RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Tomasky writes: "The Democrats should see an adverse decision as a chance to put the other guys - the Republicans in Congress, Romney, and the court's ideological majority - on the defensive."

The Supreme Court's decision regarding President Obama's healthcare law could have a profound impact on his campaign. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The Supreme Court's decision regarding President Obama's healthcare law could have a profound impact on his campaign. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Democrats Should Come Out Swinging Against the Court

By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

24 June 12


If the Supreme Court overturns the health-care law, Democrats will be tempted to sulk and feel sorry for themselves. But that's the last thing they should do.

et's say the court overturns the mandate by a typical 5-4 vote, but leaves the rest of the law intact. What must the Democrats do? The main thing is all about tone. I can just picture already what I fear I will see: Obama coming out to a press conference with his head down, speaking in a dour monotone, still trying to point out the silver linings but in a way that sends the message to anyone listening that he's really apologizing for them, and muttering that he is now "calling on the Congress to act" (this has become my least favorite Obama phrase) and get busy working on one of the alternative approaches that will still keep the law alive - which is nothing more than a punchline, really, because everybody knows Congress isn't lifting a finger.

No, a thousand times no! He needs to stand up there and get mad. The law may be unpopular, but he and the Democrats are stuck with it, and being stuck with it, they need to stick by it. Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people's representatives and in just two years' time invalidated it. If that isn't legislating from the bench, what is? Mr. Cool needs to get Hot. Against unanimous and ferocious opposition, and in the face of blatant lies about what this bill would and would not do, he and the Democrats came up with a way for people with cancer and diabetes and what have you to get the treatment they need and not be either turned away or gouged. He's proud of that, he ought to say, and by God, he's going to fight for it. That provision of the law is wildly popular - 85 percent supported that, in a late-March New York Times survey. If you can't play offense with 85 percent of the people behind you, I give up.

He should also go right at Mitt Romney, on two points. First, Romney flatly opposes coverage for all people with preexisting conditions. He backs care only for those who have had "continuous coverage," and not for people whose insurance had lapsed at any point during their illness. So Romney is against something 85 percent of Americans support. I am sadly confident that you did not know that. Good work, Democrats.

Second: when Romney was governor, he supported - insisted on - exactly the same provision that the court will have just struck down. The people of Massachusetts were forced to buy insurance. They live under that regime today, thanks to Governor Romney. And guess what? They like it - 62 percent approved of the law, in a poll from earlier this year. And now, to please far-right interests putting hundreds of millions of dollars into his campaign, he would deny the people of the country the one good thing he did for the people of Massachusetts as their governor.

Now we come to the court itself. Far be it from me to second-guess Jeff Shesol, who wrote in Newsweek that Obama should not take on the court. But a brand-new poll by Hart Research for the Alliance for Justice suggests that with the right approach, the court can be made an issue. In the case that I suggested at the top of this column - a 5-4 decision along the usual lines - 69 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents agreed that "they would believe that the justices based their decisions more on their own political views than on their interpretation of the law and Constitution." Fifty-seven is not an overwhelming majority. But it's a majority nonetheless, and if Democrats aren't afraid to make this case strongly, they can turn it into an even bigger one.

And finally: blow that stupid broccoli analogy out of the water. Need to know how, Democrats? Here: read me on it.

In sum, the Democrats should see an adverse decision as a chance to put the other guys - the Republicans in Congress, Romney, and the court's ideological majority - on the defensive. It is what Republicans would do; they'd bay endlessly about an "out of control" court and all the rest. It's one of the key psychological differences between conservatives and liberals. When conservatives suffer a political setback, they prowl the terrain like lions, looking for a few necks to bite. When liberals suffer one, they ball up like kittens and ask themselves, "Oh, gee, what did we do wrong?"

That impulse, not any particular talking point, has been the whole problem on this health-care debate to begin with. As it is on so many matters. Maybe John Roberts and his little quartet of sea-green incorruptibles will finally get it through their heads. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+34 # Michael_K 2012-06-24 15:40
No. The real problem is that it isn't even remotely "healthcare reform", it's just a poorly conceived bill on insurance that shouldn't even be allowed to exist as a profit-making activity.

It creates the illusion of addressing a problem it doesn't touch, by forcing people to purchase coverage that will almost certainly be unhellful but lucrative for a certain class of massive campaign contributors.

Hypocrites all!!!
+8 # BobM 2012-06-24 16:16
I had my own comment but like yours much better.


+71 # Rain17 2012-06-24 21:56
As someone who lost a relative to due to not having insurance, I appreciated the ACA, despite its flaws. Something is better than nothing. But for some of you the "perfect" must always be the enemy of the good.
-3 # John Locke 2012-06-25 07:53
Rain17: Read the comments above. This healthcare bill was a payback to the insurance industry, it would have done very little if anything for us, but guaranteed the Insurance industry money and lots of it.
0 # paulrevere 2012-06-25 10:06
sometimes I think the republicant's have commandeered the red thumb button here abouts.
+43 # question authority 2012-06-25 00:45
True, it is poorly conceived as it originates with the Dole led Senate republicans. It is a plan that in the 90's was supported by the Heritage Foundation, including the mandate. Gingrich approved of it then. Romney used it for a model in Massachusetts. The republicans were all for it, before they were against it. It has to do with the Black man in the White House. Irrational logic to attempt to remove him from office.It exposes so much of the bigotry, prejudice and narrowmindednes s in this country. This bill, as bad as it is represents a starting point for universal coverage in the future and the republicans know it. It would open the door for Democrats to get re-elected over and over once this popular program is in force for a while. It needs a lot of help but it opens the door and puts our foot in the way of the bastards closing it. The robed gang of five are doing the bidding for the plutocrats in this banana republic. They may do their worst. Lives hang in the balance and all the words do not change that fact. These 5 men rule and people die or they live. This bill is a start that was decades in the making. We must take it the rest of the way, not those people in government masquerading as people with integrity.
+16 # shawnsargent2000 2012-06-25 11:37
I totally agree! Obama needs to gets some balls, and fire at the Republicans that have worked to destroy Obama Care.
This Bill, Is a crucial first step towards universal healthcare, and I'll be damned if this hope is taken away from the people!
Don't let the bastards win Mr. President WE are counting on you!
+23 # LegendBert 2012-06-25 04:55
Michael, I have to say that YOU are the problem. The question is how the ACA compares to Romneycare? The answer is that the ACA is infinitely better. So stop sulking and get out there and support the ACA and condemn the Supreme Court for subversive and corrupt activities. Yes, legislating from the bench undermines the fundamentals of our Democracy. Are you going to sit back or are YOU another hypocrite who whines and does nothing?
-16 # John Locke 2012-06-25 07:51
Michael_K: YES! Thank understand that this bill was a pay back to the insurance industry over the damage the foreclosures cost them.

Insurance companies provided default insurance on every mortgage!!!!!an d have already paid the Banks Billions!

Obama's legislation first out the door, was a gift to the insurance lobby, a real president who cared about the nation would have addressed two real and existing problems first, the Foreclosure epedemic and the Unemployment! then the healthcare bill with the single payer option!

Obama sold us out there also! everything this clown has done has been for someone other then us!!!!!!!!!!
+4 # paulrevere 2012-06-25 10:10
$30 BILLION a year by estimates, is not small potatos when you figure the 'boyz' will snag probably $5-10 of those billions.
+16 # Bodiotoo 2012-06-25 12:32
NIXON sold us, the American people, out...and the day before he signed the HMO act into law, there are tapes where he indicates the public will view the program as something to help them, but he acknowledges that th einsurance industry will be the beneficiary.
Obama pushed through what he could get...because the Repugs were making sure that thier friends in th einsurance world will continue to benefit.
Put the blame where is belongs...ON THE RIGHT
+14 # Billsy 2012-06-25 12:50
Wrong. Obama did not create this dog of a bill. Democrats lead by Harry Reid and committee chair Max Baucus created it, dumping a public option from the table on day one and capitulating to the Rx drug and insurance industries so quit blaming the president. Remember when Clintons attempted to create the bill at the white house and how that went down? At least make some lemonade out of this irresponsible court. They don't allow individual mandates? Fine. Medicare for all is its replacement. How you like that Republicans?
+11 # Wolfchen 2012-06-25 21:50
John Locke:
Speaking as an attorney who's represented insurance companies as well as positions in opposition, know that insurance companies fear the Court striking down the mandate provision while upholding other provisions of the so-called Obama health care bill. It's to their benefit to see the mandate preserved or the who bill defeated.

The most humane and cost effective health care reform would, indeed, be a Medicare For All universal single payer plan. Anyone who's not swallowed the poison pill of Right Wing deception could confirm such reality with even elementary research. Though we must support Obama this time around, in the future we must demand such intellectual and moral giants as Bernie Sanders for President and our for future leaders.

We must also demand Public Financing of elections to remove the assault on democracy via Citizens for All.
0 # mdhome 2012-06-28 07:19
Wolfchen, I hate to agree with a lawyer, especially one for the insurance co, but I have to agree with your post here.
+8 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-25 08:19
I am right there with you, Michael.
It merely hands out tax money to insurers without addressing the problem.
A few things to address:

* Decrease the cost of health care (e.g. allow Medicare, Medicaid and VA to get bargain prices on medications; shorten the duration of IP protection for drugs...)

* Provide a real single payer health care; there would still be room for private insurance companies to provide additional comfort services for the people who want complementary coverage.

I hope that the Democratic base (not the Democratic party which is hopeless in my mind) would use a rejection of the law as political aikido to spark a pushback for single payer healthcare which is demonstrably the only workable solution for the health coverage issue.

As a side note, if corporations really are people, how about they have to buy coverage as well?
+2 # geraldom 2012-06-25 09:46
Correct me if I'm wrong. Obama & the Senate Dems were able to vote on any health care reform Bill put out by the Obama admin based on a simple majority vote in the Senate, not the 60+ votes needed to override a filibuster. The vote for Obama's health care reform Bill was based on reconciliation which only required a 51 vote majority to pass and, at the time, the Dems controlled 59 seats in the 100 seat Senate.

Even if one were to exclude the DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) in the Senate, there were still enough Dem votes to pass a single-payer health care Bill in which the govt, rather than private for-profit insurance companies, would've managed the system as they do with Medicare & Medicaid. Am I correct or not in my assumption here?

In effect, the head honcho here, Barack Obama, on his own & to satisfy his corporate partners in crime, decided not to go with the govt-managed single-payer health care option. Again, could someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

In effect, Barack Obama has passed a so-called health care reform Bill to be managed by private for-profit health care insurance corps without any cap on what they can charge their clients who, by law, are required to buy health insurance from them. Am I correct in this assumption?

This sounds so much like TARP where we gave the banking & investment institutions hundreds of Billions of dollars without any rules, regulations or restrictions & look at where we're at today.
0 # Radial1971 2012-06-26 16:52
Agreed. Here's what I think problem with the whole debate (both Republicans and Democrats alike) has been - as noted above, it's about the insurance, not about medical care. After researching various countries, a solution (many communities already employ this type of system, and it can be implemented very reasonably in many areas, and it can be run by private groups, non-profit, cities, counties or states, etc. is a public option. This is a very viable option for those who do not have or cannot afford health insurance. Would the level of care be the same? Yes, although perhaps there might be a longer waiting period - but not necessarily. I would suggest people go on the website for the State of Utah - terms and facts are explained. People are educated about what the various aspects of insurance are. A public option is not socialism. It is really how health care used to be practiced - by caring people of a free country.
+32 # ronnewmexico 2012-06-24 15:46
I don't know.

If medicare was extended to all or single payer universal health care were not even disallowed at the bargaining table....there would have arose no supreme court viable could they challenge medicare in existence for forty years....they could not and would have refused to hear a challenge..

I will vote for Obama but hold my nose while doing so....obamacare .....very close to a corporate hand out with some but not a bunch of reforms.
We voted for real change not the best change money could buy change.

If there was a real thing to fight for a real thing of change(which is what is needed) americans would probably fight for it and against the republicans.
A soso hum drum thing that like as not extends the status quo.....not so much.

Every red dog compromising democrat up for reelection lost in 2010....Obama just now seems to be seeing the message in that. To little to late for many independents I assume.
You cannot lead by following the time of the day political poll....LIke as not they vote for someone who though they may loose or be wrong...stands for something.
Letting single payer into this debate may have made that something.

He did not...he suffers and may or may not reelect.
I will vote for him..but firmly hold my nose.
+60 # Rain17 2012-06-24 22:03
I lost a relative because she had no insurance, avoided going to the doctor, and only sought treatment when it too late. I wanted single-payer or the public option, but the voters were just NEVER there for that. Maybe the ACA/Obamacare didn't help that many people, but it was a start and it was something for people who, in a few short hours, will probably have nothing. It is so amazing how so many of you are so willing to make the "perfect" the enemy of the good.

I wanted single-payer or the public option but it was clear the votes were NEVER going to be there. The Congress didn't want to pass it no matter what President Obama did or didn't do.

And to be blunt the ACA is probably the best healthcare reform bill that we are going to see for years, if not decades. The problem is that the public option, Medicare for all, or single-payer are nonstarters with maybe perhaps 30-40% of the public.

The problem here is that you have a large enough segment of society who resents the idea of "people getting something for nothing" or that "only those people" would benefit from single-payer or Medicare for all that it will never pass in the short to medium term. Those people are the biggest obstacles and enough of them vote to ensure that nothing is ever done with healthcare reform.

The bottom line is that Americans' attitude toward government and government programs, especially social programs, are going to have to change significantly.
+3 # geraldom 2012-06-25 13:38
No one seems to want to respond to the question that I put forward in a previous posting. You claim that the votes weren't there in Congress to pass a govt-managed single-payer health care system in the same way that our govt manages Medicare and Medicaid.

I believe that there was more than enough votes in the House to pass a govt managed single-payer health care Bill, but that the main problem was the vote in the Senate where the Republicans always held a filibuster threat over the Democratic-cont rolled Senate.

The Democrats succeeded in establishing what was called reconciliation as the basis for voting on their health care reform Bill which only required a simple majority of 51 votes to pass it. It is my strong belief that with only a 51 vote majority to pass a health care reform Bill and with the Democrats having, at the time, 59 votes in the Senate, even if you were to discount those DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) who were against a govt-managed single-payer health care system, there was at least 51 Democratic votes that would have passed a govt-managed single-payer health care Bill if Obama would have backed it up. But Obama, like the Public Option, had refused to consider the single-payer health care option.

So, please someone, tell me that I'm not wrong in my assumptions here, that if Obama was willing to back up a govt-managed single-payer health care Bill, that the Senate would have passed it with a simple 51-vote majority.
0 # Radial1971 2012-06-26 19:02
I think your statement people resent people getting "something for nothing" says it all. The thing that people have to realize is that in life, no matter what it is - whether it's health care, food, housing or whatever - there is always a cost and someone will always pay for it. There is no such thing as a something for nothing health care "system". The more we want out of health care, the more it will cost. I think the other problem is that most people don't assess their own health care needs. There are some basic levels of health care: check-ups, which I think are often confused with preventative health care; preventative - which is what we, ourselves, do to prevent illness (i.e. eat well, exercise, live a healthy lifestyle, etc.); screenings, which some are involved in check-ups - x-rays, ultrasounds, etc., which check for illnesses or conditions; treatment - which can fall into some varying categories - long-term (i.e. diabetes); cancer, medicating, etc. The thing that most people and doctors don't always want to address is that with every treatment comes some side effects and not every treatment is guaranteed and some can cause other complications (i.e. is it better to live 6 months without a cancer treatment than to be extended another few years being ill from the side-effects of the treatment - and maybe there is a chance that the treatment will work - some tough questions. We as patients must be aware of what is at stake and how much to we want to pay.
-16 # John Locke 2012-06-25 07:59
ronnewmexico: I will hold my nose while you vote for Obama! I hope if he should win, which by the way doesn't appear to be that likely, you will be able to survive his next 4 years, there is so much being planned even now regarding SS, Medicare, and Medicaid!

Monday, June 25, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns 43%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Romney’s support includes 41% who are certain they will vote for him and seven percent (7%) who are likely to vote for him but could still change their minds. For Obama, those numbers are 35% certain and eight percent (8%) likely.

Every day Obama is dropping in the real polls!
-3 # paulrevere 2012-06-25 10:12
yeh...but it's Rasmussen.
-9 # John Locke 2012-06-25 11:42
Paul: Rasmussen Polls have been correct in the last, what more then a dozen elections! I have found them to be fair and correct, I have found flaws in the others!
-7 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-25 08:20
I am right there with you.
-63 # coffeewriter 2012-06-24 18:00
Obama needs to hear that people are NOT going to vote for him. He'll only be worse in a second term, not better. Don't be fooled. I know the option - a spoiled vote or some random independent may feel like you're handing government to the GOP. But really, between the Supreme Court, Congress and Obama's inability or unwillingness to stand up for the change he so loudly trumpeted for in his campaign, will it really be all that different? It may actually be a further chance to show America what life is like under the corporate-spons ored GOP.

I'm not sure 4 years under Romney won't actually turn a good number of Republicans! But point is, Obama lied to America and the world and he should not be rewarded with another term in office for that. When are politicians ever going to be held accountable to the electorate?
+50 # Rain17 2012-06-24 22:05
Where were the votes for all these things that many of you expected to pass easily? I'd like to know. I am also disappointed with how President Obama handled healthcare, financial reform, and the debt ceiling debate. I agree that he lets his political opponents walk over him.

That being said, however, I wonder how many you forget Congress and its role. I wonder how many of you forget the powerful lobbies out there opposed to any significant change. You act like President Obama can magically make them disappear.
+24 # maddave 2012-06-25 00:19
Quoting Rain17:
Where were the votes for all these things that many of you expected to pass easily?

Why, Rain-man (Rain-lady?) it's simple. The votes we needed in House and Senate gain a single payer plan were all safe in the pockets of Corporate America.
the USG
As for the argument so often stated that the USG is not competent enough to manage a single payer system, I say Baldersash! I am retired military w/Medicare, and it's as nearly a perfectly run system as one could wish or imagine---all run by the USG at a fraction of the cost of commercial insurance!

For those who think you don't want single payer Obamacare, you're crazy as hell! Think again. Vote Obama in and vote out al of the blue dog democrats and GOP congressmen and we'll have it!
+11 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-25 08:37
Spot on.
Claiming that the government cannot manage something is pure propaganda.
How is the military managed? It is not corporate yet.
-3 # John Locke 2012-06-25 11:55
Granny They are working on privitizing the Military now!
-3 # John Locke 2012-06-25 11:54
maddave: No we won't, the Insurance Lobby did not want it so Obama took it off the table! We won't ever have it unless we stop the legalized bribery congress and the President enjoy! (Lobbying, and the Contributions they make)
0 # Rain17 2012-06-25 21:05
Maddave, I fully understand what you're saying. Unfortunately, although your argument about the USG actually being competent enough to run a single-payer system effectively is correct, most people wouldn't agree. The problem is that, with a significant minority of the public, that position is simply a nonstarter. And until Americans significant change their largely negative opinions about the government and social programs, nothing is going to change.
+5 # giraffee2012 2012-06-25 08:58
Rain17 is right: President Obama is NOT King Obama

And I'll add if Mitty is elected, I sure hope Kochs do not become Kings Hitler
-5 # paulrevere 2012-06-25 10:16
the King of 0 can order US citizens killed.

the King of 0 HAS order US citizens killed.

the King of 0 continues 100%+ of bushco war on terruh.

sigh...sorry, he IS a king.
-5 # John Locke 2012-06-25 11:58
giraffee2012: "President Obama is NOT King Obama"

He doesn't need to be declared King a Fascist dictatorship is sufficient. We have that now as Paulrevere rightly points out below!
-5 # John Locke 2012-06-25 11:51
Rain17: I'm disappointed with everything this clown has done especially for his financial backers. I am equally appalled by the Democrats in Congress namely Reid and Palosi both of these idiots are long past being retired as beyond incompetent.

But one of the biggest fools is Hatch (R) from Utah! this fool doesn't even know he is a fool!
+41 # Ray49 2012-06-24 22:22
CWriter, You are being too idealistic. Obama is very much different than Romney.
If Romney wins we get war, and even more R SCOTUS,more of the same transfer of wealth to the rich. It will be far worse--get your vote for the D even if only the better of the not my fav.
+8 # Merschrod 2012-06-25 07:14
I am afraid that you are concisely correct - unfortunately Obama is the lesser of the two evils.
+2 # John Locke 2012-06-25 12:07 Let me understand your comment, If Romeny wins we get war...hummm, what do you call the following?

From Drone attacks to Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen to providing arms to Egypt and Syrian Rebels to a planned invasion of Iran through Israel!
Think, both Romney and Obama will do the same thing, The Industrial War Complex needs an excuse for their budget, and the best way is through using the weapons and Bombs we have…
+1 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-25 08:22
Dow we have 4 years to waste?
-3 # John Locke 2012-06-25 11:47
coffeewriter: Very well said, But the ostriches here don't and won't get it, unless and until they are marched off single file to a concentration camp, and they still won't understand why…they were good party loyalists and defended the system to the end...I mean that literally!
-28 # MidwestTom 2012-06-24 22:02
When the majority of voters oppose the law, I am not sure that attacking its repeal is a smart policy. The best plan I think is to influence tits replacement. The cut in Doctors pay has yet to happen, and probably will not. The right to take citizens precious metals whould never have been in the bill to begin with. There are other things that make sence in the bill and will be retained no matter what happend.
+21 # Rain17 2012-06-24 22:20
When the Supreme Court probably invalidates the ACA there will be no "replacement". No president of either party will try healthcare reform in any form for years, if not decades.

The reason why we won't get any significant healthcare reform is that you have a large enough minority that resents the idea of "people getting something for nothing". This minority believes that "only those people" would benefit at their expense.

The bottom line is that, if the US is ever to adopt national healthcare, single-payer, Medicare for All, or the public option, American attitudes toward the government, especially toward social programs, are going to have to have to significantly change. As it is now a significant minority, if not an outright majority, resents any and all social programs and think they all enable, promote, and reward irresponsible and pathological behavior. Until these opinions change any form of national healthcare is likely to be a nonstarter politically.
+8 # Sea Star RN 2012-06-24 23:20

You are absolutely correct! Americans have little or no sense of the Common Good and until that changes, it will be an uphill battle to achieve single payer.
+3 # Rain17 2012-06-25 21:13
Sea Star RN--You're 100% correct. These are the arguments (or variations thereof) I usually hear when people explain their "opposition" toward single-payer, the public option, or Medicare for all:

1) It's not my fault that other people make irresponsible choices with their money.
2) Were it not for their spending money on cable TV and cell phones, the uninsured would be able to afford coverage.
3) Government-run healthcare would result in me being taxed at very high rates to support a program that would benefit only the poor and lazy.
4) The Government would make sure I never saw my doctor, while letting the woman on welfare with five kids go ahead of me.
5) Life isn't fair.
6) I planned responsibly, so why can't other people?
7) The uninsured can go to the emergency room and not have to pay.
8) People shouldn't expect the government to take care of them.
9) I don't think people should be getting something for nothing, while I have to pay.

The bottom line is that you have a significant minority, if not an outright majority, of people who honestly resents the idea of someone "getting something for nothing". This group of people opposes any form of national healthcare because "they don't want to support anyone who doesn't want to work" and so forth. They view it as a giveaway program that rewards/enables irresponsible choices.
+8 # SundownLF 2012-06-25 01:34
Somehow 'these people' - who are complaining about others getting something for nothing via social programs - must be educated as to how their own benefits would suffer were Obama not in office.

It's obvious that they don't understand the role of government in their lives, with the most blatant declaration being the signs that read, "GET YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE"!

It always amazes me that people who comprise the Tea Party are willing to get out to demonstrate, work for the vote, etc. - yet they refuse to actually EDUCATE THEMSELVES as to the reality of the political world in which they are, basically, useful tools for the Republican'ts. The only fun thing about it is watching the Republican't party being amazed at what they have wrought, and how they are unable to resist being pulled far to the right by 'their' Tea Partiers!
+2 # Rain17 2012-06-25 21:18
The problem here is that they don't view Medicare the same way they view Medicaid, for example. To them Medicare is "different" because they contributed via their payroll taxes and have "earned" their benefits.

The bottom line is that a majority of people in our society, including many liberals, thinks that anyone receiving government help is a bum. And there is a significant minority, if not a narrow majority, of Americans who honestly believes that the "uninsured" could get insurance if they only didn't "waste their money on cell phones and cable TV."

Inherent in many Americans is the deep resentment of anyone "getting something for nothing". And many Americans honestly think that, were it not for poor spending choices, the poor could get insurance.
+3 # Peacedragon 2012-06-25 07:04
I gave it a thumbs up because I got a laugh from the misspelling in the second line.
+2 # Merschrod 2012-06-25 07:15
Tom, cite your majority statistic.
+2 # jimyoung 2012-06-25 18:55
What Majority??? The original polls with a much cleaner idea of a bill had at least 63% of the public and 73% of Doctors surveyed FOR it before 2008. As they compromised it and propagandized against it, as they got to "Ignangi " compromised versions, of course the approval ratings went down, but the later polls weren’t even talking about anything near the original. See
FOX led the distraction from things like T.R. Reid's "The Healing of America: The Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care", while people like Dr. Margaret Flowers were prevented from speaking in the congressional hearings. See Moyers interviews with her or Wendell Potter (a health insurance executive sickened by what he saw his industry doing to make obscene profits). The rest of the M$M dummied up and played back the later, distorted, polls. Why wouldn’t those polls show lower support, it was not what people originally wanted, like basic Medicare for all. Many of us would prefer basic Medicare for All (more like what the original polls were asking about) than the already compromised Medicare Advantage add ons that were supposed to save 5% the first year, but ended up costing 20% more because of the private insurance middlemen that weaseled in, and haven't left long after that experiment failed. Remember the Medicare Part-D snafus where druggists threw the rules out to save people?
+32 # BobbyLip 2012-06-24 22:16
Notice how Obama always calls on the Congress to act, and never calls out the Republicans? What the hell's that about?
+12 # maddave 2012-06-25 00:04
Quoting BobbyLip:
Notice how Obama always calls on the Congress to act, and never calls out the Republicans? What the hell's that about?

"That", BobbyLip is the problem with the entire Democratic Party of the United States of America!. We Democrats have never seen a contentious issue that we can't rollover and play dead over! o

I will not vote for Obama out of choice ... I will vote for him out of necessity! The thought of Romney's Judicial Advisor, Robert Bork, having a say in who gets nominated for Federal Judgeships over the next four years is the sort of stuff that causes nightmares ... However, if he has his way, these nightmares will be real and they will persist for thirty years or more!
+14 # henry george 2012-06-24 22:22
If the entire law is overturned, it's a strong argument that the current court is overworked, and needs 2 additional justices to handle the load.
If the mandate is overturned at the federal level, it leaves the states needing to set up exchanges, which will fail to function unless there are adequate subsidies (Medicare Part B is voluntary and has 95% coverage, but is 3/4 subsidized) or each state will pass it's own mandate, like Massachusetts to not have it's individual market fail.
For all the concern about free riders, the real issue is lowering average cost by forcing low cost folks into the system-- tax subsidies work just as well, or rate setting and limiting profit margins of insurers.
There's alot of good in the ACA, and removing the mandate would keep all of that, while removing the pay-off to the industry for not opposing health care reform initially.
It would be the bill Candidate Obama had campaigned on (less the public option, but that is the trade in the Wyden plan-- allow the private exchanges into Medicare in exchange for allowing a single payer public plan to the under 65 group).
The appropriate response for striking the mandate while leaving the ACA intact would be to thank the conservatives for scuttling their only serious health policy option, removing the payoff to the insurance industry, and then moving on.
-4 # hattie12KY 2012-06-25 08:03
[quote name="henry george"- allow the private exchanges into Medicare in exchange for allowing a single payer public plan to the under 65 group).
Omigawd! The private insurers running Medicare Advantage plans are already costing taxpayers an estimated 13 percent more than traditional fee-for0service Medicare.

As to the public option--It won't solve our raging costs problem and it will perpetuate our inequitable multi-tiered system, See Q&A with David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Physicians for a National Health Program:
0 # jimyoung 2012-06-26 08:19
I don't think many people understand the differences between the "public" option and Single Payer. I believe Single Payer may be all we can afford, and prefer it as the simplest solution. The public option still has too many private insurers that have switched from member/ beneficiaries owned to cash cows for less egalitarian "piratizers."

What we have cost far too much and provides very uneven coverage.

For some general background, Check out the Unnatural Causes series at I've just finished watching the first episode "In Sickness and Wealth." It seems a good way to reset the Etch-A-Sketch the M$M cluttered up.
+2 # dquandle 2012-06-24 23:24
"Democrats" have always swung with the court, even when they are sentenced to be hanged.
+5 # dickmail 2012-06-24 23:36
Of course single payer health insurance is the best answer, not perfect but the best; that is why the insurance cartel lobies against single payer. Have you ever investigated who controls congress, and our military? Check it out sometime and you'll find the same people control the insurance cartel.
+1 # Rick Levy 2012-06-25 00:11
"No, a thousand times no! He needs to stand up there and get mad."

Obama? You must be joking, son.
+6 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-06-25 00:40
It's unbelievable to me that people don't realize that we as a nation have been drinking the Kool-Ade given to us by corporate media. We are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to things like 'health care.' Maybe it's because we are a relatively young nation compared to other 'western' nations that mark their histories in thousand years bundles while we can only muster up hundred year bundles.

If a guarantee of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is to mean anything, then universal health care for all has to be law of the land. It's so logical from a economic, military and social cohesion point of view. Ike didn't build the Interstate highway system for economic/indust rial reasons only. He lived through WWII. He knew that good solid roads allow for Sherman tanks to operate efficiently. So too, an unhealthy nation is easily defeated in a battle.

The current 'enemy' of the people in the form of the plutocracy run GOP is a paper tiger. What are a mere 3.2 million people going to do when 316,800,000 hungry, angry, desperate, feed up people come after them?

Everyone has skin in this game, but it's not a game, is it? It's real and it's now.

+8 # sheeplady 2012-06-25 00:58
Some of the responders here are whining about Obama as if they are closet tea partiers! Come on, this law is a huge improvement over the rotten health-for-the- rich-only system we have had for my entire life (69yrs). But it is tough to understand, especially for folks who have little experience with really broad-based insurance programs. Let's support this, and when people get more comfortable, they will love it. Then we can make improvements. Take the scowl off your face. None of us making comments here could do a better job than Obama, so get behind the guy!
+1 # John Locke 2012-06-25 12:49
sheeplady: I understand how hard it is to change after 69 years, but this plan although it has some merit, (Slight) it enhances the Insurance companies mostly, and allows them to increase their rates, when and as they see fit....just as they do now! This will have the effect of eliminating people who are seriously ill!

The Government will not pay the premiums!

In short it will be business as usual and they will still deny coverage for claims which they are notorious for... they have a million pat excuses to deny claims!And there will be no exception under this law!

You have medicare, it is one of the best systems currently, but that is also set to be changed!

It's time to stop bellowing my country right or wrong and to get what we as a nation are entitled too!!!! Health Care is a natural right of birth! It should carry NO Charge or premium!
+10 # jamal49 2012-06-25 01:33
One only need to look at the brazen display of judicial activism by the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court with their 5-4 ruling regarding union dues. The argument was whether union dues could be used for political advocacy without a union member's consent (such member might legitimately disagree with the union's position). The conservative majority of five turned a narrow question of the use of union dues for political advocacy into a ruling discrediting ALL union dues collected in a unionized workplace. The Roberts Court and its four conservative extremists (Robert, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) aided by the quasi-conservat ive, Kennedy, took a case focused on a single issue and inserted itself into the raging national debate about the validity of unions, "right to work" laws and the relentless conservative war against unions. Their concurring opinions broadened that one issue to disavow unions overall and discredit the collection of the dues which fund a union's operations, therefore validating the conservative support of "right-to-work" laws and weakening a worker's constitutional right to unionize and have that union be an effective advocate for its members before management. Unions would hesitate to confront managements' abuses because management could hire replacements with impunity, rendering that union impotent and ineffective. The Roberts Court is a dangerously activist one, favoring corporate totalitarianism . Think of this when you vote in November 2012.
-11 # brucbaker 2012-06-25 03:22
IF Obama-care was run like a PRIVATE INDUSTRY .. NO Government bailouts, allowed to go broke when it fails ... I am good with it, but the SOCIALISM/COMMU NIST aspect of it ... is just INSANELY FUNNY!



I DID .. and within the mechanisms to make Obama-care work .. it takes over the entire health-care industry.

Considering the increase of National Debt, and the INCREASE in everyone's Health care costs with just the passing of the bill ... THIS OBAMA-CARE BILL HAS TO DIE!~

Let it be rewritten, funded, and broken up into a dozen bills... but right now .. it stinks to high heaven!
+2 # bingers 2012-06-25 05:14
If the mandate is thrown out then anyone who didn't sign up should be denied any coverage if they can't pay for their illness or injury and should be left to die on the ground outside the hospital. After a few auto accident victims die maybe then the others will understand that they also need coverage. It's a good teaching example if also cruel, but throwing out the mandate is far crueler for a much larger segment of the population.
+2 # John Locke 2012-06-25 12:52
bingers: You are a very hard callous person. No one should be left to die!

Ery putting yourself in the shoes of someone sick, out of work, and even homeless, should we allow you to die because you have no means to pay a premium!

Eveb for You I would not allow that to happen!
+4 # bingers 2012-06-25 05:21
What everyone needs to remember is that the Democrats only had a total of 50 days to pass their programs before they lost the ability to block filibusters, Obama got a huge part of his promises done, nearly all that he didn't get were because of the filibusters. Without question, he's far better than every Republican since Eisenhower, and in fact he's very much like Eisenhower.
0 # John Locke 2012-06-25 12:55
bingers: The point your appology for Obama misses, is as you said he had 50 days in which He could have passed any bill...includin g the single payer option...

but his friends in the Insurance business lobbied him to drop that requirement, and like the good puppet, he did what they wanted!
+4 # m... 2012-06-25 06:09
Tell me:
What does the Democratic Party Stand For?
What is their Vision for America?
Democrats are the 'React to the Whacked Out Republicans' Party. The 'We're Not Them, So Vote For Us' Party.
The Democrats are the Reactionary Party dancing to the Republican's Tune for 30 years.
And so, we are now being Non-Governed by two Very Dysfunctional Parties operating on behalf of Corporate Lobbies.
This IS the outcome of the Republican's long-made, sophistic umbrella talking-point demand for evermore 'Smaller Government' as their carrot-on-the-s tick road to national prosperity and eternal bliss for 'All'...
Less and Less Government through endless deregulation and tax loophole schemes, and the for-profit Corporate contracting of almost all Government Functions on behalf of Corporation Want and Greed IS the underlying causation of the current economic catastrophe. Yet, millions of voters still go for it even in the face of heaps and piles of data and a mountain of in your face, stark raving reality to the contrary.
Its LONG been time for Democrats to put forth a unifying, hearts and minds capturing NEW VISION to counter the Republican's nonsensical 'Less and Less Government' (of the People) as the Road to greater 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' bullcrap.
Time for Democrats to build the NEW ROAD for Republicans to dance on and react to.
But they won't. What we have now IS the game they play with the Republicans and that's that it seems.
-4 # mjc 2012-06-25 11:01
Quite incorrect. The reactionary party is the Republican Party today, with the Teas giving them a new life as the regressive, hard-line conservative, no compromise, party of the wealthy. You were out of the country in 2008? Even though some of the hopes of Democrats and most Americans haven't been realized yet, Americans want affordable health care, their Constitutional rights, a fair share of taxation, and improvements in our social justice programs.
0 # m... 2012-06-25 12:21
Aside from the fact that you seem to think Democrats stand for much more than mostly REACTING to what Republicans do, are you making my point?
The hopes of Americans are not being realized because Republicans are indeed very actively Regressive AND clever as servants of the Super Wealthy Global Corporate Class. They figured out how to help their wealthy benefactors gain control of most Media Enterprises in America, thus giving them control over most of the pipelines for Speech and most of the so-called Free Press. They figured out how to open the floodgates of Corporate money into their coffers and how to divide Americans along narrow, often straw man fault lines and pit us against each other over them well enough to peel off more than enough voter 'allies' to hand them vast political power on all levels of Government while focusing that power on their mostly single minded drive to shrink Government as much as possible from the Corporate Business Equation.
That IS what has happened over the last 30 years.
While Democrats at the same time, seem to have devolved into the Go Along to Get Along Party that hangs its political fortunes on reacting-throug h-opportunistic -soundbite-comp laints to what Republicans do with very limited followup in the way of formulating and presenting, through any obvious Party Unity and Ideology, an alternative 'Vision' for Americans to believe in, nor any actual sense of 'Leadership' to rally to and support.
+1 # John Locke 2012-06-25 13:18
+1 # John Locke 2012-06-25 13:16
m...You're right, The Republicans have lead the road for more then 30, years and the Democrats just dance to their drummer. The reason is a lack of real democratic spirit and leadership and mostly a lack of direction based on fear!

They are so afraid to alienate the republicans and their own base, that they even with a majority in congress are ineffective as a party....bowing to republican demands and the demands of their financial supporters…they have reduced themselves to a subordinate party and follow the Republicans because the Republicans can dictate direction and make a case for it, which the Democrats in congress truly lack.

Pelosi and Reid are the worst offenders and as the leaders of their chambers are too weak! Obama as the Leader is much more offensive, because he stands for nothing! Obama stands for what his financial supporters want!

I expect to see Obama lose, and the thumbs down I will get for saying that does nor dissuade me in my opinion. Obama has alienated the majority of his base; all but his deeply devout unconscious supporters.

The reason is a lack of real leadership ability coming from this party and especially from Obama the man in charge!

This country has been begging for a leader and that was what the people felt Obama would be; what a disappointment! !!
+11 # fredboy 2012-06-25 06:47
As a lifetime Democrat and former boxer, I must admit one truth: those who "lead" the party do not know how to fight. Or they are afraid to do so.
In debates, etc., Democrats can't land a punch. Instead, they look like schoolyard sissies, wildly throwing roundhouse punches that never land and if they did they would be ineffective.
Learn to jab. Feign. Duck. Hook. And wrestle. Learn to precisely, and powerfully, initiate the fight.
And remember that fighting is chess--anticipa te your opponent's moves and responses. In short, think beyond their moves, motives, and actions.
Or continue getting your ass handed to you. And watching our nation disintegrate.
+3 # Sea Star RN 2012-06-25 08:44

The Democrats are the left branch of the corptocracy that has taken over our government and they are there to insure its health and prosperity, not ours.

No government official will undermind this profit-off-heal th-care system. WE THE PEOPLE will have to force them!

$41 Trillion dollars today...
+5 # Harvey M 2012-06-25 07:01
Unemployment, the Lousy Economy, and Other Republican Lies

I think the Republicans see unemployment and a poor economy as their key to the White House. I don’t think things are as bad as they, and the press, are portraying them to be.

The national unemployment in April 2012, seasonally adjusted was 8.1% The unemployment rate varies in states and the states I looked at were those that most political reporters say are up for grabs, or states that are considered necessary to win.

I looked up the unemployment rates for 1990 to 2000 inclusive and found that the average of unemployment for those years was 5.59.

Taking today’s national rate of 8.1 and subtract out the unemployable… that irreducible number, you get 2.51. OK there will be some objections to my 10 year average… in that case let’s look at the lowest unemployment rate in history: 4.0% and let’s use that. That would mean our present, seasonally adjusted REAL unemployment today is 4.1

In the last 12 years, many jobs have either been eliminated or outsourced to foreign countries. Those will not be coming back. 28% of the high tech jobs have gone overseas in search of lower costs. 15% of manufacturing has been moved overseas for the same reason. I was unable to find out the impact of these percentages on our unemployment rate, but that would further reduce the 4.1 REAL rate significantly.
+1 # John Locke 2012-06-25 13:23
Harvey M: Your figures are flawed because you rely on the Labor Department which is NOT counting millions of people who have given up, they are still unemployed and there are millions of under employed...the picture is actually worse then the Media is reporting...

You need to do your own research and stop relying on either the controlled media or a government agency! or learn to read between the lines!
+10 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-06-25 07:46
Meanwhile, in Canada we stay more healthy.
+2 # cordleycoit 2012-06-25 07:46
Sheep are smarter and more aggressive than the DNC. Obama the people's choice has a track record of censorship and new speak. He ought to be running opposed for the health of their so-called system.
+10 # hattie12KY 2012-06-25 07:52
Rather than sulking, or critiquing the Court (foolish and futile) Dems need to renew efforts to enact a single payer plan. It's time to pass HR 676 which would expand and improve publicly funded Medicare. No constitutional problem there, and no one excluded. In June 2011 Bill Clinton told Reuters we could save a trillion per year.

By eliminating the profit-driven private insurers who add over 30 percent to our national health care costs, we will garner the monies needed for care (not for CEO salaries and Wall St). The insurers--insid e or outside ACA-designed exchanges--will dodge and weave in order to avoid paying for our friends' cancer, kidney transplant, or mental illness. The private insurers and Big Pharma will continue to use their lobbying money to guarantee no cut to their own profit stream.

Only votes can counter corporate dollars. Let's elect people who will bring some ethics and common sense to Congress.
+8 # Sea Star RN 2012-06-25 08:32

I agree with your sentiments completely except "elect people who will bring some ethics...". We already saw how they folded when pressure was applied to Dennis Kucinich, et al.

Better to start a movement and DEMAND it, much like the Occupy movement. The Occupy people will inherit the bad elements of our current lack of a heath care system and they will be the force to bring change. Last time I checked there were no affinity groups on health care. We need to ally with them and start the drum beats for Medicare for All!
+1 # John Locke 2012-06-25 13:26
Sea Star RN: Good comment, Occupy is possibly our only real hope
0 # John Locke 2012-06-25 13:25
hattie12KY: any suggestions?
+7 # Sea Star RN 2012-06-25 08:26
The Afforable Care Act will not give us universal, cost-controlled , quality health care.

Improved Medicare for All is the only answer!!

Improve it making it 100% and not the current 80-20%.

Improve it by eliminating all govt capitated subsidies to insurance and drug companies and put them money directly into the hands of care givers and care facilities.

Improve it by including dental, vision, mental health and long term care.

Dissolve the employment-bene fits trap that keeps many an indentured labor force. Think how free we would be as a society if we did not have to work to have health care.

Then change the age, not 65+... birth to death!
+1 # John Locke 2012-06-25 13:31
Sea Star RN: I can agree with everything but Dissolve Employment benefits, that is an insurance program...That with the way our economy is set up is needed, the Fed artifically maintains arounf 4% to be unemployed in order to control labor. If we were to ever achieve full employment, labor will control d for a system that favors big business over the rights of the individual, that will never be allowed!
+8 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-25 08:27
What does it tell you when a country invests ~50% of its budget for war and bitches about people's health?

* 30 some % for the DoD plus the nuclear weapons under DoE plus supplementals for the wars plus the servicing of the debt incurred for earlier military interventions.
When you realize that these interests are paid on a pricipal willed into existence from thin air in private bankers' pockets through the Fed scam you should be furious.
+3 # cycleman60 2012-06-25 09:11
To Michael K and BobM: The healthcare act is long and complicated. It requires thorough and repeated reading to get a better understanding of it workings. It has to start somewhere. No program containing such complexities and variables as this healthcare bill will be understoood by fast, hasty reading. Your attitude shows a lack of hope and perseverance. There will be hurdles and imperfections but with determination and sincere effort, something worthwhile will emerge. Don't be a fatalist. It took many hours and dedicated work to create a very complicated piece of legislation. Now is not the time to throw in the towel. Have some fortitude and be a winner.
+5 # cycleman60 2012-06-25 09:17
Fredboy: I was a boxer also, and you smacked the nail right on the head. Your analogy is right on. I have written Reid about the same thing. Battles are won by looking for your opponents weakness and the Dems need to toughen up and hit hard where it counts.
0 # John Locke 2012-06-25 13:34
cycleman60 sorry it will never happen, this party has sunk too low and there is no coming back. Its time to start a new party and not allow the banks and insurance and oil companies to control its mandate...
+4 # epmorgan 2012-06-25 10:02
My own take on this is a little different. I think Occupy folks and their allies ought to be targeting the Supreme Court with daily non-violent sit-ins/protest s --for stealing the American Democracy. This activist court has done an awful lot of damage, but none more so than Citizens United (& last week's union dues decision only makes this worse) --and of course they explicitly stole democracy in Bush v. Gore. Next to Wall Street, what better symbol of the shredding of what democracy we have had thus far.
+2 # mjc 2012-06-25 10:54
Completely agree! Some provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act have not even been implemented yet. If the Court overturns the individual mandate, actually part of the health care act as it now stands, it will be the first time since the 1930s when Roosevelt went to war on the Court because of the legislation and New Deal decisions to get us out of the Depression that the Court virtually vetoed. Such a precedent would be pretty devastating to the authority of the Court should they overturn Congressional legislation, even if the damn Republicans contributed no votes for the Affordable Health Care Act.
+2 # Fraenkel.1 2012-06-25 11:02
In all the hulabaloo two matters have been ignored. The uninsured are already going to the doctor albeit often inefficiently and too late. The rest of us are paying for them out of taxes and inflated premiums. In addition we are catching their inadequately treated diseases. They constitute a liability to society. Liability is handled with insurance. If you fly a plane, sell bonds or cut hair there is not a walk of life that does not involve some sort of liability.
+4 # drew 2012-06-25 12:11
If the SCOTUS shoots down the individual mandate (a Republican idea) they then re-burden us with the current UNWRITTEN mandate: the average ~$350 per year that families WITH insurance now pay to cover the uninsured.
And how on G_d's green earth can Thomas be allowed to vote on this case?!? Has there EVER been more blatant conflict of interest! What a (unfit, misguided, ideologue) scumbag!
I know that for-profit insurance companies ARE the problem with our current system and that Single-Payer is by far the best, most efficient, cost effective and fair system (ie. Medicare), but the ACA does move us in the right direction and change this big realistically would have to be incremental. A mandate is THE critical component for ANY healthcare system. The bigger the pool, the lower the cost of insurance.
+3 # drew 2012-06-25 12:28
@Fredboy: interesting analogy.
I've often posited that D's vs R's is akin to a boxer vs a UFC fighter. One has rules - the other bites, scratches, eye gouges and uses low blows as standard practice. One side respects their office(s) & the solemn duty they're entrusted with and operates with decorum - the other side is a combination of wild-eyed, misguided ideological zealots + thoroughly money & power hungry devils unbound by truth, scruples, or the best interest of The People.
R's openly throw our citizenry, economy, military, environment, moral fabric and our kids' future 'under the bus' for the benefit of Corporations (and to get into that great revolving door between higher office, lobbying jobs, corporate jobs for their personal benefit) despite the dire consequences for the Country.
+2 # fredboy 2012-06-25 16:19
Drew, excellent analysis.
The key is to learn to fight in any setting or when facing any challenge. To overcome your opponent. In boxing, we learned anatomy first, then street fighting, then judo, then karate, then ju-jitsu, then how to block any punch (we practiced blocking for six months), then the art of the punch and footwork. All while aspiring to peak condition--1,00 0 situps and 1,000 pushups every day, plus a five mile run and the rope. The heavy bag. The speed bag. Then sparring with partners of all sizes and weights. Makes me embarrassed when I see Dems unable to counter a blatantly false statement or GOP tantrum.
0 # Rich Austin 2012-06-25 23:56
The ACA is not the answer. It stinks. Having said that, it nonetheless provides some benefits for some people in need. We cannot, therefore, advocate reversing ACA.

Let's back up a few years. Where was all the outrage when the bill was being written? Members of PNHP were arrested in a meeting of the Serante Finance Committee while pie cards like Andy Stern sat on his butt when the cops were dragging them away. Why were they arrested? For advocating health care justice!

How many of you gripers ever marched for singler payer? Damn few. I know. I've been in several such marches and the turnouts were dismal.

You want health care justice? You'll have to fight for it. It will not come any other way! Turn off your damned machines, go into the streets and fight for it. Either that or dummy up. Keyboard activism gets us what? If we stop commerce we'll get results. Such is the way of the working class.
+2 # jimattrell 2012-06-26 07:23
I don't get it? 40 straight months of unemployment over eight percent, 70 percent of teens can't find a summer job, one in seven Americans are on food stamps, we're over $15 trillion in national debt and you are calmly discussing the prospect of more of the same? When you are drowning you fire the captain and swim for shore. You don't worry about your sore toe until you are safely on the shoreline... Am I missing something?

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.