Michael, can I safely assume you probably never believed anything that has come out of Obama's mouth- ever. And now you need his words to support your argument? Let's just agree that whatever Obama said or dosen't say- you don't believe it anyways.

I never said I didn't believe him on anything, but he did say it was not a tax, you can't deny that. Also, the law never calls it a tax only a penalty, read the 2500 page bill and you will not find it as a tax. For the record I have voted democrat, republican and independent in my life, so I am not a partisan, I voted for Gore and Clinton, GW Bush, Perot and in my first vote I believe I voted for Carter. I have just learned that the govt can not solve our problems or take care of any of us, there is not enough money to take care of everyone.

I agree Michael. "How is it that our Chief Justice can call this a tax when according to the constitution, all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The Affordable Care Act started life in the Senate and is thus still unconstitutional."

Tax, penalty, I still don't see the difference between ACA and the fact we pay into Medicare our whole lives. Every paycheck I am forced to pay that, and worse, it's for SOMEONE ELSE'S MEDICAL INSURANCE! (I also pay for my own, of course.)

Since we already pay for medical care for the poor anyway, (but in a monstrously inefficient and stupid way) this way seems better and more sensible.

Micheal, Why don't you just admit you don't like The President.

If it's a tax then we should be paying it directly to a body of government, shouldn't we? Are there any other government imposed taxes that are paid to non-government entities (e.g. health insurance companies?).

Appellate courts are obligated to construe duly enacted laws as Constitutional whenever it is within their power to do so, even if that is not founded on the basis set forth by the laws drafters or proponents

No he didn't. I guess you can look at it this way. Obama said it was not a tax; Roberts and the 4 liberal justices said it was a tax, they voted that Obama lied.

You see you already pay for the uninsured, voluntarily through your health insurance. The fee is built in. About 3 out of 10 people are not insured for various reasons, so you paid fro them. Now you will pay your premiums and co-pays as always, but they will be higher.

My brother in law has been out of work for 3 years, they can not afford to buy health care, so they will be fined by the govt, and they can't afford to pay that fine or "tax". it makes no sense, unless you realize that it is geared to kill off the insurance companies so that the govt can ride in and save the day; then you have the single payer Obama talked about having in place in this country. So be prepared for bureaucrats to make your health care decisions. I have spent over 20 years in health care and the system is going to change for the worse. Schedule your tests and treatment now, because the wait till be long and staffing will fall.

oviously he's not seeing the whole picture and once again it's the middle class that will suffer. Four more years of Obama and we will be just another country ruled by a dictator!

The tax will cost about $85 per year. Are you mad he has to have car insurance too?

You didn't read the law Billable Hours. This is the cost "$2,085 per family in 2016" a little less in 2014 and 2015. I guess you also good with paying for the drug dealers and other criminals who do not file tax returns or buy insurance, you will be paying for them also along with the people who already game the system, plus you will pay for Low-income families, Native Americans, undocumented immigrants and some religious groups all of which are exempt.

Auto insurance is mandated by the states, not the feds. The constitution allows for the states to do thing that the feds can't. It is called federalism. Read your constitution.

Mike your point is the whole point right now the cost of "I guess you also good with paying for the drug dealers and other criminals who do not file tax returns or buy insurance," is being eaten by those who do have insurance You just condemned yourself GOOD JOB!
the medical field will kill to keep its royalty status..... Once the cost are scientifically analyzed they will go down as it is price gouging to stay alive

Anthony, your comment makes no sense.

In your mind maybe.. But the facts say something different you sir are driven by personal gain not the countries well being ...
But ok i will bite drug dealers ..... explain to me how the interstate comparsion applies fron rhino horns or bald eagle feather to pot... One product grows faster than grass ... the other is product is going extinct."possession prohibitions were the only practicable way of enabling the prohibition of interstate traffic in marijuana to be effectively enforced" Like you assigning a negative sterotype or making some off handed insult is all you have left ....

You sir are a dolt!
Chief Justice Roberts sold the USA down the road for a positive line or two in his biography.
We, the people, are on the road to perdition. Period.
I believe that most of the sheeple/voters now living in the USA are foreigners and have no idea what true freedom is or what they are slowly but willingly giving up.
Years ago, a wise man of God told me that sheep don't get lost all of a sudden, sheep get lost one-bite-at-a-time.
We are well on our way to being lost sir.
Think about it...
God help the USA in our time of need!

I agree with you, John!

The idea that in Canada or other countries "one will die waiting for an appointment"
The idea that antibiotics are illegal without a prescription from a doctor...(why i post here i have no idea what the childs medication was)
The idea we pay to much
well i will let Fritz talk for me
"Well, over here in Germany, a visit to the doctor is ... FREE! Ha!
And if you have to get an operation, guess what: It's free! New hip or knee joint? Free. Open-heart-surgery? Free. Whatever you need (mind, not "want") is free.
To be honest, at the moment, you have to pay € 10 per quarter, admittedly, but that's still practically free, since you can go as often as you want after paying that. In a hospital, you have to pay some money for every day you're in, but that's like € 10 a day or so.
Americans call it socialized medicine, but it has nothing to do with communism or socialism. It's actually the whole basic idea behind any insurance: All for one, and one for all. Paying for yourself like in the Wild West, that's pretty old-fashioned, if you ask me.
I strongly recommend watching "Sicko" by Michael Moore, he's not lying. "

Nothing is ever free, someone always pays, except you freeloaders Anthony

the germans have more influence now than when the nazis controlled europe Right freeloaders lol besides the cost is 10 euro that aint free So you agree the same services should cost 40 times more than other countries
Is a knee replacement in the USA the same quality as Thailand Canada or Germany...

If Obama is a socialist, well he's a pretty bad one. So what's your take on the Republican's Corporate Socialism, you know, where they take from the hard working and give to the corporations. Not too good for small business either, huh?

You are the fool if you think our President is a socialist. Listening to Rush Limbaugh for years can rot your brain. Turn off the radio, turn off your FOX "News", and try thinking for yourself.

I See co op insurances coming to have a insurance plan for employees you need to sign up 15 of them ( last time i checked 2004) so i can see unrelated groups of people joining up to form a large group for insurance purposes
a valid point

Amen to that. Are you driving an electric car? No? $800 a year tax. Do you have solar panels on your roof? If not, you will be taxed $1,000 a year. No windmill in your backyard? $1,500 tax. You can see there is no limit now to what non-behavior can be taxed. And beside the ridiculous tax, there is the never-ending intrusion into one's personal life by a non-elected czar who has determined that all your medical records will now be online for any hacker with an ounce of ability to access.

here we are taxed other countries they make money of solar panels and windmills selling the energy to their com ed
And yea i got rid of my ram viper 8mpg for a hybrid 40+mpg....

'forced to buy hybrids and have solar panels installed on our houses...' as opposed to continuing to go broke paying for gas for air-polluting vehicles and having MUCH lower, if ANY household electric bills? Oh, the humanity!

You're referring to Michael's brother who hasn't worked in three years and is still collecting unemployment, right?

It is my brother in law and he does not collect unemployment. His ended 2 years ago, my sister works and he tries to find work. I think his union ended his benefits, but not sure how that works.

I'm happy your brother-in-law was afforded two years of unemployment compensation under Obama. Previously, he didn't have that amount of aid. Remember that.

He received 6 months of unemployment and it was from his employer, not Obama. Unemployment insurance is paid by the employer, he took that and decided he didn't want the extensions because he does not want the govt taking care of him.

Michael, I suggest you review what Obama did during the recession with regard to unemployement benefits (yes, the ones paid by employers). Previously, 26 months was the max benefit required by law. Obama extended that to 99 months. This is what your brother-in-law was privy to.

No he was not. he lost his job in 2009 after Obama was inaugerated, about 3 days after. He took six months of the benefit from his employer. He stopped collecting after that, he did not take the 99 weeks. You do not have to collect if you do not want to.

hehe Obama did him a favor thats called " good work when you can get it"

good luck on that one Your on your way to being a dinosaur

Maybe if Romney wins he'll raise taxes six times like Ronnie Raygun did.

There you go Micheal, telling people how to vote.

In America tribalism replaces calculation, fact or proof

So the blacks are to blame lol wow If you would of said mexicans you would of had a shot But Hispanics had lower than average incomes, but only five percent of US-born Hispanics, and six percent of foreign-born Hispanics, received public assistance.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1514_0_2_0 they just dont pay the hospitals
slick move Batman

t sounds like someone didn't know that working families may qualify for food stamps. As a small business owner of a restaurant I can't afford to pay some of be employees more money, so should they not receive child care assistance so they can work? Should they not get some additional assistance with feeding their family? I'm building my American owned business on their backs and some day I will be able to pay them more, but until then I'm glad we have a system that helps them at the end of the day.
By the way: obesity is mostly due to food choices and not as much as the amount of food. People have to be taught to eat better, but because poverty is usually a learned way of thinking, they eat poor quality foods. Their grocery stores don't sell nice produce options, fresh fish and lean cuts of meat. Maybe you should volunteer to help these people learn how to be better people since you are such a fine citizen!!!

Danielle, so you are benefiting your Epiphania Blu catering business by having "everyone else" support your employees above what you are unable to do or don't want to do. Sorry, but I do not agree with that concept. Surely you are providing your poorly paid employees proper meals.

Yes, food is such a frivolous luxury. Why would we waste money on that??? Funny how people are irked by people getting food stamps, but don't seem to be bothered by the subsidies and tax breaks given to billion dollar companies.

who are you agreeing with?

like minds.... Imagine if you lived in a state where there was a small amount of blacks Who would be at fault then???? Just say i hate Obama your arguements will hit home better Or better yet i am afraid the insurance will dicate to methat i must charge less for office visits thanx guys

like those guys vote ... wait misspoke they vote on mtv raps there goal in life is to consume.... like it or not we need them Maybe we should raise them right However i am not voting for " my man" I am now a constitutional protectionist. America first...

Yhere are a lot of white folks on welfare also .

And the best part is that the model in which Obamacare is based IS Romneycare (he pushed almost identical legislation through Massachussets).

So i am assuming that you are on welfare too? sounds like it. i work hard for everthing that i have and i do not depend on anyone's taxes to put food on my table for me or my kids or to provide insurance. Have some pride and look for a better job or go to school for a better education. If you cannot afford to feed or insure your kids, don't have them and and then have the rest of the hard working class take care of them for you!

I have fallen on hard times before and do you know what I did? I took any job I could get to support myself and family!!! I kept looking for ways to improve my life without crying to the government or asking for a handout from others. It is called personal responsibility and maybe you should try it sometime. I wonder what would everyone do when nobody works because everybody thinks that the government will take care of them.

Not on welfare on charge cards Last time i went to christ i got charged 1400 for a scratch that bled to much 1 hour no stiches just some surgical tape...
A home hospital bed thats 200 on ebay should not cost insurances 900 A pill that costs 10 cents to make should not cost 6 dollars etc etc
Back maybe 8 years ago the doctors agreed to let insurance dictate procedure costs and validity... that made it a slide ruler question about max profits
The truth Hospital stays for which the uninsured cannot pay in full account for 95 percent of the total amount hospitals bill the uninsured.... http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/05/10/197791.htm
Here is the real arguement.....For-profit hospitals tended to charge more than county hospitals, and charges increased with a patient’s age. Charges were also higher for Medicaid patients and the uninsured, the researchers found the smallest range of charges, but there was still a difference of $46,204 between the highest and lowest hospital appendectomy charge.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/the-confusion-of-hospital-pricing/
Medicare also does not pay hospitals or other providers for transitional care services, another activity ... gender and race may be factors http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/AM/pdf/advocacy/CRS_Readmissions_Report.pdf
It was not your comments that made me say tribalism its the costs

I'm with you, hazelgreen!

Just curious... where would you like to go for that triple bypass surgery? Mexico, Canada, France... or would you rather have it done in an American hospital?

Without a seconds thought thailand( they speak English and its tropical) Only because the flight 4 weeks in a resort hospital and procedure would cost less than the co pay lets say 10% of total USA costs.....
the reasons some many doctors come here is the profits plain and simple ........
the truth though on that one comes from this ranking ...... "Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th." Figure out yourself how much more malpractice here... to answer who is most gifted in heath care France by far No wonder everyone gets so pissed off when i jam my french rap tunes ....
these corporate hospitals are clever they hide the embarrassing facts
who has the most malpractice http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124631652544770707.html

Dear Tired of the B.S.,
You have created a false analogy. Human beings are not wild animals. There is a difference. And while it's true that human-offered foods are an artificial, and therefore inconsistent, source of food, there are many more important reasons to not feed wildlife, none of which are applicable to a discussion about fellow human beings. (Reasons include the dangers of various human foods to animals, potential for wildlife to lose their healthy fear of humans, changes in behaviors, such as migration, and more you can read here: http://www.wildlifecareofventura.org/Animal%20Help%20Information%20Pages/Feeding%20Wildlife%20-%20Why%20Not.htm)

I believe that I already "worry" about others. Just ask any of the folks that get free food, housing, cell phones(really...cell phones???), health care, and all the other programs that my hard work supports.
My mother is very proud of me and my three brothers. Why??? Because we have all managed to be somewhat successful and we all have jobs and we all work hard for our families.
I am just getting sick of all the freeloaders that I am forced to support along with my own family. Maybe if they would come over and mow my lawn or paint my fence or just say THANK YOU instead of just sitting around doing nothing for MY hard earned money.

who wants a cell phone with 60 free minutes than after that its 40 cents a minute its not a blessing its a tax ..... just like the lottery..... wrong word its a scam

I agree hazelgreen. besides, if everyone went and found this great paying jobs, then who would work for the small business people? If we were all created to do the same jobs, make the same money, not need anything from anyone, then why would we need more than one person to live on this Earth? Come on people... it takes all levels of people to make this country run. Stop acting like there is some perfect world where no one ever need some help.

And what about property taxes, are those criminal too? I'm paying a substantial amount in Flossmoor to send your free-loading kids to school. The difference is, I see the greater good in this service and don't mind one bit. There is also a greater good to public aid and national healthcare that you obviously can't see through the Fox News haze in your forecast.

The biggest welfare queens are in the boardroom. Wake up.

No one gets the ONLY thing that makes us elite is our military .. Yoka are you telling us healthcare is better in Zaire or Japan(nah we could accept that one) Thats statement would hit us where it hurts

sorry Yoka aussies are kool!

Great posts, hazelgreen. Made it worth slogging through the ... other posts ... to find the one sane voice.

You hit the nail on the head hazelgreen.

Corporate profits are the highest they've been in the last 50 years. Unemployment is the highest it's been in the last 50 years. If it were true that the rich and business were the job creators, we'd be DROWNING in jobss today.

Actually, Russ, American industry had to adapt to a hostile and risk laden job creating environment, created by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid thorugh Obamacarea and other stated policy objecties, that created a disincentive to hire.

Industry, far more effective, efficient and agile than government, was forced to invest in capital, equipment, acquisitions for better organizational efficiency, and overseas operations free from Obama's tyranny.

What Obama doesn't understand, or perhaps even care about, is that if he taxes something he'll get less of it, and if he subsidizes something he'll get more of it.

Obamacare creates a tremendous amount of tax risk, so companies don't hire as much as they would have without that risk.

This is economics 101. Too bad Obama never took it, or, as he states in his book, was in a drug induced "haze" through much of his academic career.

Hazelgreen, it's clear you understand little about economics and the effects of taxe rates on the economy, so let me educate you.

First, the "Bush tax cuts" didn't shift tax burden to the middle class, it reduced middle calss income taxes. The biggest item was reducing the effects of the "Alternative minimum tax" which, unibdexed fro inflation, was hurting the middle class most of all. Under the Bush tax cuts, only about 50% of wage earners pay ANY Federal income tax at all. The top 10% of wage earners shoulder the burden of about 70% of all income taxes paid. That's a far higher percentage than their portion of the national income. If you don't think that's fair, you're a greedy thief.

The lower dividend and captial gains rates didn't increase middle class taxes at all. It did, however, make it better for the middle class to bolster their retirement portfolios and make transactions they would not have normally made were the taxes higher, thus increasing tax revenues with lower tax RATES.

Tax revenues actually INCREASED every year since the tax cuts....until the Democrats took over Congress and the White House.

What would happen if the tax cuts expire? First, it would have disastrous effects on the economy and would likely result in a decrease in tax revenues. With a higher burden on capital gains and marginal tax rates, investors, private, institutional and corporate, won't be investing as much and will greatly reduce capital gain taxable events. This means lower corporate profits, less tax revenue, and higher unsusatanable deficits.

Returning to higher marginal rates will be a disincentive for people to create wealth. Those people who drive our economy, the small business entreprenuers, will be less likely to start new businesses and create new jobs. Is that what you want?

The tax rates will also increase and hurt the middle class with higher alternative minimum tax and personal tax rates.

Oh, it will also drive businesses to export jobs from the US to places with lower tax rates and labor costs. Did you know that China has NO capital gains tax, compared to even the "Bush rates" of 15%?

Corporate tax rates are 35% in the US compared to an average of 25% in the major industrial nations.

Business and jobs didn't just leave the US, they were FORCED OUT by the US government!

Please, do a little reading before making ignorant statements like those above. The Walll Street Journal is perhaps the best reference on economic matters. Stay away from drug addled rags like "Mother Jones" and "TIME"!LOL

Your arguments have no merit. Food stamps are the cause of our obesity epidemic? Wow. I happen to work with many high wealth individuals that can stand to lose half their weight. Must be all that money that's causing them to eat so much!

You must have never met anyone on food stamps and really needed them. The government will give you $300 for a family of 3. With the prices of food, that may not take them through the month. It's not the amount of food, it's the less expensive food options they make in order to eat through the entire month. Now, I'm only speaking for those who need it and not those who abuse it.

Is anybody you know on Medicare? That's a government-run health care system. For the rest of us, despite what Fox and Rush tell you, it will still be a system based on private insurance companies making truckloads of money off people getting sick -- the good old American way, that isn't used in any other advanced country on the face of the earth, including the ones with longer life spans, lower infant mortality rates and better overall quality of health than we have (but look out Latvia, we're coming up fast!).

Actually, Genvieve, Medicaid is run with just a quarter of the overhead costs that the average for-profit health insurer requires, and the Post Office is run very well--without taxpayer money. If the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006 hadn't been signed into law, the USPS would enjoy a $1.5 billion surplus instead of its massive deficit. I know it's cool and often merely habit to argue that government can't do anything right, but in many cases, the facts just don't back up those claims.

Fox = MSNBC is a false equivalency. Several surveys have shown people who watch Fox are less informed about actual, undisputed facts than people who watch no news at all. And the fact that you've heard criticisms of Fox before doesn't make them untrue now. Back to my main point (a fact): the ACA is not government-run health care. Period. Insurance companies will still make a mint off us in the only country where people's health is a for-profit industry. There is no government takeover. Omaba is not a socialist. He was born in Hawaii. These are facts.

What rights do you not have now that you had 4 years ago?

The right not to purchase health insurance if I do not want it.

So you're mad that you lost the right to be a free loader, all the while complaining about the free loaders.

I and my family have health insurance, I have been insured since I was 23 and moved out on my own, same for my wife, my wife and I pay for it, we are in our late 40's now. So we have been the ones paying for the freeloaders and we both have worked in healthcare for over 25 years each. We have insurance because WE decided we wanted it. Now we can not make that decision anymore with out a penalty from the govt. or a tax as it is now defined. See, we had a choice before, now we don't, that is a loss of liberty and freedom.

Great argument. It's the same as a non smoker complaining about the increase in cigarette taxes.

You have no clue John.

This bill was written by the insurance companies, for the insurance companies. It is just one more tax, and guess what? Prices for insurance have magically just seen a 25% increase, and they are predicting a 50% increase following the passing of this bill. That is outrageous, and now YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!!! What did you think was gonna happen, cheaper insurance for everyone? Now trhe government can make you do whatever they want by just making us pay another tax.... I paid for insurance all my life until I got laid off 3 years ago. Can't find a job with benefits, let alone more than $9 per hour. So I guess I am a freeloader as you put it. Maybe some day I can go back into my construction job and get $35 an hour again, but until then, what is it I am supposed to do to pay for this, and still be able to put food on the table???

Andy, take a look at your paystub if you work. There is already a Medicare tax there which, in your words, is the feds forcing you to buy healthcare insurance for the future.

Not a helpful comment.

Non-partisan my butt!! Not only that, the medicaid expansion was found to be unconstitutional, SCOTUS said the states can not be forced, so now it is voluntary.

at least they learned to site example and reference even if it is YOUTUBE production... lol@youtube being = to scientific studies

Yes!

Pending Approval
JJR
8:07 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
I forgot the last line of my comment. It is this. Buy your own insurance. There is no reason not to anymore.

Commie. Show me your papers.

The Supreme Court Just Handed The Federal Government The Power Of Limitless Expansion To Tax You For Any Reason! What don't you understand here.

ObamaCare is now a tax, not just a mandate! The I.R.S. is now the enforcer of ObamaCare, nothing less than a strong arm technique to muscle the people into obedience.

Anyway, enjoy your pipe dreams!!!!!

Really? How so?

No one can argue that the system doesn't need reform. BUT the ACA would NOT have passed through Congress based upon it being a TAX, which it has always been. The end should never justify the means, especially in government. The entire process, in my opinion, was based upon a dishonest premise and presentation to the people.

I don't believe the ACA is settled by any means. While the Supreme Court may have ruled it constitutional on the basis of the taxing powers of the federal government, the law can also be amended by Congress. It will all hinge on the outcome of the next election; hopefully the country can reach a bipartisan, HONEST resolution to such an important issue facing all Americans.

Absolutely right, Christine. It's going from the insurance companies deciding your health care to the government deciding your health care. And you're right about insurance companies not denying health care insurance to someone with a pre-existing illness, except the premium and/or deductible will be so high that it will be unaffordable, and the government then take over the decision-making for you.

It is too bad politics has poisoned the opportunity for both sides to arrive at a comprehensive reform act that is more reasonable and arrived at without misrepresentation.

There has been and always will be hot air from BOTH parties.

You are right Eleanor, look what a FINE job the government has done with social security. Another TAX, started with the best of intentions, run by our government, and probably won't be there when I need it. Insurance companies are not the problem, the problem is too many people making a career out of mooching off the government and the governments willingness to take more and more of my hard earned money to support people that will not work.

Home grown trillionaire families of influence that decide when how and if its good to spend for the nation or when to campaign (think Rome)... Corporate entities that pick and choose popualations baised upon a particular adjustment(what the populace is good at)
health care or not...

great in theory--the problem comes when we try to decide which government programs to exit in order to have less government. Social Security? "Banking regulators? Education? and on and on it goes.

Leave? And deprive the fine folks at Blue Cross-Blue Shield of my insurance premiums? I don't think so. And great job pulling the old "America: Love it or leave it" silliness into the discussion.... can't wait to be told to "Remember the Maine." Makes about as much sense.

Ah, the refreshing voice of logic and reason. Thanks Russ!

Oh, you are so witty, I was abbreviating for The American Healthcare Act, sorry I am getting old, I just should have said Obamacare.I find it amusing that you would dismiss the message for that blunder.
Have a nice day!!

Russ, you mean the actual name of the bill? Don't let stupid annoy you my friend.

Just for the record, FDR did not say that, The Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said it after the Pearl Harbor attacks. "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

who funds the goverment why do they ship so much money overseas?

Your post does not make any grammatical sense at all. Makes it hard to follow what you are saying.

the cover their ass part was the byproduct The Constitution Miss LaShawntye was about being REAL...... Like the comparision though

Be patient COB, Fox News hasn't talked about No Child Left Behind or Patriot Act in a while and they're going to need sometime to prepare a response!

I agree Bob. Give us a better solution or help make it a better bill. Obama is saying, let's work together and make it the best bill it can be. But all I'm hearing from the Rebublicans is "REPEAL". Really?! That's all you have to offer? We're so close to saving millions of Americans lives. The Romnies of the world are just trying to get re-elected. They're telling you not to work together because they think that's what you want to hear.
How many everyday Republicans are out there, that voiced disappointment with yesterday's decision, but secretly were so glad that their wife, son, daughter- get a better chance to fight their cancer. Everyday conservatives now have hope of getting cancer treatments without losing their life savings. I know you're out there. Stand up for your loved ones!

We're so so close. Let's not blow it. The bill as it stands is flawed. Let's fix it!

David: You are so right. Even our pension is based on the stock market - 401k plans same way. Our children & grandchildren will never receive social security because the system is going broke. I fear we are witnessing "THE FALL OF ROME"!

Then why do you keep spewing it, Southside?

The concepts of the 401k is that you plan for your own retirement. Just because your employer does not match does not mean you should not contribute. Also there are IRA accounts you can open on your own with your own money. Why does anyones retirement have to depend on their employer giving them options. Also, where does it say you can't save your own money for your own retirement.

Great point! If you receive any public assistance your ID background should be purple with pink dots. I dont care if you are 50 years old, if you take public assistance you can't buy cigarettes, alcohol or be allowed to gamble (boats/lottery tickets). Regularly scheduled drug testing is a must too!!!!

"Medicare and Social Security are extremely efficient programs that satisfy their users" You are joking, right? Social security adminstrative costs are through the roof, and the system is a Ponzi scheme doomed to go broke. Medicare? Paying doctors less than cost, resulting in many doctors refusing new Medicare patients. Tell me, for which government agency do you make those HUGE salaries?

Well said, It's about time, although the stats I've seen put for-profit insurance companies at around 17% overhead and about 3% for Medicaid. Still, your point is well-taken. And I'd like to believe you're right about us "approaching that milestone" of universal health care . . . but I guess I'm still too cynical. Reading the comments on this article, my cynicism is understandable, don't you think? All this racism and blaming the poor . . .

Great. Teaching the next generation to be selfish.

Nope, JJR, just teaching the children to be FAIR and stand up for their freedom!. If the kids want to give charity to a friend who needs help, it should be THEIR CHOICE to do so, not some greedy goernment bureaucrat who makes that decision for them.

Think of where we'd be if "welfare" contribution was voluntary. You'd be surprised how much better off the nation would be.

I volunteered for the St Vincent DePaul society, where we gave money and vouchers to people in our parish who were in need. You'd be surprised how many people even in "wealthy" areas are in that position. There were no "strings" attached, other than we wouldn't give money to anyone with a clear substance abuse problem who refused treatment or scammers. What was truly gratifying was the number of people who, once they were over their "rough spot", gave back to the community and the Society.

With government handouts, the giveaways are based on political pandering, not fairness or justice. Private Charity does far better. It's about developing character and accountability, not a parasitic entitlement as are government programs.

Speaking of medicare, I live in Will County & no gyne will take a new patient on medicare (supplemental insurance doesn't enter into the equation). Shortly after the decision came down a high profile physician announced on TV that in 15 years there will not be one doctor who will take medicare patients. Right now, as it stands, medicaid too will be out the door exception being those states deeming it lawful.

On another note, no one seems to mind that religious freedom is being ignored within the Catholic Institutions. Under the mandate, they must perform abortions
which goes against our religious beliefs. For some reason, Mormons & Muslims are exempt from this mandatory provision. The Catholic Church has no intention of letting the progressive liberals take away their " freedom of religion".

I'm sick and tired of my last 30 years of property taxes paying for the public schools. I don't have any kids. Oh wait a minute. I'm not sick and tired of it. It's called society.

JJR:
Smile.
That is all.

I don't know how to respond to what you have written. Perhaps if you learned how to use punctuation and proper sentence structure, your point would make sense to the rest of us.

State powers vs. federal powers. Big difference.

Because the specific point of contention within the bill pertains to a requirement that all employer health plans provide free contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs, regardless of any moral or religious objections.

So? I'm against war. Gotta' pay for it.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. Are the two above posts by the same Bob who is posting below? If so, I believe we could, in fact, find common ground on this issue.

Agrippina, yes.

ARE THERE no prisons?! ARE THERE no workhouses?!

Actually, there arean't "debtors prisons" anymore, Aggripina (Classical Civ major, huh?), and "workhouses" to pay off debt aren't around anymore either. I guess this stilted view of the world that you have comes from reading too much literature and not getting out very often!

It was a quote from A Christmas Carol, Bob.

Yes it is most definitely racist to claim that most people on food stamps are black because that is just plain not true.

"It was a quote from A Christmas Carol, Bob."

Ummm...DUH!

The Dark Knight,
If you knew how to Google, you'd learn that about 61% of welfare recipients are white while 33% are black, Similarly, food stamp recipients are 46% white and 37% are black. Even when adjusting for ratios, there are more white recipients of public aid. It IS racist to perpetuate negative stereotypes and lies, especially when the discussion should be on, oh, I don't know, maybe what a good thing it is that health insurers soon won't be able to kick you off your insurance plan for getting cancer. Or refuse to cover you because you have a pre-existing condition like big tonsils.

So, you're saying that every single person without insurance who has ever gone to a hospital has never paid the bill, ever. Is that what you're saying? I'm confused.

And no, I did not major in whatever it is you think I majored in. I do read literature, though. If that offends you, I humbly apologize.

Aggripina, huh? I said that cost for low incomoe and uninsured is paid by individuals through Medicaid or passed along as overhead cost through insurance companies.

It's pretty simple.

Having a choice does not always add up to efficiency. The Soviet union had an "efficient" auto system. It produced black Lada sedans with no options. Sure, consumers had no choice but to purchase it whether or not another car suited their needs better. Our system, with so many different companies competing to provide different cars and trucks for every possible market niche, while providing private sector jobs to all those marketers, dealers, product planners and enginners not needed in a one-car model world . Is certaibly not as efficient -- but it gives choice and private sector job growth....

Bob, are you for or against Obamacare? You seem to be arguing both sides.

Against, definitely. While I support having a means for people to form healthcare "co-ops" outside employment I oppose government running it instead of merely regulating it. Obamacare is financially unsustainable and gives far too much power to unelected bureaucrats. It's mandate or tax or whatever bureaucrats choose tocall it is unconscionable. The idea of the Federal government being empowered to tax someone for NOT buying something is reprehensible. In the old days the "Trusts" were broken up because they forced railroads to pay THEM a fee for every barrrel of oil they shipped for their competitors. This is similar, but it's the government who's the tyrant here.

I can't help but think of the Civl Rights Act of 1964 here, passed by Republicans over Congressional Democrat objection. Everyone associated with it cried out that there was "NO WAY" it could be used to establish racial hiring quotas or "reverse discrimination". Everyone thought it was about creating a color blind society, which most people supported. Of course, the courts ignored the intent and letter of the law and turned it into something repressive, unfair and reprehensible. That'swhat the Federal government does.

The best policy is to DIMINISH Federal power in our lives, but provide reasonable regulation to protect the people from private abuse, but minimize the opportunity for GOVERNMENTAL ABUSE.

Obamacare does just the opposite of this approach, which is one of the many reasons I oppose it.

"Gov't keeps administrative cost high?
"non-partisan data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) demonstrate definitively that private insurance is increasingly less efficient than Medicare."
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
If we have such a fantastically innovative medical industry, how come so many other countries have equal or better health outcomes, despite the fact that our spending per capita is MUCH higher than the others.
There's a saying "Don't ask a barber whether you need a haircut." Similarly, our system incentivizes doctors to provide as much testing, imaging, etc as they can. Yes, the US is a great place if you need extraordinary care, but day-to-day, preventive care, which is what most people need, is sorely lacking. The high cost of health care leads to self-rationing. Increasingly high co-pays and deductibles, in a bad economy, keep people from seeing a Dr. until they need more acute care.
Our system needs serious reform. Obamacare is a modest first step. Unfortunately, Republicans used scare tactics to turn people off to the more ambitious cost cutting initiatives. I had private company insurance before Obama and I have private company insurance with Obama. We don't have gov't run health care.

Robert, first of all you referenced a biased blog that paraphrased rather than quoted authoritative reports. It wasn't worth the paper that it wasn't written on!LOL

As far as your illegitimate claim about other nations outcomes being "better" than ours, that clearly isn'ttrue for "apples to apples" comparisons. For example, many socialist nations calculate infant mortality rate based upon infants perishing after birth while US numbers include prenatal terminations (including voluntary ones in some cases).

If you were serious about comparing HEALTH SYSTEM outcomes, you'd need to compare US 12 year old crack mom births separately from a nation like Sweden where virtually all births are to older, married drugf free Moms.

Perhaps the best measure of quality care is where people from the international community go for cancer and coronary care. Ask anyone from the U ofChicago health system and they'll tell you that their hospital, and US hospitals in general, are where sick people go where money is no object.

Finally, do you REALLY believe in CBO numbers, like those for Obamacare, where their first numbers double counted revenues and AFTER it apssed they changed their conclusions on the same bill from being deficit neutral to adding over a Trillion to the national debt over the first full 10 years of revenue/service?

CBO has been so politically compromised that virtually nothing they calculate is reliable any more.

Concerning administrative costs,very little from government is a fair comparison with the private sector. For example, public schools mislead the public into thinking thier administrative costs are "under 4%", but when you consider the clerical services the private sector includes (and the public schools don't) the real admisntrative public school costs area over 12%.

Also not included are the administratively mandated costs that private insurers must carry, but government doesn't.

You also neglect the fact that the medical industry is forced to shift costs from Medicare and Medicaid by having the Feds and local governments pay less than cost for medical services such that private insurance must absorb the additional fees required by doctors to remain solvent.

While not scientific, the numbers I hear from medical professionals is that Medicaid pays about 70 cents on the dollar for services, Medicare just about breaks even, insurance pays about 110% and private pays as much as 200%.

The trend is that government keeps lowering fee reimbursements for Medicaid and Medicare, requiring the Medical community to shift even more cost to the insurers and patients. This results in expense growth rates being higher for insured rather than government health care NOT because of greater efficiency but because of mandatory cost shifting.

The insurance companies aren't "good guys". What is clear, however, is that government DEFINITELY is the "bad guy" in healthcare.

I guess everyone who disagrees with you is biased. We have a great health care system. 4 out of 5 kings choose the US when they have serious health issues. When money IS an issue, we don't do so good.
"In fact, the World Health Organization now ranks the U.S. 37th in the world in terms of quality health care access. American infant mortality rates (an oft-quoted criterion for how well countries are caring for their citizens) are double those of most Western countries. Almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does.

The U.S. health care system forces over 700,000 Americans to declare bankruptcy every year. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero. Canada: zero."
http://myheartsisters.org/2009/08/27/u-s-medcare/
A 2011 Gallup Poll found that 57 percent of Canadians felt “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their access to health care services (in the United States, that number stood at just 25 percent).

Russ, excuse me if I'm not impressed by any propaganda coming from the politically driven WHO. For example, I believe their "infant mortality" statistics aren't based upon "apples to apples" comparisons. Some nations calculate infant mortality based upon the suvival rate of live born babies and ignore all other losses. I understand that the US calculates infant mortality based upon in utero mortality as well, including miscarriages, still born births and, in some cases, abortions.

BTW, I tried to look at the reference web site but it was blocked as a political propaganda site. If you're going to find a reference, please find a legitimate one.

It would also be interesting to see how they determined that the US has 36 other countries with better "access" considering that no one is denied health care in the US when needed, regardless of finances for the patient.

Regarding medical bankrupcies, I agree too many people act irresponsibly and don't provide for their families' health insurance needs. That's their choice. They bet on not needing health care and lost. They live with the consequences. That's fair.

It seems you also forgot that prior to "Obamacare" 85% of Americans were satisified with their health care system. That's an incredibly high satisfaction rate. Perhaps the sample size and line of quesitioning needs somoe looking into for that Gallop poll.

Clearly, US citizens polled have higher standards than Canadians! They have no basis for comparison.

We have relatives in Canada, and it is indeed an accessible and inexpensive system for minor care, at least to the patients if not the taxpayers.

The problem comes when you need serious coronary, cancer, respiratory or other surgical care.

How many Americans would be "satisfied" if that had a coronary blockage and were "wait listed" for a stent or bypass operation? We've had two relatives in Montreal on that "wait list"....until they died from heart attacks because the "quota" for those procedures had been met in thier district.

If you don't think the unelected bureaucrats will do the same thing in the US if "Obamacare" is allowed to proceed, you're truly living in a fool's paradise.

Thanks for validating my point from above, Russ. the people of Mass. WANTED a program like Romneycare, so he designed and passed a healthcare plan that meets his constituents wants without forcing his ideology on them.

Someone who does that is called a "Centrist". I guess Romney qualifies for that title.

Contrast that with the way Obama DIDN'T design a program that his consitituents want, but TOTALLY based on his ideology that government should control everything from our pocketbooks to our very lives.

That makes him a radical, oppressive servant of himself and his fascist ideology, not the people.

If that distinction is lost on you, than truly you're wearing "blue stained glasses".

ummmm...REPUBLICANS are masters of putting out fear and misinformation?LOL You mean like when Obama said that Republicans "Want dirty air and water" and airs commercials showing a senior in a wheelchair pushed off a cliff by a "Republican"? If you really believe that, you should actually speak to a Republican some time instead of eating the Soros tripe.

Regarding increased health care benefits, OF COURSE people say they more....until you tell them they have to pay for it. Then you get quite a different result.

If you asked the question, "Would you be willing to pay $100 per month more to insure your 26 year old daughter?" you'd certainly get a different result.

The deception from Obama, Pelosi and Reid here is that they conned about 35% of the people into thinking they'd be getting something for nothing in healthcare, and in November of 2010 voters woke up to their con job adn made part of the necessary change.

They're going to finish the job THIS November!

Actually, virtually EVERY person of means in the world comes to America for treatment of serious illness, including the elite parasites in the UN. I guess that makes us No.1...amongst those in a postion to honestly compare systems.

As I said above, people LOVE to get additional benefits...until they realize that they're going to have to pay for them or it will result in rationing of care.

BTW, your item no 4 is untrue. If you need a coronary bypass in virtually any socialized nation on earth, you get wait listed, often until you die. If you're over 55 in these systems, you're "Low priority" and that solves the systems finiancial problems. If you get a serious disease such as cancer or arterial disease at that age, you die quickly and the system doesn't have to give you all that "end of life" care" that makes a large portion of America's medical expenditures.

That's the "government" way of solving the problem, here or anywhere else in the socialized world!

As far as the world not "copying" our system, you're right. Those bastions of brilliance like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Britain, Italy and Japan are imploding because they chose a system of entitlement rather than market driven quality.

You also must remember that those systems were formed after the devastation of WWII, when only the US had the resources to meet a quality medical care system.

Why they chose there current systems was a matter of necessity rather than choice.

Robert, I agree that those kind of bankrupcies happen, and the central issue in reform should have been creating a system where someone doesn't have to lose insurance because of an employment change. If you wanted to start a business or change jobs, it would have been reasonable to create a "COBRA" clause that allowed people to stay in their plan as long as that plan exists, and create an alernative to join a group plan without a tie to employment.

I think stopping denial of coverage for "pre-existing conditions" for someone who'd have been insured for a long time ahd there not been a change in employment is also fair game for reform.

People should also have access through a non-employment group for relatively low cost, high deductable catastrophic care insurance was also a necessary facet of reform. Under this plan, the insured could choose a level of deductable that they can afford to prevent a need fro bankrupcy with and expensive treatment.

If Obama, Reid, and Pelosi had proposed this type of reform, without their Federal power and money grab, I would've supported it.

Instead we got a law that will destroy all the benefits of our system, and do little but give more power to tyrants like Obama who hand out "waivers" from the law to their campaign supporters, but force the rest of us to suffer through its consequences.

Russ, sounds like you had a pretty good insurance agent. At those prices, we didn't need to "mandate" that coverage!

Actually, being part Bohemian, I like tripe too, in liver dumpling soup or Menudo.

Wow, Southside, this is the most irrational and racist post I've seen on Patch and that's saying a lot.

As far as your statement, "No one else running for office this year is anywhere near close to being capable of managing our nation" obviously shows you have no concept of leadership or competent management.

This lack of skill, reason or competency obviously qualifies you for a high ranking position in the Obama regime.

But the final qualification may be the most difficult.

Have you ever defended anyone advocating the violent overthrow of the united States like Eric Holder?

Have you ever commited massive income tax fraud like Geitner?

If you haven't done anything crooked or against the national interest, I'm afraid that second interview will be hard to come by in this administration!

BTW, What branch of the government do you work for?

No Bob, I've seen worse. By you actually, but you know how to get a truck out from under a low over pass, know who women should date, why this health care law won't work, you know everything about the constitution, the economy, and I hear you can rattle off the alphabet backwards while burping, so it's ok. In fact, are you Batman?
"Overthrow of the US gov't." Now that is a classic!
“With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate,”

- Mitt Romney

COB, then from your statement I assume you're a supporter of Romney because he created a successful system of "healthcare for all", something Obama has yet to accomplish?

Perhaps the biggest negative in the link is the most dangerous.....health care is linked to financial revenues of the Federal government. As we've seen time and time again in our states and DC, basic services will be savaged when political wants conflict with them.

Believing that government funding will be stable for support of health care or other entitlements like SSC is to ignore the history of the US government. SSC rates were raised far beyond needs in the 1970s and 1980s claiming that there was a "trust fund" that would be there when baby boomers retired. What REALLY happened was the Feds stole the money for their pet projects and left IOUs that they will never be able to repay. NHS would be the same. When there's political plunder, the health services would suffer unlike under a separate program that the feds can't touch.

Think Illinois state employee pensions, medicaid, and "pork" programs and member intiatives while the state is broke, and you'll have a clear idea of the way the public will be cheated by NHS.

Only someone completely ignorant of political history, or a Democrat, would think this has a chance on the world of providing better, lower cost health care.

Yes, you are Batman! The constant surveilance that you have on Washington since the 70's proves it. How else do you "REALLY" know what happens?

I'm going TMZ on your a$$!

Actually, COB, I AM Ironman!

Just call me Tony Stark!LOL

There were about 300 million with this access BEFORE Obamacare! Addition by subtraction? Perhaps that would be a good campaign slogan. ADD to the nation's prosperity by SUBTRACTING Obama from the White House in 2012!

Oh Bob... I think you overlooked some important words in my post... PREVENTATIVE healthcare (wellness exams, cancer screenings, flu shots) has not been available to 86 million Americans. Sure, someone could be walking dead into an ER and get care without showing an insurance card or supplying an address to which to send a bill for services. This cost taxpayers hundreds times what it would have cost had the person been able to get PREVENTATIVE care. Our nation is suffering financially in part because of the poor healthcare system to date; because PREVENTATIVE care has not been available to all U.S. citizens. Keep spinning, Bob. Eventually you will get dizzy and stop spreading lies about healthcare in America.

Actually, Southside, widespread expensive "preventative care" is far more costly than "diagnose and treat". You may be able to make the case that it saves lives, but you can't make the case on an economic basis. Low cost examinations make economic sense; prostate exams, breast and visual exams and low cost blood tests. Mammograms and colonoscopies for everyone cost FAR more than treating the disease after discovery through conventional means. Do they save lives? DEFINITELY! Do they save money? NO. Giving them to as many people that we do in America is part of the reason our healthcare is so expensive when not "rationed" as it will be by the federal tyrants.

It's money well spent in my opinion, and I really don't like the idea of the Feds being able to cut those services so that they can fund more abortions and sex change operations. Do you?

ACtually, Southside, if you knew anything about American health care, you'd know that EVERYONE in America can receive treatment if they're sick or injured.

If you know of ANY hospital that won't get emergency care for a patient that comes in their door, or doesn't make arrangements for them for thier longer term treatment, I'd like you to publish the hospital's name.

Put up or shut up, buddy!

Bob, you've got the point and miss the point all at once . . . a mandate prevents the uninsured from racking up huge ER bills. In fact, insured people are more likely to go to a doctor sooner rather than wait until a life or death situation to get care when it's really expensive (and much more dangerous).

I agree with you, hazelgreen.

The problem is, hazelgreen, he HASN'T found a cure for cancer, created a economic policy that could avoid the longest spell of unemployment above 8% since WWII, found a way to grow the economy anywhere NEAR the historical 4-6% growth rate typical after this level recession, found a way to prevent drug (and his "fast and Furious" guns) laden illegal invaders from coming into America and murdering its citizens, or creating the WORST deficit and debt situation in American history.

The fact is tthat he's been so ineffective with the things that matter most for Americans that he transcends all race, color, religion and place of national origin with his incompetence or intentional destruction of America.

Amen to THAT! ("And in comparison to good ol GWB, Obama has done more good for this country...")

Bob, our nation is in the financial crisis that is because of the Republican opposition. If our President had been treated with the respect he deserves from day one, he could have done a lot more good for our nation than he already has done. Good ideas, workable ideas were unanimously opposed by Republicans for one reason and one reason only. And every person reading this post knows that to be true. You won’t admit it in mixed company but I have heard it for myself from people ballsy enough to admit exactly why they hate our President.

I don't blame our President for the debt situation in America. I blame the former administration, first and foremost. War spending and big corporate deception is to blame for today's financial woes. I continue to blame big corps today for not doing enough to bring jobs back home from overseas. If Romney ends up in the WH this trend of outsourcing will only escalate.

Fear and hatred is destroying our nation.

Absolutely, Russ! Bob is an idiot. And the first priority of the Repugs was to defund Planned Parenthood, not create the "jobs, jobs, jobs" they said they were going to do when they took control of the House.

Baba wawa:

"Bob is an idiot"- an interesting insult coming from someone whose posts have yet to indicate her IQ exceeds her age!

I suspect Bob has been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh and watching too much FauxNews. Yes, his "rants" are inaccurate. Consider the sources.

Southside, considering your lack of factual argument and logical premise in your posts, I find your baseless and unsupported attacks on the well thought out factual arguments of others somewhere between laughable and pathetic.

Sorry about your Rush Limbaugh suppostion. I typically am working when he's on.

I try to get my information from as many reliable sources as possible, which means I pretty much stay away from network news, MSNBC and CNN, except when I want a good laugh at thier hysteria.

Here's a challenge, Southside. Name one statement I've made that is factually incorrect , with a UNBIASED, NONPARTISAN source giving backing up your dispute.

Once again, Southside, put up or shut up!

Lunchtime response to Russ's misinformation:

"Bush got us into 2 unfunded wars" I won't dispute that the Iraq war was unnecessary and imprudent, and the Afghan war should have been swift and punishing rather than a long term blood and treasure sinkhole. You failed to mention, of course, that he did so with almost unanimous Democratic support. This wasn't "Bushes Wars" they "Bi-partisan Wars". BTW, the wars were funded, bills were paid, funding appropriated. It wasn't on the main budget, but if budgets are so important why hasn't Harry Reid and the senate Democrats passed one in over three years, and why does Obama keep sending in ridiculous and unworkable budgets that are rejected UNANAMOUSLY by both parties in Congress, hmmmm?

"How dare you, try to dismiss the courage it took for Obama to give the command to go after Bin Laden." Acutally going after him was the least courageous, and most political, thing he could do. After 911, BIn Laden was pretty much out of leadership of Al Qeda. He was too "hot" to be involved, and he was primarily trying to survive. He was irrelevant to the war effort. Going after him just soured Pakistan on our alliance, and the ridiculously political and irresponsible way he gave out classifed information may have lead to the death of 30 seal team 6 members in that helicopter attack and led to the life sentence for the Doctor who helped us find Bin Laden. This betrayal caused FAR more damage to our intellegence effort than killing Bin Laden may have given us advantage. Obama's incompetence clearly snatched loss from the jaws of victory!

"Bush had more vacation days to his ranch in Texas than most presidents," The "second White House" stays were not vacations, they were a change of venue from Washington at minimal cost. Obama took MORE vacation days, but he takes his massive patrange entourage along with him and stays at the most ridiculously expensive places in the world. Big difference, there, Russ!

" not to mention his great mishandling of the New Orleans crisis" Russ, if you knew anything about this issue, you'd know that the biggest villains in that disaster were La Dem governor and NO Dem and racist Mayor Nagans ( remeber, "we want to rebuild NO as a "Chocolate City"", really sad an offensive). The Feds couldn't come in until they were requested to by the governor. It took her days to make that request. Nagans incompetently mismanged the evacuation that could have saved many lives.

The biggest failure, however, was the La Democratic party that took the Army Corps of Engieer funds we tapxayers paid for to reinforce Lake Ponchatrain and used it to build a road to a politically connected casino. The people of La understood this, and for the first time in generations elected a good man (and Republican, of course) as governor (Bobby Jindahl).

The one we can perhaps agree upion was the corruption, fraud and waste of the "rebuilding" by Chaney, the Dem Gov, and Nagans. That there hasn't been indeictments from that yet is clearly a sign of how corrupt both the Bush and Obama DOJs have become.

Hilarious!

Nancie, still on the Muslim issue? So what if he is? (He isn't, by the way.) This is still a free country. I am sure you have heard about freedom of religion.

As for his dog, you are incorrect, but I suspect that is only because you do not read real news but get your info from radio entertainers who spew hate. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bo.asp

Funny thing, Russ, I thought you had that "poster child" spot for misinformation and lies all sewn up!

Once again you're following the old tried and true Alinsky axiom of ridiculing what you can't dispute, and attacking the messenger if you can't argue againist the message.

Alinsky is dead, and so will be the Democratic party, of which I was formerly a member, if you and your kind can't progress from bickering and name calling to thoughtful debate.

Southside, the next time we get any accurate, thoughtful information from you free from your obvious hate will be the first time.

Don't you understand that America finally wised up to the deceptions and dishonesty of Obama and the rest of the far left in 2010?

Your liberal ilk better work on creating solutions to the economic and health care issues instead of class warfare, divisiveness, and hate if you want to remain relevant in politics.

In short, it's time to take off your tin foil hat and put on your thinking cap if you want to be competitive in November!

Nancie: Yes. Freedom of religion. What exactly did you protest in New Lennox?

I recommend that you to immediately seek medical attention for your paranoia and delusions.

I get my entertainment from Jon Stewart, by the way. Close.

Nancie,
"You cannot talk to a liberal"? It's the far right that does all the screeching and you're pushing typical middle-road, conservative voters like myself to vote the other way. Ranting about birth certificates is just pure nonsense. The Secretary of State for the State of Hawaii has certified President Obama's birth certificate and that's still not good enough? I guess the SOS doesn't have that authority, right? Yet, it was the SOS of Florida who certified the 2000 election in favor of President Bush and that's acceptable, right?

Get off your high horse, cast your vote and live with the outcome like we always do. And remember, just because it lands in your email or shows up on Fox News, doesn't make it gospel. Do a little fact-checking along with a little rational thought and you might see things a little clearer. Oh, stay on your meds as well.

You must have a job as winetaster, hazelgreen, becasue no sober person could POSSIBLY post the things you do!LOL

Your kidding....Obama has already destroyed it!!!!!

Bite your tongue, HazelGreen. Romney in the White House? If that happens I will join Rush Limbaugh in Costa Rica, where he says he's going now that ObamaCare has been deemed Constitutional by SCOTUS. LOL!

Bob is a democrat? Are pigs flying?

Southside, learn to read. I WAS a Democrat! Then they changed and could only get the support of the ignorant, misinformed, and corrupt.

PS when pigs are flying, it's a good idea to duck after meal time!

@BRF: Entertainment is not the same as absorbing information from reputable news sources. Thanks for the info re New Lennox. I'm not from there and so I missed that piece of news. I find it odd that there was an event supporting freedom of religion, yet Nancie seems to be badmouthing our President based on her suspicion that he is Muslim.

Very scary Debbie ,look to Massachusetts where Romneycare which = Obamacare has been fully implemented since 2006 and 60+% of the covered citizens like it.

Russ, you're right for once. The people of Massachussetts, who are known for liking big government spending asked for Romneycare, and Romney gave them what they wanted. It fit their needs.

As you well know, Russ, what Massachussetts wants is not what the rest of America wants, and it's clear from the history of Romneycare that the Obamacare plan will not lower the number of uninsured nor reduce the cost of healthcare or insurance.

Intelligent people learn from others mistakes. Too bad the Obamanians are apparently incapable of that.

Faux News, "We deceive, you believe."

Better yet, how about the lefty MSNBC and NBC motto: "Ignoring all the news we and Obama rather you didn't know!"

What a knucklehead!
Vote conservative in November so we'll still have stuff to debate in an open forum in January 2013.
If BHO is re-elected, he'll become Commisar BHO and the USA is gone until the next revolution.
You read it here first....

Katie, clearly your ignorance of TV ratings matches your similar ignorance on policy and politics.

Here's the ratings story link http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/television/broken-news-cnn-plummets-2q-ratings-widening-fox-news-lead-24-hour-news-business-article-1.1103267

Fox is down a "whopping" 1% year over year, while left wing MSNBC is down double digits, as is CNN.

O'Reilly and Hannity still rule the "opinion" talk show roost, by an incredible margin over sleazeballs like Maddow and Schultz. Of course, "progressive" radio is dead as a doornail.

People have looked at the Fox, Lame Stream media and left wing MSNBC offerings, and Fox consistently gets the top rating for reliability from viewers.

Lie as you will, Katie, the people find the truth, and they know it's on Fox instead the Obama network at MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS

Yep you got it right Dennis Wilson! We have grown more and more divided in the last 2 or so years. When President Obama took office we were told our nation would heal and be well revered in the world! We haver gone down the tubes instead. I haven't heard one upbeat thing uttered about America in years. Just negativity. Sure would be nice to have a leader that thinks we are exceptional. Oh well maybe someday we can find someone who is proud of America and all she does.

Russ, the problem isn't Gen having her fingers in her ears, it's Obama having his foot in his mouth! Remeber himi saying to Hispanics that he couldn't protect illegals by executive order....until he did? Remember when he said in 2008 that he wouldn't deserve re-election if he didn't bring down unemployment from the "Bush" 6% in 2008 that he didn't deserve to be re-elected.

The problem isn't Genvieve's hearing, it's Obama's lying and divisive hate speech.

Bob,it was a change in policy until legislation can be implemented and not an executive order. Another interesting distortion. Only fooling yourself Bob.
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Obama-takes-big-1st-step-toward-immigration-reform-3640792.php

the issue here is whetehr he's enforcing the law at all, which his executive order states he will not. this is similar to the DOJ only defending the Federal laws they support politically. Remember DOMA and the Holder "tank job"?

In case you didn't notice, Obama had a VETO and FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY in Congress 2009, so your claim about lack of "Republican Cooperation" exposes the dishonesty of your position.

BTW, exactly to what Bush policy are you referring for killing the economy? The tax cuts increased Federal revenues every year....until Peolosi took over the House and Reid took over the Senate.

As any economically literate person knows, the unemployment in 2008 was primarily due to the negligence of Dodd-Frank regarding sub prime mortgage regulation, a power and responsiblity their banking committees had, NOT the President. Wasn't the unemployment rate about 5% when the GOP still controlled Congress? The worst, and most incompetently addressed, downturn since WWII didn't start until the effects of the Dem Congress misrule fed through the economy.

Bush made some whopper mistakes; supporting the concept that everyone, regardless of economic situation, should own a home, starting two wars (with bi-partisan support) that should have punitive rather a "nation building" boondoggle, and givng out a massive prescription drug giveaway in medicare that he refused to raise revenues to fund.

Oh Bob, how you do mislead.

re: VETO and FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY
The Democrats didn’t reach that 60-seat threshold in the Senate until Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in on July 7, 2009. They lost that majority upon the swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on Feb. 4, 2010, just under seven months later. Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority, when you factor in the late Sen. Ted Kennedy‘s illness and the winter recess, amounts to 14 weeks. In fact there were were only about 60 days when ailing Sen Byrd & Teddy were not hospitalized following Sen. Franken's 6 month Repug delayed swearing in. Sen (I-Ct) Lieberman caucused with the Repugs. He was never on board with the Obama admin. Sen Blanche (Wal*Mart) Lincoln ( D -AR) was always an obstructionist as well. (Unlike Repugs, who are all in fear of Grover Norquist's shadow, Dems don't always follow the Prez in lockstep.)

Repug Obstructionism: Consider this tidbit: cloture was invoked 63 times in 2009 and 2010, which isn’t just the most ever, it’s more than the sum total of instances from 1919 through 1982. That’s not a typo. Yes, obstructionism is proving to be far less severe in this Congress, but that’s not because Senate Republicans have suddenly become more responsible — it’s because there’s a right-wing House majority and there’s now far less for the Senate to do.

And...e: Sub Prime Mortgage crisis / Financial meltdown
There's plenty of blame to go around for both parties, but we know which party was the champion of de-regulation.
June 17 2002 :Bush unveils his "Blueprint for the American Dream".[85] He sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through billions of dollars in tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith based organizations.

September, 2003: Bush administration recommend moving governmental supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. The changes are blocked by the Republican controlled Congress.

2003-2007 The Federal Reserve fails to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans

2004:HUD ratcheted up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; they purchased $175 billion in 2004—44 percent of the market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.

Furthermore...

Glass- Steagall, passed by a Democratic Congress in 1993, was repealed in 1999 by a Repug Congress, having fooled the nation into believing that deregulation would bring prosperity (when in fact it triggered recklessness). Repeal was signed by Pres Clinton, so the blame must be shared

The Housing bubble began bursting by 2005. Repugs were in control of both houses of Congress from 1999 thru 2007 and the presidency from 2001 thru 2008. They neither prevented disaster nor did ANYTHING effective to mitigate its horrendous effects. It is disingenuous to absolve Repugs when their man was in the White House and blame Obama for everything while he is in the White House. Fact is under the Repugs, rather than peace & prosperity, we got war (count 'em, 2) and a near depression. That Obama has not brought us a recovery that quick enough or robust enough is not nearly the disaster that the Repugs inflicted on us. Adding insult to injury, they are pushing the same failed policies that put us in this deep hole.

Robert, "Yes, obstructionism is proving to be far less severe in this Congress, but that’s not because Senate Republicans have suddenly become more responsible — it’s because there’s a right-wing House majority and there’s now far less for the Senate to do." You mean like actually pass a budget as they are constitutionally required to do?LOL What is iit, over 1100 days now without one, when it should not exceed 365? There's actually a bevy of provate sector job bills passed in the house that Reid is sitting on...wouldn't want the privatet economy to grow and create jobs, now , would we?LOL

"There's plenty of blame to go around for both parties, but we know which party was the champion of de-regulation."

Regulation was the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, and I challenge you to find legislation passed by a Republican Congress that prevented the banking committee from prohibition of granting loans, or allowing them to be purchased by Fannie or Freddy, for unqualifed borrowers.

Oh, gee when the meltdown came, who was the head of the New York Fed? Oh yeah, that "pillar of conservatism" Tim Geitner wo was so liberal that Obama put him in charge of Treasury.

Robert, you try to deceptively pin this meltdown and economy on Bush. Fine, provide us all with reference for the quotes from Barney Frank, Pelosi, Chris Dodd, and a certain junior Senator from Ilinois opposing the loans to unqualified borrowers, bundling of garbage mortgages or calling out for more oversight and restraint of Fannie and Freddie.

If you can find ANY quotes against this bad mortgage policy from Obama, let's see it. IOf you can find it, you're a much better "googler" than I am!

"2004:HUD ratcheted up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; they purchased $175 billion in 2004—44 percent of the market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans."

If you're comparing the economic conditions of 2004 with those of 2007 when the Dems took over Congress, you're ether dishonest or know little about economics. In 2004, we were still in shell shock form the economic disaster of 911, and both parties were working desperately to pump up the economy and restore confidence. I never agreed with giving loans to unqualified buyers or overheating the housing market, but "loose money" made sense then.

The real tipping point came in 2007 and 2008. That was when the "window" occurred where deciosive action by the fed and the banking committees could've prevented the meltdown.

Unfortunately, Bernahnke and Paulson explained why no action was taken. It was becasue they were "making too much money", and sharing it with the crooked Congress.

We could survive these excesses in 2004, We couldn't in 2008 when fiscal liberals Bush, Dodd , Frank, Pelosi and Reid were in power.

Bush had a lot more in common concerning economic policy, deficit spending and national debt with Pelosi Reid and Obama than conservatives. That's why his and the Dems damaging fiscal policies were opposed by fiscal conservatives.

"It is disingenuous to absolve Repugs when their man was in the White House and blame Obama for everything while he is in the White House."

I'm certainly not absolving the GOP for some horribly liberal failed deficit and government growth of spending policy. They weren't purged because they weren't liberal enough; they were purged in 2006 because they failed to deal with the deficit, set policies of government rather than private sector growth and failed to act in a fiscally conservative and prudent manner.

The voters made the mistake of voting in "not Republicans" in 2006 and 2008 then moved to elect a more effective conservative House in 2010, and will hopefully remove the Senate and Presifdential obstacles to progress and economic growth in 2012.

"Glass- Steagall, passed by a Democratic Congress in 1993"....Robert, as with most "moveon" types, you're way off in your facts.Glass Steagel was passed in 1933 to separate investment and retail banking, and when Clinton and Congress changed it in the 1990s (with overwhelming support of BOTH parties as you conveniently chose not to mention) it was thought it would make banking more profitable, which it did.

The change had "something for everyone"...who was a poltical or wallstreet crook!
Liberals used the SEC to force banks to give loans to unqualified minorities in order to get approval of bank mergers and acquisitions, Bank stockholders and executives made out like crazy by consolidating and getting rid of tens of thousands of redundant personell, even as automation was making productivity soar...and staffing plummet.

Of course, the pols who passed this made out very well with campaign contributions, fat "lobbying" deals when they retired, and high speaking fees as "payback".

In short it was a defining example of abuse and corruption by Federal power, and a glatring example of why the less government power we grant to the Feds the better the people will be served.

That's the basis of conservatism.

Robert, excellent, intelligent, factual, truthful explanation of how we got to this point in our economy.Thanks for the truthful breakdown of the events as they occurred.I am sure Bob's head exploded while he read the truth most of which I and others have tried to say in the past . As usual he shrinks back to his unfair rhetoric about Obama, Dodd Frank Pelosi and Reid.It is all he has and I find it quite amusing .I am sure he will sling some more falsehoods with long winded statements, trying to block any answers by replying to himself.Have fun Bob.

Russ, relax, my head didn't explode from too much knowledge, but I did hear that for a while there you actually had a common sense, practical idea of growing our economy.

It's too bad that fleeting, sensible conservative idea died of loneliness in an otherwise irrational liberal brain.

You have my condolences.

yeah, hazelgreen, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are "poor" people being paid by "poor" people like billionaire George Soros to tell wealthy, guilty liberal North Shore types like Jan Shakowsky to hate anyone who's accomplished or EARNED anything, and have contempt for entrepreneurship, technical academic and professional success.

That's a real contrast, huh?LOL

Bob, a page out of roves book, attack your opponent's strongest points.Unlike Fox, Maddow and Schultz aren't afraid to give both sides of an argument. Unlike fox and apparently you, they (Maddow and Schultz) speak to the truth.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/distort-attack-repeat-20110524

I'll give you a pass on your ridiculous assertion that hate mongers Schultz and Maddow would know the truth, and report it, in anything resembling the balance you see on Fox or Kudlow's show on MSNBC. I'll assume you MEANT to be honest, but perhaps engaged in a little too much Saturday night libation.

BTW, reading drug addled commentary from "Rolling Stone" and expecting to learn from a balanced expostion is much like listening to brain damaged druggies like Neil Young for nuclear power policy or airheads like Sarah Jesscia Parker for climate change or economic policy.

Bob,I could give you many more sources about the ridiculous information that fox and the right feeds its audience and that you apparently feed on.Schultz does get excited at times about his message, being an ex football player.He gets frustrated with the rights misinformation and willingness to put party and power ahead of country.I know your dead wrong in saying Maddow spews hate over anything she reports.She is very intelligent and loves to get both sides of every argument, which again, I say you can't accept, because you can't handle the truth.I think you feel if you shout lies long enough and loud enough someone might believe you .Why not it is the rovian way and the republican way and especially the fox way.

"Study Finds Fox News Viewers Least Informed Of All Viewers" Even people who watch no news were better informed than Fox viewers.
We know Bob, they're in cahoots with the World Health Org and The Congressional Budget offc to discredit Faux newsies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/fox-news-less-informed-new-study_n_1538914.html

Hazelgreen - That was a racist statement.

told you you wouldn't like the messenger or the news source but it is the truth .

Mark,
interesting comment,
from my point of view every time corporate America, the rich and powerful have been unchecked they run the country into the ditch until, the people retake control.As much as you may like liberalism to go away, it never will.The 99% are a good example of that.