Problems With the CBO Healthcare Reform Scoring

Either a) No insurance company will ever pick me up or b) I'll get healthcare with premiums 4x that of my peers and they won't pay a dime for anything related to my condition. MRI's cost $5,000 each without insurance, I have 4 yearly. What's tyrannical isn't Obama trying to overhaul healthcare but the fact that people lose their homes, cars, and savings because they get sick.

I'm truely sorry to hear of the condition you described. What I failed to note is your commentary of the government programs that are already in place SSI, T2 Social Security Disability, Medicaid, etc and which are specifically designed for folks who have similar circumstance.

If you have a disability that keeps you from working, then Social Security is the safety net to catch you.

I think people wrongly assume that conservative republicans are against health care for people. They are not. What they have difficulty digesting is the fact that Obama care is designed for whom? Catastrophic illnesses, traumatic events happen and Medicare, Medicaid are government programs were created, are in place, and specifically designed for those who can't possibly pay for their living expenses and health care because their disability is so debilitating they cannot work.

We understand that and, by and large, most accept and are favorable of those programs. But this deal is very different because the people who they want to insure are the capable, healthy people who ARE able to work, hold down a job, and pay for their own health insurance like everyone else. They just choose not to; for a variety of reasons.

Their minimum hourly wage isn't high enough to afford it . . . well that's a culmination of poor choices that lead them to that point. They dropped out of high school. They got involved in drugs and lost their concept of reality. They partied rather than knuckle-down and learn a trade or earn an education. They spent what money they had like drunk sailors and made poor financial decisions. They had a misguided believe that they'd never get sick or have a major medical program. They bought boats, cars, and interest only mortgage homes rather than save. They are too fat and lazy to do something.

Here's the rub: I, like most Americans, am responsible. I saved, I got the education, I stayed away from the bad stuff. I live frugally, etc. So I and every other responsible American who makes the sacrifice to leave home every day for a job and provide for our families are punished via taxation to fund the health care benefits for those uninsured Americans who are ABLE and CAN work. That's morally reprehensible and wrong on so many levels. I don't care what kind of toronado like spin progressive liberals put on it, it is and will always be wrong.

Obviously people will feel offended to learn they are deadbeats. But I learned along time ago that truth is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow and that the guilty always take the truth hard.

david of ID 2:00AM March 21, 2010

I was diagnosed with a brain tumor in high school and have been treated at UCSF for the last six years. For everyone who says this bill will make us wait to see a doctor, you're not in touch with reality. I already wait! I already wait 3 months for each and every doctor appointment: for my neurologist, endocrinologist, oncologist, urologist, etc etc. I already wait 3 months for every MRI, CT, and X-ray.

Without this healthcare bill, the moment I turn 24 I will be dropped from my parent's health care, which means one of two things. Either a) No insurance company will ever pick me up or b) I'll get healthcare with premiums 4x that of my peers and they won't pay a dime for anything related to my condition. MRI's cost $5,000 each without insurance, I have 4 yearly. What's tyrannical isn't Obama trying to overhaul healthcare but the fact that people lose their homes, cars, and savings because they get sick.

Patrick of CA 12:18AM March 21, 2010

"It must be so that the Supreme Court has ransacked the legal tradition of precedent at the root of our law and order, just to play the activist judges and kowtow to their corporate masters."

It is clear, based on your commentary opinion, that you have not educated yourself on specifics regarding the case. If you had, you would see that the SCOTUS decision was based on precedent rather than its absence as you conclude.

Point of fact: the liberal mainstay, The New York Times, concluded that, "The decision was clearly a vindication of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech."

The fact is made more poignant by SCOTUS Justice Kennedy who stated, "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

So, to better understand progressive liberal anxiety, one has to question their motivational disdain of the SCOTUS finding.

I propose that progressive liberals are discouraged because their darling progressive PAC's are no longer exclusive organizations with the extraordinary privilege of being the only ones with protected free speech. SCOTUS discerned no distinguishable difference between the political voice of PACs and other organizations such as corporations. I suspect the ruling will allow religious organizations the same privilage as well.

Essentially, SCOTUS leveled the playing field by disabling an unconstitutional predjudice toward corporations. Progressive liberals dislike the ruling since corporations are, traditionally speaking, capitalistic in nature and tend to align with the conservative party and principles.

This is why Obama railed about the SCOTUS decision during his state of the union political rally.

It was not that Obama disagreed with the decision, since, it can be presummed that he, as a trained lawer, knows and comprhends the legal basis of the decision and the constituionality of the ruling.

Rather, Obama understood the full import and implication of the ruling. He understood that the decision threw a major obstacle blocking his progress toward socialism.

I suspect, that SCOTUS will also be involved in defining the constitutionality of socialized medicine.

Based on precedence, I'd say, SCOTUS will find mandatory jail time for individuals not participating in socialized medicine and the legislative process used to be unconstitutional.

david of ID 5:30PM March 20, 2010

Just to really make your day. Enjoy !!!

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

http://newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-fundraising-illegal/2008/09/29/id/325630

Bill Hedges of MO 4:34PM March 20, 2010