”

I am not sure what is the “best” legal constitution,,,,, but assuming that Dusty meant the US Constitution, are there words in it about rights to Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness? Then according to her, Jefferson and the others were INCORRECT. They must have meant desires, not rights. Too bad they did not have Dusty to correct them. Or perhaps she would have explained to them how the Pursuit of Happiness can be achieved without good health care, so that the government can secure the one without the other.

yuzeyurbrane

June 19th, 2012
11:51 pm

Lil” Barry— Obamacare does not resolve the problem of poor health care in this country to the extent I would have liked but it represents the first significant (32 million newly covered by health insurance) improvement to our health system since Medicare addressed the problem of the then mostly uninsured elderly. I look it as a good first step which can be improved upon as we learn from our experience with it. So, the Democrats did come forth with something that had a material positive impact on the rapidly increasing problem of too little health care for too much money—as to the Republicans, apparently we agree that they have made no significant proposals in this regard.

md–you are a smart person and I am surprised to hear you say that 50 different state laboratories is anything more than a campaign spin from the author of Romneycare trying to not talk about the national problem of too little health care for too much money. There have been plenty of “experiments” in plenty of states as well as in other Western industrialized countries. We have talked about it ad nauseam since at least Harry Truman. We know what works and what does not work well enough to do something. The Republicans were invited to participate in the discussion and stonewalled for the sole purpose of demagoguing it into a tool to defeat President Obama. The Democrats even modeled their program after a proposal originally made by the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich and implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Modifications were made to meet objections that Republicans were voicing off the record. I hope the Supreme Court is mature and unbiased and recognizes these things so that we can move on with its implementation. I also hope that Democrats and Republicans are mature enough to evaluate its implementation in a bipartisan manner and make modifications as needed.

Love me some Reagan

June 20th, 2012
1:27 am

“Talk is cheap,”

Barry
that is all you do is talk

You are not $hit an couldn’t do $hit if you had to step outside that desk and keyboard

You are a milly mouth punk

plain and simple…….. that has nothing to do with your political views,,,,,,,,,,, its just who you are

Im just saying what everyone else knows

Kyle if that earns a probation or expulsion,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I promise I will live

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

June 20th, 2012
7:12 am

So what should we make of the fact that obozo’s autobiography is a made up out of whole cloth fiction, save for the parts about him snorting coke all day long?

Should one conclude that whomever was tasked with writing obozo’s autobiography found that this hollowed out, intellectually vacant, lay about needed some embellishment just to make him seem pedestrian?

Has anything changed over the years?

GT

June 20th, 2012
7:23 am

The court decision will take the gloves off of Obama. He has been beat up pretty severely for something that only after it reached the Supreme Court did most of America realize it was broken. Before all this it was all about mandatory this or that. Take a survey on car insurance, especially if the voter thinks his or her opinion will matter and you will find the same kind of numbers. This is an adult responsibility that most of this country is not mature enough to accept.

The real facts are the Republicans had 8 years to fix this. They didn’t have the political guts or maturity to do so. They have mislead the American public on it’s subject matter. I think we need some dramatic things to happen like people dying in the street of Atlanta or New Orleans because of lack of medical coverage, to wake or grow this nation up. We had plenty of money for superficial things and the rich love to market that to the poor defenseless idiots. When you get a little older and wonder if that pain in you side is cancer it is too late to say you were wrong. Then most people don’t want to wear motorcycle helmets either until that last second before impact.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 20th, 2012
7:34 am

Love me some Reagan: You are not $hit an couldn’t do $hit if you had to step outside that desk and keyboard…You are a milly mouth punk
———-

And you are obviously yet another victim of public schools. I would urge Kyle to take your substandard education into account when deciding what to do with you.

stands for decibels

June 20th, 2012
7:51 am

victim of public schools. [...] take your substandard education into account

A reminder to those who think it’s cute to vilify public education: ~90% of Americans attending k-12 at any given time are in public schools.

So please, LBB, go ahead and vilify away; it makes it easier to identify the actual villains among us, when folks like you indulge this bit of unabashed elitism.

GT

June 20th, 2012
7:54 am

Point proven…

fair and balanced

June 20th, 2012
7:56 am

The preamble of the Constitution states as follows:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”"”"
Can someone explain why basic health care is not part of “promoting general welfare?”"
or were the framers a bunch of senile idiots?

AU Liberal in ATL

June 20th, 2012
8:10 am

“Decent, law abiding people”? I doubt that you fall into that category and you probably don’t even know any.
If Romney explains what he’d do, it will be a first. He hasn’t offered any specifics on anything so far.

I don’t know what issues the court voted on yesterday, but what ever they were, the outcome is not necessarily a good snapshot of who this court is. I believe and I think most people believe that this court is the most political court in our history.

MarkV

June 20th, 2012
8:14 am

Dusty @ 9:13 pm

It is morning, bringing more time to contemplate Dusty’s opinions.

Access to health care is a fundamental human DESIRE? A DESIRE is a bigger house or a vacation in Tahiti. Oh, you have a desire to be able to get a medical treatment when you are ill or injured? Well, if you can afford it, get it. If not, too bad.

And incidentally, food is just a desire? Really?

“Our constitution does not guarantee that all will be made equal by the government.”

And nowhere did I claim that.

“It only allows us to be free to live our own lives, make our decisions, and have no one interfere or overcome that freedom. “

If one lives on deserted island not claimed by any country. But if we want to be a part of a civilized society, where we have established a government to secure our rights, where what we do is made possible by others, we also have obligations to others.

the red herring

June 20th, 2012
8:17 am

The great divider has spoken. If his will is not in line with the constitution then the constitution must be circumvented regardless of which law is involved. Just think of how much better off this country would be if this administration would stop suing the states over illegal immigration, common sense voting laws, etc.. Perhaps even trying to enforce federal laws on voter intimidation, illegal immigration, etc. rather than pick and choose which laws they will not enforce. Certainly the states should have the right to enact legislation which is not in conflict with federal law (mirrors it) and then to enforce these laws since the federal government chooses not to. The person that needs to go right now is Holder this guy has made a mockery of being the attorney general. Sad state of affairs in the white house and it’s administration today.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 20th, 2012
8:21 am

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive…..Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 20th, 2012
8:30 am

stands for decibels: it makes it easier to identify the actual villains among us, when folks like you indulge this bit of unabashed elitism.
———

What’s easy to identify is folks who haven’t been properly educated.

Now if we could use that information to determine who should be permitted to vote and procreate, we’d really have something.

@@

June 20th, 2012
8:31 am

General welfare, general smellfair.

Article 1 Section 8 lays out responsibilities of the federal government.

It’s Clause 18, the “elastic clause” that is the problem. At some point, elastic snaps back, which is what’s happening now as a result of government overreach.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 20th, 2012
8:33 am

Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out
——

Hey Einstein, Clinton was president one year before 9/11.

Oopsies! Caught in your own America-hating BDS again.

MarkV

June 20th, 2012
8:34 am

Dusty @ 9:13 pm

One last comment to Dusty’s post:

“But nowhere or in the best legal constitution is there any word or suggestion that health care is a fundamental right.”

If one corrected all the imprecision and ambiguity of the above statement, one might find something to agree with. In the Constitution and or system of laws the universal ACCESS to health care is not specifically guaranteed. So were not, at one time, freedom from slavery, civil right for minorities, or voting rights for women. Some of those required a change of the Constitution, some did not.

Obamacare is an attempt to rectify the situation regarding health care. It is not a perfect solution, but an attempt in the right direction.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 20th, 2012
8:36 am

Wrong. Obozocare is an attempt to destroy the free market in health care.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 20th, 2012
8:37 am

What’s in the Farm Bill?
including an amendment by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that would require the Defense Department to study the impact of $500 billion in spending cuts. Another unrelated amendment, by Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, would cut off federal financing for presidential nominating conventions.

stands for decibels

June 20th, 2012
8:52 am

What’s easy to identify is folks who haven’t been properly educated.

When you’re claiming that literally 90% of your fellow citizens haven’t been “properly educated,” you’ve veered off the road from civil discourse into some kind of wacky neo-Stalinist totalitarianism.

Not that this is news to me, or to any number of other rational people reading this stuff, of course.

stands for decibels

June 20th, 2012
8:53 am

to say nothing of what “Now if we could use that information to determine who should be permitted to vote and procreate, we’d really have something” says about you.

stands for decibels

June 20th, 2012
8:54 am

I really do feel a bit sorry for Kyle, that he can’t attract a better class of conservatives, but this is pretty much par for the newspaper-comments-page course, wherever one might lurk.

stands for decibels

June 20th, 2012
8:56 am

(and by “better class of conservatives,” I’m not deriding all the right-of-center folks who post here. There’s some interesting insight to be gleaned if one can separate the wheat from the chaff.

(Which is another way of saying “howdy, HD! Miss ya, but I understand, I think.”)

@@

June 20th, 2012
9:00 am

No Charges for Father in Beating Death

As it should be.

The attack happened on the family’s ranch off a quiet, two-lane county road between the farming towns of Shiner and Yoakum. A statement released by the district attorney said a witness who saw Flores “forcibly carrying” the girl into a secluded area scrambled to find the father. Running toward his daughter’s screams, the father pulled Flores off his child and “inflicted several blows to the man’s head and neck area,” investigators said.

Emergency crews responding to the father’s 911 call found Flores’ pants and underwear pulled down on his lifeless body. The girl was examined at a hospital, and Lavaca County District Attorney Heather McMinn said forensic evidence and witness accounts corroborated the father’s story that his daughter was being sexually molested.

@@

June 20th, 2012
9:11 am

Are the columnists sleeping in at the AJC? Big staff meeting? Bomb scare?

WHAT?

Peadawg

June 20th, 2012
9:12 am

“No Charges for Father in Beating Death”

Nobody in their right mind was going to indict this man for protecting his 5 yr old daughter.

Don't Tread

June 20th, 2012
9:32 am

“No Charges for Father in Beating Death”

Had this happened in the UK, the father would be facing charges, as he would be violating the “reasonable force” statute (use no more force than is absolutely necessary).

But he lives in Texas (where right is right and left is wrong) and they came to the correct conclusion. New York or California – who knows.

Dusty

June 20th, 2012
9:33 am

Well, I read all the comments on “the constitution and healthcare”. Strangely enough, I never found one who could say “healthcare” was in the Constitution. It is not there. Someone’s welfare can be interpreted in many ways.

If you want the government to take care of you like a baby, then “welfare” means furnish everything from birth to death.. If you believe in independence, then you take the synonyms of welfare such as “prosperity, success,happiness & weal(wealth)”, or the ability to attain them yourself. Independence!! Freedom! Initiative! Our constitution keeps you free to attain that which you are able to obtain. It says nothing else.

MarkV—if you live in Atlanta and get sick and don’t have a penny to your name, you will still be admitted to Grady Hospital and receive the best of care. That is why it is there, to care for those who have litttle or no money and for emergency care

Do you also know that hospitals figure into their budgets, the amount of money which they will NOT receive for their services? They hope patients can pay for services because healthcare is very expensive no matter what measures you take.

Now if you care about the “welfare” of your country you will not increase a huge debt for a plan deemed by many to be flawed and expensive. The welfare of our country is also important to every citizen.

md

June 20th, 2012
9:40 am

“that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Yes, life as in others aren’t allowed to kill us….liberty, as in we are free to make our own choices……and the last one is very clearly defined by the word “pursuit”, which is where many on the left go astray………that pursuit usually depends on the preceding right of liberty, which means one’s own freedom to choose determines their path in life.

md

June 20th, 2012
9:46 am

yuze…..I think the difference between fed control and state control is the ability to make minor adjustments to arrive at a better product……think steering many little boats or one giant football field length tanker…..which one is more flexible to change??

I don’t operate off the premise that the entire system needs to be scrapped and replaced with another system that will more than likely have just as many problems….if not more. I like the method of baby steps to change what we have…..and allowing the States to make those changes makes much more sense than trying to turn the tanker……….

MarkV

June 20th, 2012
9:54 am

Dusty @ 9:33 am

Dusty,

This is not the first time you have mentioned something like getting care at Grady without paying for it, or hospitals figuring in their budgets care for those who do not pay. All I can say that I am totally amazed by the shallowness of this argument. Who do you think really pays for that care?

So for you it is ok when you and I and others who have insurance are forced to pay for the health care of those who could have paid for their insurance and did not? That is what you consider right and fair? Why don’t we all stop paying for insurance, Grady and emergency rooms will take care of us, right? Is that not the ultimate “free lunch?”

1961_Xer

June 20th, 2012
9:56 am

Obamacare is a giant entitlement program that will wreck havoc on the country if allowed to stand…..that is all one needs to know.

This is the crux. We were sold that this was needed to lower the cost of medical care in the U.S. It was passed based on accounting tricks used under the best economic scenario possible. We now know (already) that it will cost nearly twice as much as predicted. Liberals claim that this is okay, and will gladly spend us to a Greece-like state of emergency.

The real problem with healthcare now and under Obamacare is that a small number of patients account for the vast majority of spending. In particular, care of morbidly obese patients uses about 70% of the healthcare dollars in this country. Unless this can be significantly reduced, Obamacare is a fiscal cliff. Go to any heart failure unit of any hospital, and note the number of indigent morbidly obese people yo-yoing in and out of care, using hundreds of thousands of dollars of care (EACH) every year. Until we find a better way of treating these people (or just say “No”), Obamacare WILL bankrupt us.

iggy

June 20th, 2012
10:02 am

ObamaCare will not lower the cost of anything. Barry states “everyone must particpate, opt out and pay a fine”, however, the IRS, charged with collecting this fine has zero guidelines and is also instructed not to collect.

Yes…instruct them to do so but provide zero guidelines and zero enforcement…Ah yes, the democratic way…

iggy

June 20th, 2012
10:04 am

House/Harry Reid strikes down proposal to limit/curtail food stamp benefits. The fat and lazy keep getting fatter and lazier.

Dekalb comments

June 20th, 2012
10:31 am

Iggy @ 10:04

I don’t dispute there is abuse in the food stamp program just as there is abuse in the private insurance business. So let’s not make this about a public program.

The average MONTHLY benefit, per person on food stamps is $130.00. Do you know or have you met anyone that is receiving food stamps? I have. These individuals are people who, for all kinds of reasons, fell on hard times. Food stamps enabled them to put food on the table for their families. They weren’t fat, nor were they lazy. They were working hard to find new employment and did within a couple of months.

Interestingly enough the reason they had no savings to fall back on was because they had incurred significant expense to provide medical care for a sick child. Both parents worked but neither employer provided or even offered a health care program. The child was born with this condition and therefore was uninsurable.

Further, poverty in this country is deplorable. 46 million people are now living in poverty, the highest level in the 52 years statistics have been kept.

So you would reduce food stamps that hardly provides for buying steaks and champagne at a time when we have so many people in poverty?

I’ll bet you consider yourself a Christian but seem to never have read or understood anything he did or said.

Dusty

June 20th, 2012
10:32 am

MarkV

Shallow? You are trying to swim on the beach sand!

Of course taxpayers pay for Grady. But you said there was no place to go when you got sick and did not have money. So I answered your wrong assessment.

Whom do you think will pay for Obamacare? Santa Claus? As the country’s finances plummet into the sunset, you want to approve an expensive untried quickly assembled mostly unread healthcare agenda that will add to the indebtedness of our country and most likely prove ineffective. .

How many generations will it take to make a dent in THE DEBT ? Or do you even beleive we have a debt? Probably not. You have figured a way to forget it.

Yes, that is my opinion. I thought you were presenting yours. NO?

yuzeyurbrane

June 20th, 2012
10:39 am

1961-Xer- your facts are off. It is the elderly who use a disproportionate share of our health care resources. Why? Because old people get sicker more frequently and often in more costly ways. But they are on Medicare. So I fail to see where your argument about Obamacare being connected to this phenomenon has much relevance. As to the rest of the population, many of those 50 million uninsured, who are the heaviest users of ER facilities, would now have insurance coverage to schedule a doctor’s appointment to treat their illnesses rather than flood into our expensive ER’s. How is that breaking the bank? The only less expensive remedy I see is to shut these 50 million out of access to both ER’s and doctors’ appointments. In other words, they should just hurry up and die prematurely as they surely would if we went down that path. Can you handle public health trucks driving by to pick up dead bodies from the streets every morning like so much human garbage as they presently do in places like Haiti?

MarkV

June 20th, 2012
10:48 am

Dusty @10:32 am

“But you said there was no place to go when you got sick and did not have money.“

Please show where I said that. Quote me. I am getting rather tired of your misquoting me.

“Whom [sic] do you think will pay for Obamacare?”

You are writing as if Obamacare were something like a space program. Don’t you realize the simple facts: People get sick, They need health care. The healthcare is provided by private practitioners. They have to be paid. Since no one knows when or how he/she will get sick or injured, the idea of health insurance has developed a long time ago. Those who do not pay for insurance and get sick or injured either die or suffer, or those who have paid, pay their bills. Obamacare is to rectify that, both the freeloading of those who could have paid and did not, and taking care of those who genuinely cannot pay. As I said, it is in my opinion not a perfect program, but better than what we had before.

Dusty

June 20th, 2012
10:54 am

Dekalb comments, 10:31

Do you know there are food banks all over Atlanta that furnish food FREE to those who need it? Do you know records have to be kept to keep repeaters at all food banks from going to every food bank available to get all they can? That records are kept to distribute food equally? Have you ever heard of the Salvation Army, The Mission, Red Cross and many others in Atlanta that offer not only supplies but meals and emergency aid? That some churches run their own food banks? Do you know that receivers of food stamps sometimes offer their stamps for sale?(I know ’cause I was offered some in a grocery store.) Do you know that Grady has a branch hospital just for children?

I am all for helping people in distress but I will not go along with the idea that NOTHING is available and people are dying and starving in the streets. Americans are the most generous people in the world to worthy causes. If we are not perfect, we certainly try.

Strangly enough, people around the world try to get here any way they can. Do you really think it is because nobody gets any help here? I wonder why you know so little about our city and our country.

MarkV

June 20th, 2012
10:58 am

Dusty @10:32 am
“Or do you even beleive we have a debt? Probably not. You have figured a way to forget it.”

We are back to your “bee in the bonnet,” the national debt. I wonder who you compare me with, when you asked if I believed we had a debt. You suffer from senior moments? It was only a day or two ago when I, at your request, posted the numbers.

I do not know if there is any point debating this issue with you. Not once have you answered any of my questions regarding the national debt. All you do is shouting: “15 TRILLION!!!!!!!” I wish you explained, why that number is your obsession. But I have an easy solution for that. Just think of the national debt as 0.015 quadrillion. See how small it is?

stands for decibels

June 20th, 2012
11:00 am

Yes…instruct them to do so but provide zero guidelines and zero enforcement…Ah yes, the democratic way…

Is that the talking point this year? I can remember back in 2010 it was, as Rain Man might say, 16,000. Definitely 16,000 IRS agents to shove Obamacare down your throat.

Dusty

June 20th, 2012
11:20 am

MarkV

I grew up with a doctor, my father. My lifework has been in laboratory medicine. That does not make me an expert but certainly exposed to many aspects of healthcare..

There is hardly a place in the USA that you cannot get health care in some form. Even illegal immigrants know that. Some of it is not paid for by the patients but the taxpayers and underpaid doctors. Some of it is not paid by anyone.

Yes, doctors are among the hardest working people in the world and they do it with great care. They are also among the best educated. They do a lot of work for which they are not paid. Why do you want to indict doctors because they practice the great work of medicine?

I suggest you secure information about DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS since you seem to think doctors are only rich and greedy. Volunteer medicine around the world.

You also seem to be ignorant about anything but the idea that government should pay for everything. Yes, everything, for the WELFARE of all. Now that is the real “dream act” done by the ignorant innocents of this world. As ’tis said:”Good intentions pave the road to hell.”, notably by the uninformed.

Dusty

June 20th, 2012
11:24 am

MarkV

Why don’t you answer one question? How can you belittle the national debt like it was small change?

I have to leave. So long…l

md

June 20th, 2012
11:30 am

“Further, poverty in this country is deplorable. 46 million people are now living in poverty, the highest level in the 52 years statistics have been kept.

So you would reduce food stamps that hardly provides for buying steaks and champagne at a time when we have so many people in poverty? ”

Yes, poverty is deplorable….wonder why so many choose to live that way?

Too many in this country must not be aware that many folks actually choose to live like that…..and it starts with education…….and the individual choice…..there’s that word again……to utilize the opportunity that our tax dollars provide.

yuzeyurbrane

June 20th, 2012
12:15 pm

Dusty, you are probably too young to remember the classic TV documentary by Edward R. Murrow, “Harvest of Shame’ which was a moving force leading to the Food Stamp program. You are also are probably too young to remember the Surplus Commodities program which it replaced. I witnessed both. The Commodities program involved county welfare offices distributing surplus foods stored in warehouses under a USDA program. Many counties participated; many did not. They operated a lot like a food bank but the choices were slim. A 10# hunk of lard, a 5# container of peanut butter, 20# bags of insect infested flour and cornmeal; large containers of powdered milk were the staples. Hardly nutritious and dependent on really resourceful moms to cook in a palatable way. Unwanted hunger and malnutrition was rife in America in the midst of plenty for most people. Some of the hungriest people were the farmworkers who harvested the bounty for the well-fed majority. Food stamps were a creative solution to our moral dilemma and the program has been quite successful in significantly reducing hunger in America. And you would have us go backwards to something like the old system? Shame on you.

MarkV

June 20th, 2012
2:08 pm

Dusty @ 11:20 am

Dusty,

I am at a loss how to interpret your wrtiting. The only two alternatives I can think of are incomprehension or dishonesty. What do you prefer?

More later.

MarkV

June 20th, 2012
6:49 pm

Dusty @11:20 am

As I wrote in my previous post, I am at a loss what to think about your writing. Is it incomprehension, or just plain dishonesty? I would almost prefer dishonesty. That would put you together with many on your side who post on this blog, and for whom truth and facts are irrelevant. I have contempt for them, and seldom bother to respond. The alternative is that you have comprehension of written word not exceeding elementary school.

If it is a case of dishonesty, you tactic is transparent. You take something I had written, twist it into something different, and that attack your false version. That is, indeed, intellectual dishonesty.

Case in point: “Why do you want to indict doctors because they practice the great work of medicine?”
I would simply ask you where did I ever say that I wanted to indict doctors. You question is based on a lie. Anybody else I would ask: Are you nuts?

Another example: “You also seem to be ignorant about anything but the idea that government should pay for everything. Yes, everything, for the WELFARE of all.”

Apart from mangled language, a lie only softened by the word “seem.”

And one more: Dusty @10:32 am: “But you said there was no place to go when you got sick and did not have money.“

I have asked you already (@10:48 am): “Please show where I said that. Quote me. I am getting rather tired of your misquoting me.” Naturally, no answer. And YOU dare to accuse me of not answering questions?

MarkV

June 20th, 2012
6:59 pm

Dusty @11:24 am: “Why don’t you answer one question?

What question? Just repeat it. Do you mean “How many generations will it take to make a dent in

THE DEBT ?” Do you expect me to answer such supremely silly question?

“How can you belittle the national debt like it was small change?”

Where did I belittle the national debt? I have written before, that our national debt is large and a matter of concern. At your request i posted the numbers. However, you keep bringing up the subject, but all you ever do is yell “15 TRILLION!!!.” I am very sure that this is actually the extent of your knowledge about the national debt.Prove me wrong. You have never answered a single question I asked you about it.

RC--apoi

June 20th, 2012
10:28 pm

Well, I wish Sister Dusty would pick one argument and stick to it. A few years ago she was telling us she didn’t want Obamacare because she didn’t want to have long lines in the waiting room when she went to see a doctor. Now she’s saying all kind of stuff, like we don’t need it, we can’t afford it, it won’t work, etc. She’s harder to figure out than a drunk woman on meth. Have a good night everybody.

paul

June 21st, 2012
1:49 am

This is what is going to happen the court is gonna rule in favor of Obama screwed up care and then China will take us over cause we owe them so much money we will have no choice to fall to the knees of china cause Obama is spending way to much money of r tax dollars i still think we need to do a uprise to this country..

[...] President Barack Obama. Unexplained is exactly how and why this discrediting will occur, given that majorities of the public across partisan lines deem the law’s individual mandate [...]