Thanks for listening.

[smockers83]

Well, did anyone else watch their health insurance go down the s***ter tonight?

I think it's fair to say that we know I'll have a lot to say on this, so I'll dole it out as necessary.

But to begin, the majority of DC just voted with the minority of it's civilians. Broken government? Disconnected government? What's next?

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Broken government with the people voting having a very biased opinion on the matter and not behaving as a representative should. They are selfish...end of story.

[S13_love]

http://www.thestreet.com/story....html

I just heard about this earlier tonight...supposedly 38 states are ready to sue the federal gov. or something. I wonder if that'll actually happen. This should be interesting.

I think it's fair to say that we know I'll have a lot to say on this

Personally, I would like to hear what you have to say on this whole thing.

Basically, we're all f***ed, right?

[AZhitman]

When 80+% of the American public CLEARLY STATE they DO NOT WANT something, yet these morons and imbeciles do it anyway, it's a sad, sad day.

No real reason for me to belabor the points, there's no argument FOR this bill that makes sense - even many of its supporters say so.

Pelosi should be tried for treason and hanged, and our President should be impeached for this assclownery.

I'm sick of losing 35% of my income to bums, lazy people, the "faux disabled", illegal immigrants, criminals, and those who would do our country harm.

Congratulations, Mr. President. The 6% of Americans (and countless illegals) you just helped out have already forgotten to thank you and are ready for their next handout... You arrogant socialist charlatan.

Don't bother running in 2011. You suck.

[BusyBadger]

I was infuriated to hear PBO use the phrase "Worked for the American dream" when I know full well that the majority of those that will now be covered don't fit that description in the least.

[S13_love]

When 80+% of the American public CLEARLY STATE they DO NOT WANT something, yet these morons and imbeciles do it anyway, it's a sad, sad day.

Good, my ears didn't deceive me. The MAJORITY of the people opposed this...

"We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people," the president said late Sunday

Modified by S13_love at 10:43 PM 3/21/2010

[RobPaulson]

[bigbadberry3]

I don't think it's quite as high as 80%...

[dusred]

I don't think it's quite as high as 80%...

Lets have some science to back your theory.

[S13_love]

I'm sick of losing 35% of my income to bums, lazy people, the "faux disabled", illegal immigrants, criminals, and those who would do our country harm.

It could be worse...like my mother for example...she lost 49% of her income.

"Yay, after all these years of working our a**es off, we're finally making a lot money, now we can actually spend it and have fun!!!........oh wait"
Modified by S13_love at 9:04 PM 3/22/2010

[bigbadberry3]

Lets have some science to back your theory.

Not a great source but still http://www.foxnews.com/politic...eform/

[RobPaulson]

Let's see, we've passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke

buddy of mine said it, idk if he copy/pasted it or what, but it summed up my thoughts on the situation pretty well.

[bigbadberry3]

buddy of mine said it, idk if he copy/pasted it or what, but it summed up my thoughts on the situation pretty well.

Comparatively, the last administration created a war by playing to an emotional Congress not by the facts, by a president who was absent most of his active duty, and sustained by a vice president who had ties to the substantially sized contracts being dished out, and again being funded by a country that has no money.

[smockers83]

Personally, I would like to hear what you have to say on this whole thing.

Basically, we're all f***ed, right?

And so you shall, but not now. I said that because I can no longer post at the velocity I used to and if I can break it up as per the conversation, I can get it out. Way to much going on now...I barely have time to write this very post.

But I usually have a lot to say when I decide to chime in.

[AZhitman]

Comparatively, the last administration created a war by playing to an emotional Congress not by the facts, by a president who was absent most of his active duty, and sustained by a vice president who had ties to the substantially sized contracts being dished out, and again being funded by a country that has no money.

Point?

But since you decided to go there: "a president who was absent most of his active duty"...

I think you'd be describing the one who played more golf in the first 11 months than his predecessor did in his entire career... the one who's spent more time overseas sucking up and kissing a$$ to irrelevant heads of state than in his own country working... the one who took a year to cram a bill NO ONE wanted down the throats of the American people by back-room shady deals and Chicago-style gangland bullying.

SO WHAT if our last administration sucked? Quit looking back, Mr. Hope and Change.

If this is the "change" you supported, then you're an enemy of my country.

[srellim234]

I wish you guys would try research for a change and drop the fake golf indignation. The right wing news is feeding you garbage.

According to Golf.com Obama played a grand total of 25 rounds in the last year, almost all of them on Saturdays. So he chooses to play a round of golf every other weekend. Big flipping deal. He is NOT MIA and on the golf course all the time like you claim.

As for Bush and golf, he claimed he was giving up golf as a sacrifice for our troops and veterans in the war. And then was spotted on the links playing golf anyway, although he did play fewer rounds.

Gee, I wonder which one has spent more time in office reading and researching current events and paying closer attention to what is actually happening in the world? Can't be Bush, because he already admitted he didn't read or watch any news.
Modified by srellim234 at 9:04 PM 3/23/2010

[bigbadberry3]

I was only alluding to our previous president's performance during his national guard stint ... but I was just juxtaposing how administrations always have these underlying characteristics in them. However, I have no problem with Obama trying to better the US's image across the world. Improving relations with countries is not a bad idea. I think a bill that no one wanted is not correct as almost 1 out of 2 Americans was for this bill. Hardball politics is exactly what it soudns like, it'll make some people happy and upset others. That can and does happen with any administration.

[AZhitman]

More rope-a-dope.

Bottom line is, it's not relevant... NOTHING that the previous administration did compares to the purposeful and willful bypassing of one of the most sacred tenets set forth by our founding fathers: The right of the people to be heard... followed closely, in this instance, by the administration's blatant disregard for the fact that NOWHERE in the history of our great country has the government EVER had the authority to mandate that its citizens buy something against their will.

Combine that with the forced redistribution of wealth (TAKING from those who worked hard and succeeded and GIVING to those who made stupid choices, underperformed, and failed)... both on a corporate AND a private level (pay czar, anyone?) and it's abundantly clear what the motivations of this administration are.

Like I said: At least the previous administration picked on someone I don't give a damn about - this pathetic excuse for a president is declaring war on my loved ones.

(Disclaimer for the nincompoops who think I'm some rightie wingnut: Misconstrue my words (and the words of others like me) at your own peril. I'm far from it.

[S13_love]

I'll just leave this here:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MS...e.pdf

Skip to page 3 under "Nature of the Action"

[bigbadberry3]

I would say warrantless wiretaps would be a no no if the founder's got to voice their opinions but again that was for the good of the people of the country. At least health care was passed legally through Congress. People who need help doesn't mean they are lazy, or mooches, bad things happen to good people sometimes which is the purpose of this. You wouldn't of happened to participate in this did you? http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailyb...ppoll

Oh and federal law trumps state law, it'll be interesting to see that reversed if the lawsuit goes through.

[AZhitman]

You wouldn't of happened to participate in this did you? http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailyb...ppoll

Nice try - but no.

Citing a poorly-written OPINION piece by a sad excuse for a "journalist" who calls people "wingnut" just because they oppose a flawed policy does nothing for your position, nor do I appreciate the veiled suggestion that I might be a non-thinker like the people outlined therein.

I'd counter that perhaps he (and possibly you) might actually be the non-thinkers in this case, placing you on a parallel with the birthers and other "wingnuts".

"But how can that be?!? I'm enlightened! I support HC reform! I don't know why, and I certainly can't articulate it, but I believe, dammit! I'm nothing like those people who think Obama's not an American!"

Hmmmm.....

See, we fundamentally disagree on this point:

People who need help doesn't mean they are lazy, or mooches, bad things happen to good people sometimes which is the purpose of this.

I do not believe it is the function of government to "help" its citizens. THAT is the basic position from which I argue.

Government is not your mommy, your neighborhood, your civic group, your church, your circle of friends or your daddy (as much as the lefties would like you to embrace it as, it's not).

Hell, government is broken - how can it FIX a broken HC system?

The fact that you perceive the HC reform bill as fulfilling the purpose of helping the "good people to which bad things happen" tells me you haven't really looked at what it contains, how it affects the 80%+ who are PERFECTLY HAPPY with our healthcare situation (including, interestingly enough, those who have NO coverage) and how it was passed (you can call it "legally", but you're not an attorney, and as such, are unqualified to make that determination. I maintain my position that is was NOT the will of the people AND is unconstitutional.

Oh and federal law trumps state law

Yes, we've seen the lefties' glee already. Kind of like the look on a criminal's face when he lawyers up and knows the authorities can't touch him.

My challenge to you is this: Show me HOW this reform is for "the good of the people". Before you start, I'll remind you that the fastballs will come in high and tight, and I expect you to keep crowding the plate.

I'll even settle for the following: Show me how this will benefit you and me. Two people, that's it. Not all of America. Easy one. Ready, set, go.

p.s. The only thing that article's author said that had any value or credibility to it was this:

we need to stand up to extremism

Amen, John Avlon. In fact, Pelosi and her goon squad are the extremists we're looking at, so we'll expect your full support. KTHXBYE.

[AZhitman]

The Act mandates that all United States citizens and legal residents havequalifying healthcare coverage. If a person fails to do so, the federal government willforce that person to pay a penalty, the amount of which will be increased graduallythrough 2016, reaching $750 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount($2,250) per family, or 2 percent of household income, whichever is greater. After 2016,the penalty will increase annually based on a cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions tothe tax penalty only apply for individuals with certain religious objections, AmericanIndians, those persons without coverage for less than three months, undocumentedimmigrants, incarcerated individuals, or some individuals with financial hardships.

Only a MORON would comply with this absurd mandate. Think about it for a while. If you can't figure out why, I'll enlighten you.

What's more, what are these "religious objections"? How can I get me one of those?

Undocumented immigrants get a free pass? Oh, gee, THANKS, Mister President! WOW. Imagine that!!! Aren't those the people who don't need to worry about it anyway? Aren't those the people I'M paying for anyway? And how is it that a Federal law applies to them anyway? Is it because your silly fine is the LEAST of their concerns?

"Those with financial hardships"? Oh, of COURSE! So it's OK to tax those of us who bust our a$$ and work more than one job. It's OK to tax those of us who succeeded. It's OK to tax those of us who don't claim to be too disabled to work in ANY capacity whatsoever, who struggle to make ends meet, who wouldn't take a hand out even if it meant losing our home, those of us FAR to proud to claim shelter under "financial hardships"....

Yet one more example of the 'redistribution of wealth' agenda of this clownish administration.

This what the defenders of the POTUS are supporting... Wow.

[S13_love]

Oh and federal law trumps state law

So, the states are at the mercy of federal law then?

"the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States." New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).

United States v. New York, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), "a direct order to regulate, standing alone, would . . . be beyond the power of Congress." Id. at 176. the Court in New York stated: "whether or not a particularly strong federal interest enables Congress to bring state governments within the orbit of generally applicable federal regulation, no Member of the Court has ever suggested that such a federal interest would enable Congress to command a state government to enact state regulation." Id. at 178. In the same vein was the Court's conclusion after reviewing the debates at the time of the founding of the Constitution:

We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. E.g., FERC v. Mississippi. . . . The allocation of power contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments' regulation of interstate commerce. Id. at 166.

"[T]he etiquette of federalism has been violated by a formal command from the National Government directing the State to enact a certain policy, cf. New York." United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 1642 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring); see also Board of Natural Resources v. Brown, 992 F.2d 937, 947 (9th Cir. 1993) ("direct commands to the states to regulate according to Congress's instructions" "violate the Tenth Amendment as interpreted by New York").

[AZhitman]

If Federal law always trumped state law, then CARB would be FARB.

See, just like the libbies have been showing us - There's always a loophole.

[bigbadberry3]

My link to the CNN poll was just something I thought was funny (not meant to be a personal jab) albeit I do think there may be some correlation between views of Obama and education level.

Your view as to the government's purpose is indeed different than mine. I believe that the government is around to help people. Even at a local level, governmental agencies are a presence. Police and fire departments offer protection and will help you as you need to the best of their abilities, which have been known to help people. Larger scale I'm glad I have the FDA watching what goes into my food. Should the reach of the helpful government arm be limited, yeah, but as we know that's a hard line to distinguish as shown with HC.

As for who it may help, I can name myself as the first. I was kicked out of my parents insurance coverage for turning 22 although I am still in college. It is not a pleasant experience nor a cheap one trying to insure yourself. (I'm using the immediate effect that I've heard that if you're under 26 I can still use my parents insurance.) This scenario has been pretty common place within my friends this year so I will take a liberty and group them in as a second person.

Just to put this out there, I'm fairly anti illegal immigration. Whether it be from Mexico, Canada, Euro, etc, we can hardly handle what we have and if you need in that bad go through the channels.

Federal>State was just something I remembered from gov class and I've never heard otherwise. I only did a quick search on CARB and federal regs and think that CARB is legal because it is even more stringent than federal standards and is not in contrast with the federal law. But as you've stated, I'm no attorney.

Has GB bought a ticket yet?

[telcoman]

The Act mandates that all United States citizens and legal residents havequalifying healthcare coverage. If a person fails to do so, the federal government willforce that person to pay a penalty, the amount of which will be increased graduallythrough 2016, reaching $750 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount($2,250) per family, or 2 percent of household income, whichever is greater. After 2016,the penalty will increase annually based on a cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions tothe tax penalty only apply for individuals with certain religious objections, AmericanIndians, those persons without coverage for less than three months, undocumentedimmigrants, incarcerated individuals, or some individuals with financial hardships.

Only a MORON would comply with this absurd mandate. Think about it for a while. If you can't figure out why, I'll enlighten you.

What's more, what are these "religious objections"? How can I get me one of those?

Undocumented immigrants get a free pass? Oh, gee, THANKS, Mister President! WOW. Imagine that!!! Aren't those the people who don't need to worry about it anyway? Aren't those the people I'M paying for anyway? And how is it that a Federal law applies to them anyway? Is it because your silly fine is the LEAST of their concerns?

"Those with financial hardships"? Oh, of COURSE! So it's OK to tax those of us who bust our a$$ and work more than one job. It's OK to tax those of us who succeeded. It's OK to tax those of us who don't claim to be too disabled to work in ANY capacity whatsoever, who struggle to make ends meet, who wouldn't take a hand out even if it meant losing our home, those of us FAR to proud to claim shelter under "financial hardships"....

Yet one more example of the 'redistribution of wealth' agenda of this clownish administration.

This what the defenders of the POTUS are supporting... Wow.

Greg

Sometimes you write things that make sense.

Other times you don't!

This is one of those times.

This New York Times piece explains it much better that I could.

So this is for you

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03...ml?hp

Ever since Reagan the middle class has been on the decline.

Obama was elected to change that. So far he is in my opinion doing what the majority of the American people elected him for. If you want to live in a democracy then you have to accept the election results and the changes that result. Gore and Kerry accepted and I accepted Bush until he lied about why we were in Iraq, running up debtand the financial collapse . The tide began to turn and election of Obama was the result. McCains recent remarks prove he was not qualified to be POTUS

I've been seeing some disgusting and despicable video on TV of Obama protesters. Kind of reminds me of why President Johnson signed the civil rights bill in 65. The faces look the same

Telcoman

[srellim234]

At current insurance premium rates and no price controls on the industry the penalty is cheaper than buying insurance. With no public option to provide a cheaper alternative for people to be able to afford it, those who currently are trying to feed their families instead of the CEO of United Healthcare are still not going to buy insurance. The only thing this bill accomplishes as far as the government is concerned is it gets more of our money (this time in the form of fines and penalties) to spend.

Government financial aid to help people pay for coverage is meaningless; the companies will merely raise prices and make more. It's very much like insurance has worked for prescriptions. Companies just raised base prices for prescriptions an amount equal to the average co-pay so they make that much more. Any amount they must reduce a price to get on a formulary is passed along to those consumers who have to pay cash. This whole program is simply another cash cow for private industry.

[AZhitman]

Steve's got it. Now, Steve, the next phase you'll experience is disgust, anger, and rejection of the current administration's "Bend over and like it" directives.

Just because Howie grabs his ankles for Bobblehead Pelosi and her gang of pinheads doesn't mean we all will.

Howie, next time you respond to me, how about disputing my points with facts, not drivel.

See, I'll break it down to the New Jersey level for you:

I quoted a portion of the Bill.

I pointed out the consequences of not complying.

I then selected each of the main exceptions to the rules, and commented on their absurdity.

See, it's pretty simple - I don't use real big words. You just can't be lazy and expect me to feed you ideas with a spoon like your Messiah does.

[AZhitman]

As for who it may help, I can name myself as the first. I was kicked out of my parents insurance coverage for turning 22 although I am still in college. It is not a pleasant experience nor a cheap one trying to insure yourself.

Get a job.

I did it. All through college, usually two. During a recession. Carrying 15+ credit hours. Still chased skirts and drank a little beer.

AAAAAND, if your "theory" holds true about BO supporters, you're AT LEAST as smart as me, if not smarter, so you should have it easier.

[bigbadberry3]

Get a job.

I did it. All through college, usually two. During a recession. Carrying 15+ credit hours. Still chased skirts and drank a little beer.

AAAAAND, if your "theory" holds true about BO supporters, you're AT LEAST as smart as me, if not smarter, so you should have it easier.

Ouch. Well now that I feel that I have to defend myself... For the past three years at school I've worked as a resident assistant so to save money on room and board (and also help out and build the community if anyone from BU is reading this), managed to keep two scholarships, taken overload hours which is 18+ hours in pursuit of a degree and multiple certs, and I also work over the summer. I'm not trying to be boastful but I do not like being called a slacker and the task of finding/paying for health insurance just wasn't welcomed.

I'll be alright knock on wood but I do believe that there are many more Americans out there who aren't as well off as I am that need this.
Modified by bigbadberry3 at 8:09 AM 3/25/2010