This whole thing is nothing more than a massive upscaling of the idea of requiring big minimum liability coverages on auto insurance (which is why the liberal 'elite' class think it's analogous to car insurance). The more insurance policies are in effect, the more trial lawyers can expect to get insurance companies to give big settlements out of court to avoid spending just as much defending a bullshit lawsuit. Health insurance policies pay huge to docs and hospitals so they can pay huge into malpractice insurance so that a big chunk of the legal industry can exist at its expense (and thereby at the expense of the original health insurance customers).

The majority of our legal industry exists through extortion of the healthcare industry and any other areas where businesses or individuals are insured. There is a good reason the trial lawyers' old boy club consistently supports liberals; and it's not to protect Johnny citizen.

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: This whole thing is nothing more than a massive upscaling of the idea of requiring big minimum liability coverages on auto insurance (which is why the liberal 'elite' class think it's analogous to car insurance). The more insurance policies are in effect, the more trial lawyers can expect to get insurance companies to give big settlements out of court to avoid spending just as much defending a bullshit lawsuit. Health insurance policies pay huge to docs and hospitals so they can pay huge into malpractice insurance so that a big chunk of the legal industry can exist at its expense (and thereby at the expense of the original health insurance customers). The majority of our legal industry exists through extortion of the healthcare industry and any other areas where businesses or individuals are insured. There is a good reason the trial lawyers' old boy club consistently supports liberals; and it's not to protect Johnny citizen.

And the big question is...if this health care bill was so great, and supposedly reformed the industry, why was there NOTHING in the 2000+ page bill about tort reform? Hmmm, leftists? Not ONE WORD about it.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: How do I get my name on the free money list? cordially, NEPTUNE.

Well if you were one of the elitist liberals you would have gotten tons of stimulus bucks.
But the low class no count poor libs got squat.
Your man really cares about the little people!

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: And this makes all the tea baggers happy, because????? That money comes from you. And me. Are you guys getting a fat check from the insurance company every month for furthering their interests? How do I get my name on the free money list? Hell, I could be persuaded to sell out for a few bucks. I'm almost 60, I don't have that long to live anyway... Especially if I get sick. cordially, NEPTUNE. PP.S: You love tearing this down, but what can/will you build in its place? The status quo? Thats what I thought.

Of course I love tearing it down. I don't want it, a majority of the population doesn't want it as it is configured today, and a majority of the nation, as shown last Nov, doesn't want those who foisted it upon us, and I believe that trend will continue in the next federal election.
Replace it what--here ya go:
For those like you who do want it, I'll offer this: You pay for it. That's right--you pay for your and 1 or 2 other's healthcare premiums. Talk to your congressmen and get him/her? to sponsor a bill to that effect, and I'll happily support it. I'll be happy--you'll be happy--the other 1 or 2 people you pay for will be happy.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: And this makes all the tea baggers happy, because????? That money comes from you. And me. Are you guys getting a fat check from the insurance company every month for furthering their interests? How do I get my name on the free money list? Hell, I could be persuaded to sell out for a few bucks. I'm almost 60, I don't have that long to live anyway... Especially if I get sick. cordially, NEPTUNE. PP.S: You love tearing this down, but what can/will you build in its place? The status quo? Thats what I thought.

yes - this is actually one of the huge problems with the ins. system as well.
Die Quickly.
it has been a very solidly documented problem.
Ins Companies sitting on needed treatment approval (for review... ) hoping the patient dies before getting approval for treatment.
to me - this is the #1 reason I hate health ins.

and, of course my health ins subsidizing fat diabetic allergic weenies who shoot up insulin, then go to McDonalds.....

those who cry "pay your own way" - that system has not existed in a long time anyways

HSA - ban health ins alltogether, and let everyone pay their own. use HSA's - make it easier to manage. the health system abusers will quickly get under control, and the actual "healthy folk" get the break they deserve for being & living healthy.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Let's not get overjoyed! It is STILL active law until the SCOTUS rules.

texasfiero,

Just to help you understand the law (i've been to law school, so I am not guessing or posturing) the FEDERAL judge ruled on this monstrosity,not a circuit judge. Therefore, the whole shi##ery is null and void. In other words, based on how it is written NO part of the Congressional passage, IN ANY WAY can be implemented. Think of it this way: Your Fiero ran out of gas. The next gas station is 15 miles away. No matter how hard you try, you cannot "wish" your Fiero had gas. It is dead!

Cordially,
Kevin

[This message has been edited by kevin (edited 02-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by kevin: Pyrthian, And since you are no doubt reading about the comments above, I am still hoping to hear from you regarding my question here? Dp you want to take a shot at it? Cordially, Kevin

what do you need to know?

quote Originally posted by kevin: texasfiero, Just to help you understand the law (i've been to law school, so I am not guessing or posturing) the FEDERAL judge ruled on this monstrosity,not a circuit judge. Therefore, the whole shi##ery is null and void. In other words, based on how it is written NO part of the Congressional passage, IN ANY WAY can be implemented. Think of it this way: Your Fiero ran out of gas. The next gas station is 15 miles away. No matter how hard you try, you cannot "wish" your Fiero had gas. It is dead! Cordially, Kevin

Not necessarily. I heard that the judge did not include an injunction in the ruling.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 02-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: And this makes all the tea baggers happy, because????? That money comes from you. And me. Are you guys getting a fat check from the insurance company every month for furthering their interests? How do I get my name on the free money list? Hell, I could be persuaded to sell out for a few bucks. I'm almost 60, I don't have that long to live anyway... Especially if I get sick. cordially, NEPTUNE. PP.S: You love tearing this down, but what can/will you build in its place? The status quo? Thats what I thought.

NEPTUNE,

I do not wish for you to feel scored or disrespected, but I cold not pass the day without imparting knowledge to you. The 'tearing down' as you call it, does not mean the 200,000 million's of American Tea Party advocates do not want change. This is a classic liberal canard. The hoax is, (and obviously you bit into this poison apple years ago and it has obviously effected you mental acumen) that since WE passed this law, at midnight of Christmas eve, WITHOUT any Republican intervention, it cannot be argued against. This is classic socialism. This judges duty is to interpret the Constitution. He did just that! The Republican have introduced hundreds of ideas to keep the cost of health care down. Unfortunately, Pelosi and Obama and the rest of the regime, said that this "law" is going to pass our way or the highway. Fortunately for America, we can begin to introduce the fresh ideas that were previously rebuffed. We will start the discussions again.....

Cordially,
Kevin

quote Originally posted by kevin: NEPTUNE, I do not wish for you to feel scored or disrespected, but I cold not pass the day without imparting knowledge to you. The 'tearing down' as you call it, does not mean the 200,000 million's of American Tea Party advocates do not want change. This is a classic liberal canard. The hoax is, (and obviously you bit into this poison apple years ago and it has obviously effected you mental acumen) that since WE passed this law, at midnight of Christmas eve, WITHOUT any Republican intervention, it cannot be argued against. This is classic socialism. This judges duty is to interpret the Constitution. He did just that! The Republican have introduced hundreds of ideas to keep the cost of health care down. Unfortunately, Pelosi and Obama and the rest of the regime, said that this "law" is going to pass our way or the highway. Fortunately for America, we can begin to introduce the fresh ideas that were previously rebuffed. We will start the discussions again..... Cordially, Kevin

can you name 1/2 of them?

quote Originally posted by kevin: texasfiero, Just to help you understand the law (i've been to law school, so I am not guessing or posturing) the FEDERAL judge ruled on this monstrosity,not a circuit judge. Therefore, the whole shi##ery is null and void. In other words, based on how it is written NO part of the Congressional passage, IN ANY WAY can be implemented. Think of it this way: Your Fiero ran out of gas. The next gas station is 15 miles away. No matter how hard you try, you cannot "wish" your Fiero had gas. It is dead! Cordially, Kevin

and a judge's ruling stopped the drilling moratorium too!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/us/23drill.html

Obama care ain't dead until someone sticks a stake in its heart, regardless what Judge Vinson ruled. Don't forget, Obama thinks the Constitution is a flawed document. In other words, he's not limited by its edicts.

Let's not be overjoyed!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Not necessarily. I heard that the judged did not include an injunction in the ruling.

fierobear,

With as much appreciation and respect as I can afford you, ( I've aways look forward to your thoughts ) the clarification is that the liberals are in check-mate situation. If they ask for a "stay" in the ruling, they are essentially agreeing and abiding with Judge Vincent's ruling and hope a higher judge can start the whole appeal over again. Which aint going to happen. Rather, this ruling puts this whole hideous non- Constitution law in the toilet.

Cordially,
Kevin

quote Originally posted by kevin: fierobear, With as much appreciation and respect as I can afford you, ( I've aways look forward to your thoughts ) the clarification is that the liberals are in check-mate situation. If they ask for a "stay" in the ruling, they are essentially agreeing and abiding with Judge Vincent's ruling and hope a higher judge can start the whole appeal over again. Which aint going to happen. Rather, this ruling puts this whole hideous non- Constitution law in the toilet. Cordially, Kevin

Check out this article, and tell us if there are any "gotchas":

Judge Rejects Health Law
http://online.wsj.com/artic...NexttoWhatsNewsThird

quote The judge said he didn't believe an injunction to stop the health overhaul was appropriate, because it is generally understood that the executive branch will obey a federal court. The government, however, doesn't believe the ruling requires it to stop implementing the overhaul.

The federal govt is excercising an option it believes it has,( tho courts may disagree) in that since the judge didn't specifically order the federal govt to "cease and desist" implementation, they have no obligation to do so.

quote Health policy experts say one alternative to the provision would be to make insurance more expensive for those who wait to buy coverage, providing an incentive for the uninsured to get covered early.

Good luck getting that amendment passed. It would have to pass in the house.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Check out this article, and tell us if there are any "gotchas": Judge Rejects Health Law http://online.wsj.com/artic...NexttoWhatsNewsThird

fierobear,

Looking at your link, the only thing I read hear is that Judge Vincent allows Obamacare to be implemented in the states who accept Medi-caid/Medi-care monies form the Federal coffers. If the states opt out of this provision, they can deal with their own poor and elderly on their own dime. Obamacare wanted to include Federal money (here Florida, take our money ,please) in hopes of trapping them to accept other Federal money to cover those who wish to not to have insurance {and of course EVERYBODY'S insurance rates skyrocket as a result}. So, this landmark decision told Obama, and his regime, that you can't force the states, nor its citizens, to buy something for simply existing. WOW! What blow to liberalism. The judge hit them right across the chops.

Cordially,
Kevin

p.s. You are one of the good thinkers here. Keep it up!

The Senate will vote, maybe as soon as tomorrow evening, on an amendment to repeal the whole thing. Expected to go right down party lines and be defeated, and even if it should garner enough votes to pass, Obama would certainly use his veto.

The federal judge in Fla might voice an opinion later, clarifieing whether he is allowing implementation to stand or not. If the news reports are correct, and he is NOT, then he (imo) should order the federal govt to cease implementation as of yesterday.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Whade, Does the term smartass mean anything to ya? Ron

I excel at it.

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'88 Ferrario
'84 Indy (In A Museum)

quote Originally posted by maryjane: .................... The federal judge in Fla might voice an opinion later, clarifieing whether he is allowing implementation to stand or not. If the news reports are correct, and he is NOT, then he (imo) should order the federal govt to cease implementation as of yesterday.

I'd like to see him order them to halt implementation. Perhaps if he ended the speculation, this albatross could get moved to the top rung much quicker.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: I'd like to see him order them to halt implementation. Perhaps if he ended the speculation, this albatross could get moved to the top rung much quicker.

Actually, he did.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905955/Vinson-opinion



The judge considers it a given that the executive branch will abide by the court; and that an injuction is not necessary because it would be redundant. Nothing in the wording allows for the misunderstanding that they can plow right ahead while they appeal it. So is Obama's position in charging "judicial overreach" and defying this ruling in fact contempt of court ?

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 02-01-2011).]

It's been obvious for some time, going back to his barbed comments about recent SCOTUS opinions, that Obama has at least some "contempt" for court, including the highest in the land. I suspect there is a reciprocal of that within much of the judiciary.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: The Senate will vote, maybe as soon as tomorrow evening, on an amendment to repeal the whole thing. Expected to go right down party lines and be defeated, and even if it should garner enough votes to pass, Obama would certainly use his veto.

All of which is OK. What a vote will do is force lawmakers, and Obama, to be on record as for the health care law, and against repeal. That will follow them to the next election. Harry Reid knows this, which is likely the reason he doesn't want a vote on it. He knows it will be a lead weight around the necks of any legislator who doesn't vote to repeal.

This is so delicious, I can barely stand it. Serves the bastards right for cramming this monstrosity down our throats.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: can you name 1/2 of them?

Well it has been mentioned before but if you need me to point it out again: 1.) Allow Insurance company to offer their products across state lines. And, 2.) force tort reform to both lower the cost medical aid and lower the cost of the doctors error and omission fees. These are the most obvious. I will work on a few more when I have more time.

Cordially,
Kevin

p.s. With something so cpomplicated as somones health,
I always suggest to keep it simple stupid (KISS).

quote Originally posted by fierobear: All of which is OK. What a vote will do is force lawmakers, and Obama, to be on record as for the health care law, and against repeal. That will follow them to the next election. Harry Reid knows this, which is likely the reason he doesn't want a vote on it. He knows it will be a lead weight around the necks of any legislator who doesn't vote to repeal. This is so delicious, I can barely stand it. Serves the bastards right for cramming this monstrosity down our throats.

Ah, but Harry says he DOES want a vote on it--and quickly. He impaled himself on his own petard by insisting (after the mid term results) that there would be no more procedural or parlimentary deviations, so he now finds himself having to allow the vote--with his best hope, that it happens very soon before any of the left abandons his ship and votes in favor of repeal.

quote The willingness of Senate Democrats to allow the repeal measure to come to a vote reflected two factors: a recent agreement among Senate leaders to avoid procedural gridlock and limit the use of parliamentary warfare, and the confidence among Democrats that the health care law would ultimately survive challenges both in Congress and in the courts. ........ The Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said that Democrats wanted to vote on Mr. McConnell’s repeal amendment and any other Republican proposals, defeat them quickly, and move on to other issues, including the debate on the aviation bill that is now on the floor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011...icy/02cong.html?_r=1

quote Originally posted by maryjane: It's been obvious for some time, going back to his barbed comments about recent SCOTUS opinions, that Obama has at least some "contempt" for court, including the highest in the land. I suspect there is a reciprical of that within much of the judiciary.

Guess ol' Barry doesn't care much for the court system's version of social justice, eh ?

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: Guess ol' Barry doesn't care much for the court system's version of social justice, eh ?

Social justice isn't about justice with respect to the courts, it's about redistribution of wealth.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Social justice isn't about justice with respect to the courts, it's about redistribution of wealth.

My point exactly

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: My point exactly

Yeah, I figured you got it. Just making sure others do.

McConnell to Introduce Repeal of Healthcare Overhaul
http://www.newsmax.com/Insi...al&promo_code=B965-1

quote Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he will introduce a measure to repeal the healthcare overhaul. McConnell, of Kentucky, said all 47 Senate Republicans will vote for the repeal. He said no agreement had been reached on how a vote will be held, though he added, “It’ll be clear who is for repeal and who isn’t.” Democratic leaders said they will defeat the measure. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters he had been told that McConnell plans to introduce the measure as the first amendment to a bill on the Senate floor to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. Reid said a repeal of the healthcare law would be “a deficit buster to say the least” and that the FAA measure would create or save almost 300,000 jobs. “It appears that there’s a plan to divert attention from the first jobs bill we’ve had in some time,” Reid said. A repeal “won’t pass,” said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.

It's very likey it won't pass but it will make voters aware of who doesn't want it repealed. In 2012 they may lose their seats for doing so.

http://www.newsmax.com/News...al&promo_code=B994-1

quote Senate Rejects GOP Bid to Repeal Obamacare Wednesday, 02 Feb 2011 06:38 PM Article Font Size Senate Democrats defeated a Republican effort to repeal the U.S. health-care overhaul in a test of their continuing support for the law amid court challenges and signs public support for it may be slipping. The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 51-47 against the repeal effort in a procedural tally. Two weeks earlier, the House’s new Republican majority voted to revoke the law. The 2010 overhaul, which would expand health-insurance coverage to another 32 million Americans, is President Barack Obama’s biggest domestic achievement. Republicans campaigned against it in last year’s elections as an unwarranted expansion of government and cite the issue as a major reason they won the House majority and picked up six Senate seats. “It’s not every day that you can get a second chance on a big decision after you know all the facts,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said on the chamber’s floor today. “This is that second chance.” The repeal, offered by McConnell as an amendment to a bill to authorize funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, is likely to be the first of a series of votes on the health-care issue in coming months. Earlier this week, a federal judge in Florida ruled the overhaul unconstitutional, saying Congress exceeded its authority by requiring people to buy health insurance. The U.S. Justice Department said it will appeal the decision. One other federal court has ruled against the law, while two have upheld it. Democrats said they are glad to defend a law that broadens prescription drug coverage for seniors, bars insurers from dropping patients with pre-existing conditions and helps curb the soaring costs of care. Point Scoring Republicans are only trying to “score political points” and have no chance of upending the law, said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and a chief architect of the measure. “There are not enough votes to defeat health-care reform - - that is a well-known fact,” Baucus said. Immediately before the vote, senators of both parties agreed, 81-17, to remove one provision of the health law that boosts tax-reporting rules for small businesses. They are required to file a tax form with the Internal Revenue Service for any vendor with whom they have at least $600 in transactions. The tax requirement is intended to prevent vendors from underreporting income and underpaying taxes. It is estimated to generate $1.9 billion in taxes a year, which would be used to help pay the cost of the health overhaul. Unspecified Cuts The amendment offered by Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, substitutes $40 billion in unspecified cuts to federal programs over a decade, though it would leave Social Security, defense and veterans’ programs untouched. It is similar to one offered earlier by Senator Michael Johanns, a Nebraska Republican. The Republican Senate minority was able to bring up the repeal measure because of an agreement McConnell reached last week with Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. Republicans said they would curtail their use of delaying tactics to block Democratic legislation if Reid gave them more chances to offer amendments. McConnell and other Republicans have hinted at other health-care amendments later. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican leader, said his party is driven partly by concern that the law’s supporters are wrong in saying it will cut the federal deficit. He said such findings are based on “budget gimmicks and deceptive accounting” built into the health measure when Democrats drafted it. No Alternatives Democrats said Republicans are offering no clear alternatives to the overhaul that was enacted after decades of rising health-care costs and increasing numbers of uninsured. “We cannot go back to a time when millions of American families stayed up at night worrying about what would happen to them and their families if they lost their jobs and their health insurance,” said Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat. The health-care law cleared Congress with no Republican support last year when Democrats controlled the House and Senate. It imposes new taxes on the highest wage-earners and on medical-device makers and other health care industries, and provides hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare savings. Democrats now control the Senate 53-47, so Republicans lack the votes to push through a repeal. Even if they could, it would face a certain veto by Obama. Poll Results A Jan. 4-14 poll by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that negative views about the law outstripped positive ones by a larger margin than at any time since it was enacted. The percentage with negative views of the law rose to 50 percent in January from 41 percent a month earlier. The poll of 1,502 adults, with an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points, showed that 41 percent had positive views, down from 42 percent a month earlier. Kaiser said 47 percent of those surveyed wanted to keep the health-care law as it is or expand it, while 43 percent favored repealing it altogether or repealing and replacing it with a Republican-sponsored plan. Senator Charles Schumer of New York, third-ranking Democratic leader, said he’s confident public support will grow. “As people see the benefits and the parade of horribles fades away, the bill will become more and more popular,” he said. Still, future votes on the health law may create political difficulties for Democrats from Republican-leaning states who are up for re-election in 2012, said John Fortier, a congressional scholar with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Those senators include Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jim Webb of Virginia. “Some of these votes will put them in tough spots,” Fortier said.

"The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 51-47 against the repeal effort in a procedural tally."

"Democrats now control the Senate 53-47, so Republicans lack the votes to push through a repeal."

It looks like two Democrats didn't get to vote and this was voted along party lines, so much for cooperation. I can see a bunch more of Democrats losing their seats in the elections of 2012 and I bet they will still not know why it happened.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: http://www.newsmax.com/News...al&promo_code=B994-1 "The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 51-47 against the repeal effort in a procedural tally." "Democrats now control the Senate 53-47, so Republicans lack the votes to push through a repeal." It looks like two Democrats didn't get to vote and this was voted along party lines, so much for cooperation. I can see a bunch more of Democrats losing their seats in the elections of 2012 and I bet they will still not know why it happened.

avengador,

Thanks for this tidbit of Senatorial news. The vote to repeal is close. It could swing in the direction to repeal. I wonder if it did, would Obama veto his own bill? Perhaps he would, if he wants a chance to be re-elected.

Cordially,
Kevin

Utah Attorney General considers Obamacare unenforceable
http://www.examiner.com/pol...macare-unenforceable

quote SALT LAKE CITY - Following a ruling Monday by a Florida judge that deemed the Obama administration’s healthcare reform program unconstitutional, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has decided the ruling is the “functional equivalent” of an injunction, making the policy unenforceable. US District Court Judge Roger Vinson’s decision was in favor of 26 states who filed suit against the federal government over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The ruling said Congress could not force individuals over the age of 18 to purchase health insurance. Because the mandate is central to the law, the judge declared the entire act unconstitutional. Utah’s Shurtleff was among the first to file after the President signed the bill into law last spring. Utah Deputy Attorney General John Swallow declared, “It is our legal opinion that we are no longer bound by the act.” The Attorney General’s office has told Governor Gary Herbert of their decision and he is weighing his options. The state has accepted federal funding to set up its participation in the program, and Utahns have already benefited from provisions in the law. Parents are now allowed to keep children on their policy until age 26, and coverage cannot be denied because of a pre-existing condition and ended lifetime limits. The act has also provided Utah small businesses with tax credits and seniors have benefited from prescription subsidies to begin to close the proverbial “donut hole.” The US Department of Justice plans to file an appeal and will seek a stay on the Florida judge’s ruling. At least a dozen judges have dismissed the suit and refused to hear it. Opposition to the ruling in Utah calls the Attorney General’s position “political posturing” and is urging Utah leaders to “avoid rash decisions.”

wait a minute... health care is not a right? So, if I was a US citizen and for some weird reason got shot, I couldn't count on getting professional help unless I had a proper insurance? Or if my kid got cancer, she wouldn't get help as long as the insurance companies could find a way of avoiding it? Is that how it works? For real? And what did Obama suggest instead, in plain english?

and what someone said earlier about companies... very true. their goal is to make money. or, to be more precise, to make the value of their stocks increase. kinda sick system where the long term is not taken into consideration at all. it's not even about tomorrow. it's all about today.

quote Originally posted by PerKr: wait a minute... health care is not a right? So, if I was a US citizen and for some weird reason got shot, I couldn't count on getting professional help unless I had a proper insurance? Or if my kid got cancer, she wouldn't get help as long as the insurance companies could find a way of avoiding it? Is that how it works? For real? And what did Obama suggest instead, in plain english? and what someone said earlier about companies... very true. their goal is to make money. or, to be more precise, to make the value of their stocks increase. kinda sick system where the long term is not taken into consideration at all. it's not even about tomorrow. it's all about today.

"Free" health care is not a right.
It's already against the law for a hospital to refuse life-saving treatment if a person doesn't have the ability to pay.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Interesting story, although I don't agree with the person's method... ObamaCare Repeal: Harry Reid Confronted in Gourmet Market

I agree with his methods. They were done in the light of day. Unlike, when the bastard Reid and his troll Pelosi, decided to pass this monstrosity in the dark of night on Christmas eve.

Jim

Edit: Because iPods are to freakin small to type on.

[This message has been edited by jimbolaya (edited 02-08-2011).]