BIG DAY MONDAY - March 26th

[Coffee and TV]

Really? Would you care to explain what in their collective background would lead you to believe that Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, or Thomas would break ranks and approve the mandates?

Their past decisions regarding the reach of the commerce clause. Of course, it was a surprise to many how the court ruled on Citizens United case, so who the hell knows.

[KRAM1]

Gonna go ahead and make a bold prediction: The Supreme Court will not only uphold the law, but will do so with more than a 5-4 votes, ala 6-3 or 7-2.

That's a pretty bold statement...I think you are letting your biases override your brain here. But, we will all know soon enough.

[Legend500]

Their past decisions regarding the reach of the commerce clause. Of course, it was a surprise to many how the court ruled on Citizens United case, so who the hell knows.

Exactly. Let's recall that the big issue will be an issue over the remit of the Commerce Clause, and that the court's most conservative justices have gleefully expanded the Clause to cover pretty much whatever the government wants it to. Most recent example: a guy growing a small crop in California fell under Federal law because that small crop might effect the price of the good nationwide.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Sorry, Im not buying it. I work in the middle of the poorest region and among the poorest individuals there are and have yet to see or hear of a single person being refused the opportunity to fight cancer, or any other illness.

Rick

---It happened... he owned a small family owned flower shop... They tripled his rates after a minor accident and he said forget it and went to another company which then temporarily insured him but refused to insure him after seeing the results of a physical exam (cancer which he didn't know about)... the other company despite his being out of the policy omly a couple of days would not take him back. He could not afford the treatment the hospital said he needed. He was several months under 65 so medicare would not pay either. You likely are seeing people qualifing for medicade.... he had too many financial resourses to qualify there as well.. he was Vet Nam veteran but cutbacks had been made at the Big Spring Veterans hospital [this was about 4-5 years ago, they (not this administration) actually tried to close it which would have left West Texas with nothing closer than Waco] and could not get admitted until two months, too crowded...too late to really help him.. earlier might have so family said...

---According to you then why is "Obamacare" a big deal... you seem to think it is happening anyway. You are not far from wrong.... the indigents do get care...[we taxpayers get to pay for it] It is people who have too much that sometimes take the hit.

Edited March 26, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Cr1028]

---A friend of mine died of cancer after a dispute with an insurance company... they stopped coverage... and he could not afford treatment.

I'm sorry to hear that. It is tragic when finances end up shortening a lifespan. I think it is wrong to discontinue someone's insurance just because you have to actually pay out instead of just taking in.

[UNTFan23]

I'm sorry to hear that. It is tragic when finances end up shortening a lifespan. I think it is wrong to discontinue someone's insurance just because you have to actually pay out instead of just taking in.

People get dropped all the time in regards to car insurance as the result of too many tickets or car accidents within a certain timeframe. I'm not saying it's a fair practice, but it does happen within other sectors of insurance.

I would also like to add that car insurance would be many times more expensive if we used car insurance like we do health insurance. Car insurance is used more for catastrophic events like a car accident. Health insurance is used for more common procedures like an annual visit to see a doctor.

Edited March 26, 2012 by UNTFan23

[PlummMeanGreen]

AUTHOR:Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)QUOTATION:"Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?"

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

ATTRIBUTION:The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland's delegates to the Convention.

___________________________________________________

We must keep our Republic, fellow North Texas alums/fellow Americans. The alternative many fear would create another war somewhat like the one that took place in our country in the 1860's.

God........................................"Bless" America.

USA!

Edited March 26, 2012 by PlummMeanGreen

[Cr1028]

AUTHOR:Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)QUOTATION:"Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?"

"A Republic, if you can keep it."

ATTRIBUTION:The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland's delegates to the Convention.

___________________________________________________

We must keep our Republic, fellow North Texas alums/fellow Americans. The alternative many fear would create another war somewhat like the one that took place in our country in the 1860's.

God........................................"Bless" America.

USA!

+1 for the simple fact that I was was able to read the entire post without becoming disinterested in the length of it and skipping to the next post.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Auto insurance = only liability is mandated; mandated for the protection of third parties. The state could care less whether you buy coverage for your car.

Also, if you do not drive a car, you 'll never be required to buy auto liability insurance.

Just call the mandate what it is - socialism and be done with it. Why is that so hard? Just say you wish America was socialist.

Look, we hear about people who have all of these problems with insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, etc. And, we hear that we have to take care of them.

Why? Why do people who can afford to pay their own health care without insurance have to be forced to participate?

The state doesn't say to automobile owners, we are going to force your to buy Comprehensive and Collision coverage because if your car is totaled it might cause you hardship such as not being able to drive to work and make a living.

So, for the good of society as a whole, you are now forced to buy Comprehensive, Collision, Uninsured Motorist/Underinsured Motorist (liability and physical damage), Towing and Labor, and Rental Car.

It doesn't matter that you may not want to cover a car due to its age. It doesn't matter that you have enough money to buy another car without insurance proceeds from your totaled car. It doesn't matter that you realize how infrequently you'll use the Towing and Labor and Rental Car, if ever at all.

None of that matters. You are now required to buy all of this auto insurance, in addition to the auto liability.

Edited March 26, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[untgirl04]

The 10 Terrible Provisions of Obamacare You May Not Have Heard Of

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/07/the-10-terrible-provisions-of-obamacare-you-may-not-have-heard-of/

Rick

I honestly think that this law should be struck down piecemeal - not in its entirety. There are several items in there that I approve of. I was surprised by how much the FSA limitation would affect me. It's very difficult to predict within the course of a year exactly how much you'll need to spend on the doctor. Some years it's obvious you may need to spend more (like saving up for lasik, or planning for a child), but most years it's a crap shoot at best. One of the things I found most helpful at the end of the year was using the remaining portion of my FSA to ensure I had a fully stocked, up-to-date medicine cabinet.

This has come in handy many times - ensuring I have basic first aid items and frequently used medications. When the new restrictions went into effect, preventing us from using our remaining funds for OTC items, I've found myself much less willing to purchase these items. In my opinion, I think it's stupid to restrict OTC items if they're used. It's my money that I've already allocated to healthcare, and I should be able to distribute the money within that allocation in whatever way I find best benefits my health.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

People get dropped all the time in regards to car insurance as the result of too many tickets or car accidents within a certain timeframe. I'm not saying it's a fair practice, but it does happen within other sectors of insurance.

I would also like to add that car insurance would be many times more expensive if we used car insurance like we do health insurance. Car insurance is used more for catastrophic events like a car accident. Health insurance is used for more common procedures like an annual visit to see a doctor.

And, here is a solid post!

Another difference is just as 23 implies - a health insurance policy can be used as maintenance, an auto insurance policy cannot.

You can't file claims under your auto policy for oil changes, tune-ups, tire changes, etc. Yet, that is what a large cost of health insurance claims are.

Look at everything they are asking health insurers to pay for in "preventative" care. It is wholly different than an auto policy.

Excellent point, 23!

Also, the auto insurance marketplace does what it should logically do - charge more for those with higher frequency of use of the policy than others. An MVR will also tell a company how risky you are.

But, we are bent out of shape about that with health insurance? We think health insurers should not have any underwriting standards at all? Someone who goes to the doctor once every 52 weeks should have to pay as much as someone who is at the doctor's office once a week?

Does this make any sense?

If I eat healthy, exercise and take care of myself, I should be charged as much as some slob who sits around drinking beer and eating sno balls?

Because you can't identify where the line should be, everyone has to be thrown into the mix?

Again, call it what it is when you are asking for it - socialism.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

A friend of mine went broke after the government overtaxed his estate and claimed penalties that were completely outrageous.

But I'm sure they would do better with your health care.

Can we leave emotion out of this?

---That was one part of the 2001 tax cuts that really need to be made... estate taxes.... There wee a lot of people who owned businesses and even agricultural ones that would have to sell off part or all of the business just to pay the inheritance taxes..... My BIG objection to the 2001 cuts was all about the Wall Street guys who make millions paying only 15% while most of us are paying more than that on any ADDITIONAL income we may earn by going to work [maybe not on total bill since that includes the standard deductions etc.} If you earn $68,000 or more aftwer deductions, any addtional income above that is taxed at 25% or more... maybe 35% if you really earn a lot. .

---Besides that.. the inheritance taxes of people who owned smaller business often caused them to close or downsize the business to pay the taxes and even put people out of work...

---I have never said I totally support the health bill... but a lot of it needs to be in place as protection against insurance companies.. Check out the state of Texas... we have the highest home and auto insurance in America..... and guess who lobbies excessively and contributes a lot to state campaigns..?

Some people just need to pay attention and quit being so political party blind.... Plus some claim conservative and they must mean religous conservative because their voting actions sure don't mean financial conservative. See the debt as of 2009. UNTGirl-04 comments make a lot of sense..

..

Edited March 26, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

---It happened... he owned a small family owned flower shop... They tripled his rates after a minor accident and he said forget it and went to another company which then temporarily insured him but refused to insure him after seeing the results of a physical exam (cancer which he didn't know about)... the other company despite his being out of the policy omly a couple of days would not take him back. He could not afford the treatment the hospital said he needed. He was several months under 65 so medicare would not pay either. You likely are seeing people qualifing for medicade.... he had too many financial resourses to qualify there as well.. he was Vet Nam veteran but cutbacks had been made at the Big Spring Veterans hospital [this was about 4-5 years ago, they (not this administration) actually tried to close it which would have left West Texas with nothing closer than Waco] and could not get admitted until two months, too crowded...too late to really help him.. earlier might have so family said...

---According to you then why is "Obamacare" a big deal... you seem to think it is happening anyway. You are not far from wrong.... the indigents do get care...[we taxpayers get to pay for it] It is people who have too much that sometimes take the hit.

As tragic as your story seems, I have to question why anyone would drop their insurer before getting a physical, and mostly, before getting on somewhere else, first. Doesn't seem very smart to me?

Even still, I would be willing to bet an example like his, where he doesn't qualify for Medicare due to age, yet makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid, is extremely rare.

And finally, the very fact that I work with the indigent every week and just don't see the bodies piling up on the side of the street as the Obama Administration would have us believe, coupled with the fact that I just lived this nightmare 23 months ago with my mother and cancer and no insurance, no Medicare and no Medicaid, still leads me to bieve without a doubt that non of it justifies a Socialized Medical system like you and the left want.

Rick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

As tragic as your story seems, I have to question why anyone would drop their insurer before getting a physical, and mostly, before getting on somewhere else, first. Doesn't seem very smart to me?

Even still, I would be willing to bet an example like his, where he doesn't qualify for Medicare due to age, yet makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid, is extremely rare.

And finally, the very fact that I work with the indigent every week and just don't see the bodies piling up on the side of the street as the Obama Administration would have us believe, coupled with the fact that I just lived this nightmare 23 months ago with my mother and cancer and no insurance, no Medicare and no Medicaid, still leads me to bieve without a doubt that non of it justifies a Socialized Medical system like you and the left want.

Rick

Yeah that makes sense ... but I think he thought he was insured.... and then after the tests came back he wasn't. Plus he knew he wasn't too far from medicare... I just don't know details that well... He was the father of one of my son't friends...

--You are really hung up on everyone that disagress with you being a sociallist and liberal... pay attention. The last administration was the most liberal spending ever with the budget.... despite claiming to be conservative.... What is your explanation for what happened ??? ... [running up the debt as much than all presvious 200 years combined.. that was conservative??? ] Granted they were religious conservatives ... just not financial.

..

Edited March 26, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[PlummMeanGreen]

+1 for the simple fact that I was was able to read the entire post without becoming disinterested in the length of it and skipping to the next post.

I'm trying to remember the unsimple fact where it says that anyone has to read anyone's post----------long or short. What is "disinteresting" to some

is worthy of thought by others.

+ 1's or -10's will not make me quit posting an opinion or a thought--seems they haven't yet.

[FirefightnRick]

--You are really hung up on everyone that disagress with you being a sociallist and liberal... pay attention. The last administration was the most liberal spending ever with the budget.... despite claiming to be conservative.... What is your explanation for what happened ??? ... [running up the debt as much than all presvious 200 years combined.. that was conservative??? ] Granted they were religious conservatives ... just not financial.

Oh, it's back to Bush again. Exactly what year can we expect you to start showing concern about the Obama liberal?

Rick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Oh, it's back to Bush again. Exactly what year can we expect you to start showing concern about the Obama liberal?

Rick

The truth hurts**. and as long as those tax cuts are still there.. the debt will continue court of control.... the President doesn't pass laws... just signs them or vetoes them. I am concerned... nothing is being done in Congress...

** ok.. whose administration deserves the blame then for the debt doubling , and the economy collapsing.... pick one...

[UNTFan23]

The truth hurts**. and as long as those tax cuts are still there.. the debt will continue court of control.... the President doesn't pass laws... just signs them or vetoes them. I am concerned... nothing is being done in Congress...

Raising everyone's effective tax rate a couple percentage points isn't going to solve the deficit spending problems of this country. Of course, the white elephant in the room is still Social Security and Medicare; those 2 programs are really going to put a financial strain on future budgets.

** ok.. whose administration deserves the blame then for the debt doubling , and the economy collapsing.... pick one...

And if we're don't change how future federal budgets are being handled, we'll see the debt doubled again after 8 years (assuming re-election) by president # 44.

[Censored by Laurie]

People get dropped all the time in regards to car insurance as the result of too many tickets or car accidents within a certain timeframe. I'm not saying it's a fair practice, but it does happen within other sectors of insurance.

Did you just compare getting speeding tickets to getting cancer?

I'm a bit surprised/disappointed this whole mess actually made it to day 2.

[yyz28]

If congress can tell you as a condition of breathing in this country that you MUST purchase a product or face a penalty or a fine, where does their power end? If they can force us to buy health insurance, can't they force us to buy hybrids? Can't they force us to buy pink bunny slippers? Can't they force us to chew only peppermint gum?

I don't think there is anyone on this board who thinks the existing healthcare system is hunky-dory and doesn't need some major changes. ...but there is real disagreement as to what those changes SHOULD BE. ...but I'm shocked that anyone who is of reasonable mind who has watched our government in action during the time he or she has been alive can come to the conclusion that its going to be OK for our Government to make this power grab and that it will end here based simply on their track record.

Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments that will argue exactly this point, that Congress IS acting within its Constitutional limits by forcing you to buy a product or pay a fine. When the Federal Government has that type of power AND control over the system that regulates your very life and health, you are no longer free. This, to me, isn't an argument about health insurance but rather about something far more basic.

[UNTFan23]

Did you just compare getting speeding tickets to getting cancer?

I'm a bit surprised/disappointed this whole mess actually made it to day 2.

It was never my intent to compare the two but I did just wanted to point out that insurance companies do drop people from policies in other sectors (most famously car insurance).

Proponents of the health insurance mandate have long linked the two together since states have mandated for years that car owners and persons with driver's licenses maintain a certain level of liability insurance.

[Cr1028]

I'm trying to remember the unsimple fact where it says that anyone has to read anyone's post----------long or short. What is "disinteresting" to some

is worthy of thought by others.

+ 1's or -10's will not make me quit posting an opinion or a thought--seems they haven't yet.

I was teasing Plumm. Don't get so worked up over it.

[Cr1028]

Auto insurance = only liability is mandated; mandated for the protection of third parties. The state could care less whether you buy coverage for your car.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Cr1028

[UNT90]

The truth hurts**. and as long as those tax cuts are still there.. the debt will continue court of control.... the President doesn't pass laws... just signs them or vetoes them. I am concerned... nothing is being done in Congress...

** ok.. whose administration deserves the blame then for the debt doubling , and the economy collapsing.... pick one...

So then you should be blaming congress for the debt in the last years of the Bish administration, but you don't, because it doesn't suit your politics.

Pres. Obama also had democratic control of both houses of congress for his 1st 2 years in office. So far, he has almost tripled the rate of spending from the BUsh administration. But that doesn't concern you, and you just conveinantly shift the blame to congress. I am so sick of the "Well, he went broke, so I can go broker" argument. It makes zero sense, but people do it all the time to justify their politics.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

So then you should be blaming congress for the debt in the last years of the Bish administration, but you don't, because it doesn't suit your politics.

Pres. Obama also had democratic control of both houses of congress for his 1st 2 years in office. So far, he has almost tripled the rate of spending from the BUsh administration. But that doesn't concern you, and you just conveinantly shift the blame to congress. I am so sick of the "Well, he went broke, so I can go broker" argument. It makes zero sense, but people do it all the time to justify their politics.

--Well I do blame Congress [remember the GOP controled both houses for the first six years and still one house now] and they were the one that passed the tax cut in 2001 (which then was signed) then did not reverse itself when we invaded Iraq in order to pay for the war expense. Always before in America, taxes went up in a wartime situation... as for Bush he doesn't get all the blame... but he did sign those bills... and he did urge Congress to invade Iraq to rid it of WMD ... which have never been found.

The last years of that administration....?? Not one year then was the budget balanced.... it went up every year... go look if you doubt me. It still is going up... Congress will do nothing... one controls one house and the other one the other... can't get anything done.

The budget spending never tripled... I agree he should have gone after a balanced budget more but tax revenue was way down due to 2008 economy drop [unemployment and lost stock value of 2008 will do that] ... that made things even harder to accomplish and efforts was made to stop the recession from getting worse and other problems... it did... just hasn't improved as much as hoped. A split Congress isn't helping any.

Edited March 27, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66