Supreme Court upholds Obama law’s requirement that most Americans have health insurance
June 28, 2012 at 4:13 am in Grand Forks Herald
Supreme Court upholds Obama law’s requirement that most Americans have health insurance. Check back for more on this breaking news story. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
64 
79
The Supreme Court has voted consistently with the Republican Party these last few years. This ruling was somewhat of a surprise.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
67 
12
The ruling was a surprise but the fact that it’s a massive tax bill isn’t.
Hot debate. What do you think?
64 
52
“Marxist Obama and his stooges.”
Hey, I think I get tin-hat conspiracy e-mails from you!
Hot debate. What do you think?
60 
47
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
28 
54
Or like fox tells you….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
16
The whole bill and the Supreme court decision is posted for you to read. I suggest you push your chair away from FOX and read it. There is not a massive tax–there is a penalty if you can afford health insurance and do not buy it–if you already have health insurance nothing will change for you. Don’t you want people to pay for insurance or would you rather pay for the “free riders”, as then Gov. Romney called them in his Mass. health care bill, in increased medical costs. This is what is happening==hospital ER’s are full of the uninsured who don’t pay and the hospital eats the costs and passes them onto the insured through higher medical fees. If there was a tax on uninformed in this country we would be out of the deficit in 2 weeks.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
21
John Roberts the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says it’s a tax. The law would have struck down as unconstitutional if he couldn’t call it a tax. I have no doubt you’re smarter than Justice Roberts but he says it’s a tax so it’s a tax.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
20
Call it what you want-it’s a good thing for the working and middle class-lots of cost savings….Just think of the money saved by having your kids covered until 26 for one….
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
17
Call it what you want..tax or penalty but don’t go screaming with your hair on fire that it is a massive tax–it is imposed ONLY on people who can buy health insurance and don’t. It is on the internet to read–also you could read Romeny’s health plan enacted in Mass.–they are virtually identical.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
13
Funny, Roberts said the US Government could not force people to buy something.
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
New flash–today Mitt Romney’s top aide says Romney agrees with Pres. Obama, it is a penalty not a tax. Of course, knowing Willard, this could change in the next 20 seconds.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
All taxes are penalties.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
This is horrible. Now our 3 college student kids will have to stay on our health plan rather than rely on the county to pay their medical bills.
This also means financial ruin for my health carrier because they cannot drop me because my chronic heart attacks and need for new pacemakers every now and then. Each time I keel over it costs at least 40 grand to get me going again. They hate that.
We are truly becoming a socialist country, expecting people to pay for their own health insurance.
(sarcasm)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
107 
44
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
41 
62
Although Canadian health care has problems, I think your criticism would carry more weight if you knew the difference between “quite” and “quit”
But seriously, I am interested to hear why universal health cares a problem? Quite frankly, living in the U.S. is becoming more and more of an embarrassment – seriously. I am a middle-classed citizen and with minor health issues, and I am having difficulties affording health care ….so seriously – any tips as to how I can afford health care is appreciated
Oh – and btw – being gay in the U.S. sucks………….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
24
Maybe you could try getting a job with benefits.
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
22
But not at ACS, cuz you’re no entitled to benefits
Like or Dislike:
15 
12
Whoa whoa whoa… That right there, Bob, is where people are mistaken. Just because you get a job with benefits doesn’t mean you can afford health care. How many jobs out there that have a group health insurance plan offer it for free? I’m a college graduate with a job in my degree field and even my company’s health insurance plan doesn’t pay 100% of the premium. That means I’m still paying $87 a month for health insurance. If I were to add my child to that plan, I would pay $145, and if I were to add my husband AND my child, over $221. There aren’t a lot of middle or low-middle class families that can afford that. There are a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck and deducting that much money each month is huge. Whether you have a job with benefits or not, many people are STILL paying significantly for their health insurance. Especially if they have a family on their plan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
You could always make the personal decision that Health care insurance is more important than…(insert any of the following)
a new car
a vacation
cable/sattelite tv
a cellphone that caost $100 a month
Internet
the oversize house
Starbucks every day
Soda/chips/candy….
The list of things people do not need to survive is never ending.
Its up to you to prioritize whats important.
But now, the govt has done that for you.
So… What are you going to give up now that you have no choice but to buy Health Care?
Guess you should just move to Canada
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
15
‘Socialized health care’…..what a wonderful right wing label. I am an American living in Canada…a dual citizen. We have universal health care here….started by Priemer Tommy Douglas who happens to be Kieffer Sutherland’s grandfather. Mr. Douglas (who was a minister before he got into politics) got universal health care going in Canada and it is still going strong. I have 2 neighbor ladies…one across the street and one 2 doors down. They just had successful bypass surgery..1 a double bypass and the other a triple bypass. They are home recovering nicely. They got what they needed RIGHT AWAY. Didn’t cost them a dime…either one of them. They only have to pay for their own meds, and only if they are above a certain income level. They’ve both paid taxes all their lives for this. That’s how it’s paid for. It’s the same as medicare where you live. No difference. I am not claiming that this system is perfect. But you will NEVER see people having to go to free health care clinics like in the U.S. You will not see people losing their homes and all they own because of their illnesses. Why? Because the ‘health insurance’ companies were taken out of the equation long ago. Never to return. And good riddance. It works. Get over the ‘socialized medicine’ thing. Unless you’ve lived it (and I mean lived in a country where they have it and you’ve participated in it) you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
19
Um Bill, when I was in Italy I forgot a cardiac medication at home. It was so unusual I had to go to the hospital in Venice to get a 10 day supply.
The doctor gave me an 18 day supply.
My bill? Zero.
Did you experience something different?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
8
I cant wait to see you cry when your taxes go through the roof over the next few years and you cant afford to go or do anything because of it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
43 
44
Do you cry when your health care goes through the roof because they have to make up for those who don’t have insurance? What we’re getting socked on in insurance and health care bills is far more expensive than this will end up being…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
27
If my tax money is going toward a healthier America, you can be I will NOT be crying over it. I would much rather pay taxes so people in our country get the health care they need, than have a few extra $$ on each paycheck. Besides, we are taxed on a percentage of our income. The more you make, the more you’re taxed. So, if you are a low income individual, you aren’t even going to notice a change. If you are a high income individual, then you are greedy if you are going to “cry” over a little more money coming out of your paycheck to help other people in our country who can’t afford health insurance on their own. And don’t even start with the “I worked hard for my money bull crap” because I can promise you, almost everyone “works hard” for their money, whether their wages are big or small.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
maybe your 3 college kids should get jobs and buy their own insurance.
Hot debate. What do you think?
43 
41
Guess you didn’t ‘get’ the sarcasm! LOL
Like or Dislike:
16 
7
too hard to see the sarcasm anymore with all these freeloaders trying to squeeze any little thing they can out of the working middle class.
Seems the harder you work, the more you pay.
So much for the American Dream.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
26
Good God man, you have completely lost your mind. Squeezing more out of the middle class? hahahahaha wow. I hate to bring the different parties into this but that’s how most of the more conservatives think. What people need to realize is you have to have a very high income to even notice any change in taxes. Obama said there would be a tax increase for couples making over $250,000 a year and individuals making over $200,000 a year. Do you make that much? I don’t know about all of you, but I don’t really consider that kind of annual salary “middle class” anyway. So quit saying the middle class is going to be hurt. The whole point of this is to try and GROW the middle class, not shrink it. Man, people need to do some better research and get the facts straight.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Mac, nothing is free. The cost of providing you with subsidized care is going to come from somewhere. President Obama has already conceded that his proposed tax increase on “the rich” has an insignificant impact on the federal deficit; there simply are not enough rich people. While “tax the rich” is a great campaign slogan, the truth is that taxing our way out of the deficit problem can only be accomplished with significant middle class tax increases; you could impose a 100% tax on the income and assets of the top 10% and you would only be able to operate the federal government for slightly less than ten months. Think about it; Bill gates is a billionaire, are federal deficit is now counted in trillions of dollars, that’s a 1000 billion. As far as the mandate for pre-existing coverage and keeping adult children covered, I can guarantee that insurance companies will not reduce their profits but increase the cost of premiums to everyone. Yet again another example of doing the responsible thing (staying fit and healthy) simply means that you have the privilege to help pay for other people. The American dream is to have the opportunity to be successful; I am afraid that the American dream has become “what benefits can I make someone else pay for through taxes.”
Hot debate. What do you think?
40 
26
I have said it before & I will say it again: if healthcare is a right: the government provides a basic level of care for all citizens paid for with taxes. If it is a personal responsibility: little babies & old people who cannot afford the care must be allowed to die in the streets.
Our hybrid system where everyone gets care, they just don’t have to pay & the MD & hospital eat the bill has to stop. It is bankrupting the country.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
68 
25
Indeed.
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8858/slihouettemanwonderswtf.jpg
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
10
FN, who are you kidding? Hospitals and MDs do not eat any bills, they increase charges to the rest of us and we pay them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
12
The people that do not have Ins. end up paying their own bill by wage garnishments if they do not have the money. or they make arrangments for small payments. Those cost are wrote off only after all other ways to collect fail. The collectors will keep trying for seven years before anything is wrote off.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
OBama care vs No-Care….hmmmm. Supreme Court got it right! Now what are the battle-line crazed republicans going to say after the S.C. sides with Obama? What possible twist will the political war mongers come up with to save face and the holy political war in which they are engaged? I hope Mitty goes down in flames in November for attacking this program so heatedly and now proven to be on the wrong side! As he is on almost every issue! Congratulations, President OBama, on having your program justified!
Hot debate. What do you think?
61 
59
what ever you do, dont try to fix the current system.
Wouldnt want something like liberty to get in the way of a good takeover.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
36
Like I said Captain, as a Libertarian I am more than willing (eager in fact) to give you your liberty, as soon as you guarantee me payment for all of your healthcare needs (including your nursing home care – which medicare only partially covers).
Liberty is a great slogan, but as long as you can treat healthcare like McD drive through — show up and they have to feed you because you are hungry; come to the ER and we have to see you because you ask — I will call your stance BS.
America wants to talk tough but it does not want to do what is needed to fix the system. America wants its cake and to eat it too. That is no longer possible.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
21
Flying Nurse, your explanation of emergency room coverage is very general. First, the Federal law which requires a hospital to treat an emergency only applies to hospitals that accept Medicare; that’s most, but not all. Also, it only applies to an emergency; there is no requirement to treat sprained ankles or common illnesses. The requirement is only to screen and stabilize, after which the patient can be transferred to another facility. Finally, the law doesn’t prohibit the hospital from trying to collect for the services it provided after the treatment is provided. In summary, it is not a free clinic, it is only emergency care to screen and stabilize. While this has an impact on hospital profitability, it is not the reason we have a healthcare crisis. It is my opinion that we have a healthcare crisis because healthcare is one of the few transactions where the majority of consumers don’t care what the costs are. Doctors are often compensated based upon the number of procedures they initiate (x-rays, MRIs, blood tests). When someone else is paying (Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance) there is absolutely no incentive to ask the doctor what the cost will be. The largest cost in every medical facility is compensation to doctors and administrators.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
10
Joe,
Thank you for a cogent, well thought out response. I respectfully disagree. It is obvious you are in the industry so you should know that the “medical screening exam” required by law basically means you receive the same services everyone else does. Sprained ankles, sore throats, ear aches, and all other primary care concerns are definitely included.
When this law first came out there was much discussion on what a medical screening exam entailed and who could complete it. After much time, heart ache, and more than a few law suits, it was decided a physician or mid level (NP or PA) must conduct the exam. Being unwilling to risk their licenses, they uniformly, across the board (every single major physician organization I am aware of) determined that they would do exactly what they would do for any other patient. To do otherwise would be to invite a malpractice claim.
As far as applying only to hospitals who accept Medicare, you are correct. I would challenge you to find a hospital in ND, SD, WY, or Montana that does not accept Medicare. There is one in MNPLS but last I heard it was on the verge of closing.
At Altru Medicare and Medicaid account for over 60% of all revenue. That is actually a low ball number. Nationally the average is over 65%.
Your point is well taken but has very little practical meaning.
As for too many tests. I could not agree more. I have spent 30 years working in the Emergency Department. The most expensive, least effective care available.
If you come in and say you had a loss of consciousness after a fall; you will receive a CT scan. Even if there is no clinical indication for it. To do otherwise would be to invite a lawsuit in case you were the 1:1000 cases where the scan discovers a small bleed (you are admitted overnight, receive another scan in 6 hours to make sure things are not getting worse and discharged the next morning).
Lawsuits not science controls emergency medicine. You are correct, until this is rectified there can be no change.
Also, I agree that pay for procedure has to go. We need to double the pay of the primary care doc (they prevent illness) and retard the growth in pay of specialists.
There is lots of room for improvement.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
13
When you give up freedom for security, you recieve neither.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
14
I understand your perspective but there it no way you can make a real claim to being Libertarian with your support you are simply a LINO, not a true Libertarian.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
Glen, you may be right about FN not being a true libertarian. I think, though, that he is an RL (rational libertarian), which, I suppose might make him a LINO.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Then fix the problem.
You constantly whine about uninsured and the ER.
Change the law and turn freeloaders away.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Flyingnurse, sorry, I don’t believe that you are correct in your assertion that lawsuits drive medical decisions. Lawsuits are used as an excuse as to why medical care is expensive. Look at a medical facility’s income statement, the cost of malpractice insurance represents about 1/10 of 1% of the average facility’s expense; yes, the AMA has an effective and well funded lobby. Procedure driven compensation for doctors coupled with third-party payments are why medical costs are so high. As you point out, more than half 60-65% of revenue comes from Medicare, and a majority of the rest comes from insurance carriers. That means that patients generally don’t pay for the services they receive. Until patients have a direct financial interest in what procedures are “ordered” healthcare costs will not be controlled. Yes, the system needs to be fixed, but the new healthcare act only adds more money to the pot without doing anything to control costs. This should generate lots of red thumbs; I dislike the new healthcare law because it does nothing to fix a clearly dysfunctional system and I dislike the scare tactic that “malpractice awards drive up healthcare costs”.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
The Republicans ceded this race to Obama when they nominated Romney.
1. He is Mormon, and while that should not make a difference it does. The Republican base is made up of Evangelical Christians, most of whom believe Mormonism is a cult. Just google Evangelical and Mormon together and you will get years worth of Christian leaders (those same guys who thought GW Bush was the best thing to happen to American politics since the invention of money) denouncing Mormonism as coming from Satan. Have you noticed the deafening silence from the right since his nomination.
2. Romney showed he was no different than Obama on immigration, and that lost him a significant level of support. By refusing to say he would overturn Obama’s executive order, he doomed himself in the eyes of many right wing fanaticos.
What remains to be seen is will enough Hispanics join the Republican ranks to offset the number of Republicans who will either vote for Obama or not vote at all? I don’t think so, but I do not know.
3. There are too many similarities between ObamaCare and Romney’s own healthcare program for him to make too much noise. Even the Tea Party would label him as hypocritical.
Obama will win by 5 points.
Hot debate. What do you think?
49 
42
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
33 
45
I agree people bet with their wallet. The trouble is overall the economy is improving. People are more confident. Faux News likes to portray it that we are sinking back into the Great Depression, but the numbers don’t lie.
Then again, the American public has never let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument. If the GOP can convince 50.1% of the voting public that they are worse off then they were 4 years ago they will win; if not, Obama by 5 points for the reasons I stated above.
Hot debate. What do you think?
42 
31
Please stop speaking like you know the people in this country better than anyone else.
Obama has been a miserable failure.
He has alienated people of his own party as well.
He is as good as gone.
We could have put Goofy or Mickey up there and won.
Hot debate. What do you think?
40 
48
Capt, couldn’t agree with ya more!
Hot debate. What do you think?
33 
38
You’re a sharp guy FN (albeit misdirected at times in my humble opinion) but do a little more research on AZ; I don’t think it’s as much ”in play” as you state.
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
Richard: I lived there for 5 years. I just recently came back north.
We have Governor Leatherface (A complete disgrace. What state elects a person governor who looks like an old dried up piece of leather) and Sheriff Joe (He is senile but I will put money he will be re-elected) but McCain barely carried the state.
The author of SB 1070, the immigration bill was recalled by his own party for being too off the wall and even the GOP is publically stating that if they don’t find some viable Hispanic candidates soon, they will start losing elections wholesale (PHX and Tucson, the two population centers are both 60% Hispanic, 30% white, and 10% other).
AZ is in play because Leatherface is in her 70s, Uncle Joe is 80, and most of their supporters are of the same generation.
In contrast, the average age of the Hispanic population (legal citizens, born here or naturalized) is less than 30. Demographically the GOP can see the writing on the wall.
That is part of the reason Romney would not rebuke Obama’s executive order. In order to win, Romney needs to cut down the 70% margin that Hispanics voted for Obama last time. He can’t do that pandering to the border militia movement and all the other this land is for the white race wing nuts on the far right.
I suspect AZ will go for Romney, but definitely not 60/40. 55/45 or less.
Like or Dislike:
12 
12
OK, but let’s get a little nicer today…name-calling is usually not your style…..understand some days more ‘pressure’ than others. Try a very dry Vodka martini with 7 garlic stuffed olives or is it the other way around……
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
It’s interesting to me to see who gets away with name calling on Area Voices. I got spanked by the m & m’s yesterday over a joke but others get away with out and out personal attacks. Nice system. It makes me wonder why I want to be a part of it.
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
TJ I had several posts deleted & got the same warning email you did. As best I can tell – the powers that be are less than clear – is I can be harsher with public figures (AZ governor or Sheriff Joe) but I can’t call you the same names.
There is some sense with that. Public figures exist to lampoon & denigrate. Private citizens do not
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Thank you for telling me that Fly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
The only prob here is that Hispanics have an aversion to voting, always seems very low turn out from that voting block.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
You are correct. They come from a culture where votes have no meaning. There is a definite learning curve.
MX had one party government for over 50 years, El Salvador … you can watch the movie on Netflix … Argentina (que Evita) … Paraguay (Che Guevera) and now narco-dollars instead of a functioning government.
It used to make me insane when I lived in Tucson that in a city that is 60% Hispanic there was one member of the city council who was Mexican. I wanted to grab my in laws and shake them.
This is America, we do not shoot you for going to the polls. I am having to tell this to a natural born US citizen who is a WWII vet and has a Purple Heart for his time and trouble.
Make me insane
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
Hispanics dont go to the polls because they fear getting caught and sent back home.
Illegals are smart enough to let ACORN folks vote for them via absentee ballots.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
17
Captain, the 60% of the Tucson & PHX population that are Hispanic are citizens. As I said above my father in law was born here, fought in WWII, & earned a Purple Heart. Where you want to send him back too?
Hispanics, especially the older ones do not vote. Fortunately the younger ones do. That is what has the GOP in an uproar. Even Republicans can count.
The Old Guard is dying & there simply are not enough white folks being born in the southwest to prevent a brown takeover.
There is more than AZ at stake. CA, NM, CO, TX, & FL are all changing.
If the GOP does not find a Hispanic candidate they can live with, their time in power will come to an end.
It’s not ideology. It’s numbers. In 25 years America will most certainly not be your grandfather’s country.
Like or Dislike:
13 
14
Before you panic too much, people said the same thing about the Chinese (the only race of people to be prohibited by law from immigrating), Irish, Germans, & Italians. America survived – after changing to meet the needs of the new immigrants – those invasions & it will survive this one too.
Like or Dislike:
10 
13
In a level playing field yes, but Citizens United changes things.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
Woodrow Volarie, how does Citizen’s United change things? The fear of corporate campaign spending is being exploited. The truth of the matter is that corporate campaign contributions have been and for the forseeable future will be dwarfed by Union spending. From 1989-2012 only 6 of the top 20 campaign contributors were corporations. In contrast, 14 were either labor unions or democratic pacs. Of the top 20 contributors 1 gave primarily to republican candidates, 5 gave roughly equal to both major parties and 14 gave almost exclusively to democratic candidates. Take a look for yourself: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php .
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
The grandpa bit made zero sense.
You say he was born here, yet we were talking about illegal latinos.
?????????
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
Captain: I was talking about the 60% of Tucson and PHX that are Hispanic. YOU made the assumption they were illegal.
As I pointed out, that 60% number are US citizens. If you count illegals, the percentage of Hispanics in AZ is much higher.
You made a common mistake: you lumped everyone together in one basket.
AZ, TX, NM used to belong to MX. The border has always been fluid. There are many families who were all born here, live here, pay taxes here, etc. and who spend part of every week in MX visiting grandma or shopping or receiving healthcare. Braces are 1/3 the cost in MX that they are in the US. Many people get their dental work done there.
People do not like what I say because they do not understand how the border works.
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
i can tell you how the border SHOULD work.
CLOSED!
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Captain: About the border being closed. It may surprise you to find I agree with you.
Since closing the border is not hard (we know how to do it) you have to ask yourself why haven’t we? The answer is business. That is why Fox will dance around the subject but never get serious in their reporting and why Governor Jan makes noise but does nothing to stem the root cause.
American business lives off illegal labor. Do a quick nexus/lexus search about the immigration raids of large agribusiness. Entire towns being arrested in one swoop only to be repopulated in a month.
As you know, the majority of business people vote Republican.
Part of SB1070 was declared unconstitutional, but part was not. The part that was not dealt with the hiring of illegals. On paper it offered tough enforcement and fines against businesses who knowingly hire illegals.
Why has Governor Brewer not made it a priority to prosecute businesses? They are the same people who donate to her cause. She is a politico first; governor second.
It is like drugs. Whenever there is a demand, someone will find a way to meet it. Locking up drug dealers is a waste of time and effort. If you want to stop the drug epidemic in the US, forget all the feel good stuff and ineffective attempts at rehabilitation (The most successful rehab programs in the nation have a 10%-15% success rate. In other words they fail 85%-90% of the time.) and start locking up the users. No demand = no supply.
The same is true here. $10,000 for each and every illegal in your employ. That is a first offense. 2nd offense is $25,000 for every illegal.
That is it folks
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
There is no acorn anymore. Try to keep up, Capt.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
US is a one party state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hispanics will NOT have an aversion to voting this year. They know that President Obama tried to pass an immigration bill that got through the House but was blocked by the Republicans in the Senate through the use of the filibuster. They know that President Obama gave hope to those hispanic kids who were brought to the U.S. by their parents when they were children. They will be out in droves to vote Democratic this year. If it doesn’t work this year it will the next election cycle, and the Republican party can count on never getting AZ back.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
An earlier post about AZ got moderated but you are correct. I do not believe the GOP will lose AZ in the next two cycles (8-10 years) but after that there is very little hope of them retaining the state.
As I said, even the GOP can count. With Hispanic births outpacing anglo births 3:1 (a trend that has been going on for years, it is nothing new) there is simply no way the GOP can ignore Hispanic issues and hope to survive.
The Democrats are not much better. They too have largely ignored Hispanic issues and are starting to pay the price. Somewhere between 60%70% of Hispanic voters voted for Obama. They did not vote Democrat across the board.
They are not the homogenous voting block many people take them to be.
Both sides take them for granted at this stage. That will be changing in a big way very soon. Look for your first openly Hispanic (we are not talking Bill Richardson here, even though his parents are MX) VP candidate in 2016. Same with the US Senate.
It is only a matter of time
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
Hispanics are generally hard working industrious people that value family. I don’t think they will necessarily lemming up and embrace the parisitism of the left.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Or do they do the lemming/sheep dance on the right side? Probably not. Yes, perhaps they know that there is no clean side to the turd.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
That’s what John Roberts tried to do, pick up the Obamacare turd from the clean end.
Like or Dislike:
4 
9
Your’re right. That’s why their very tan governor Brewer has been having a fit wagging her finger at Obama. She knows what’s coming and it’s not good for the Republicans.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Bingo Realist. There are very few people I respect less, but even she can count.
People forget the author of SB1070, the immigration bill was recalled by his own party. It was not the other side. He went totally off the deep end so they had to shut him down.
Governor Brewer is an old school politico. She has had no other job for the past 30 years besides “Public Service.” She is why the founders did not want an aristocracy.
That said, as an old school politico she can count. She read the tea leaves and orgistrated the removal of the second most powerfult Republican in the state.
Normally I would admire a woman like her. Unfortunately, her beliefs make her an adversary rather than an ally.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
So this is how you speak of those who disagree with your socialistic, care for everyone in the world, views?
Like or Dislike:
8 
17
I really don’t think a lot of you on the right really know what socialism is…..I think you hear some pundit call something socialism and everyone follows suit. A program that basically allows people to actually get some sort of coverage is not socialism. Many of these people right now cannot get coverage without paying an arm and a leg because their company has no insurance. Hell…My company has insurance, but I’m on a 5k deductable because it saves me premimum costs….So basically unless something major happens my insurance doesn’t do squat…..Our old insurance actually did help with some of the bills…..I’m hoping that this will have better oportunities available so people like myself can have insuraqnce for more than some major event.
Like or Dislike:
18 
11
Maybe I’m missing the point, Tundra, but I thought it’s the law that no person can be turned away or refused care.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
Instead of Obamacare, thats the law that should have been revoked.
Problem solved Darwinian style.
Either get an education or learn a skill, if you dont contribute to society you deal with the results.
We are too busy keeping the eaters, breathers and breeders alive and healthy for no other reason than to waste resources.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
17
Thanks Cap, that is so very Christian of you treat the less fortunate that way.
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
The “less fortunate”? Or the “less ambitious”?
Like or Dislike:
14 
11
Cap doesn’t make the distinction between those who are less ambitious and those who are born with disabilities or due to an accident or injury are no longer productive members of society. His statement is that if you can’t contribute, you are left in the woods to die.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
less fortunate or lazy?
Theres a difference.
We all have the opportunity to get an education or learn a skill to contribute.
Its sad when the only argument is people born with handicaps etc… what is that ? approx .05% of the population?
Fact is, the biggest drag on our society are the lazy bums you see holding signs standing on street corners. people like that could be working.
Sorry if i am tired of working my rear off every day just to have the federal govt keep raising my contribution to society just to care for these losers.
Like or Dislike:
10 
9
So this is when Liberals start touting the Christian Card?
Keep Christ out of public view, schools, no prayers, etc……
But when it comes to Obama care its a Christian thing?
So typical of Liberals to try to use whatever is at their disposal.
They’ve used Race for 4 years against anyone who disagreed with Obama so it really doesnt come as a surprise.
Like or Dislike:
10 
11
Capt, the 50th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision on school prayer was last Monday. The decision did NOT ban praying in schools — but in line with the clear intent of the 1st amendment, it did stop school teachers and administrators from imposing their prayers on the students. There’s a big difference, but the propaganda channels you watch don’t want you to see that.
Of course, you’ll deny that — and I’m sure you’ll be in favor of a Muslim teacher leading your kids in classroom prayers several times a day!
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
That is complete bull and you know it.
Its been well documented across the nation of schools outlawing kids sayin ga prayer at any school function period due to what they consider seperation of church and state because schools use tax dollars.
Dont try to pretend that Christ or his message are welcome in our Public school system.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
Well, it’s clear then that the only way “out of this mess” is to vote Republican. Only the Republicans and them alone have the best ideas, the best ethics, the best morals, the best candidates and office holders who are above the law. They also do not take ANY money from special interest groups. So, vote Republican and life will be perfect.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
or you could find someone willing to just follow the constitution and willing to fix the problems with the health care system instead of taking control of it.
And in the current case, a GOP vote is all that will accomplish that.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
Capt: as we have discussed before there is no fixing the current system. That is why Obamacare will ultimately fail.
We must either cover everyone or deny care based on the ability to pay.
There really is no middle ground
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
i will gladly settle for better than it is now.
And that wouldnt take much.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Socialized medicine is a term used to describe a system for providing medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation.
The Supreme Court decided that this mandate is a tax on all citizens.
Therefore……. Socialized medicine.
Any other questions you need answered?
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
I don’t know aqll the particulars, but I from what I’ve read I think this bill is more of a gap filler that allows those who currently can’t get health insurance because of things like it not being provided through work or can’t aford it on their own with the sky high prices will now have an insurance they can purchase that will at least give them some level of coverage. This is a layered approach and not an across the board approach like in many industrialized countries. It will provide coverage for those who cannot provide for themselves at this time, but in the end the fact that more will be paying into a plan instead of using the emergency room for health care will still be cheaper for everyone in the end…..It’s been working well in the actual socialized renditions. Both for the health care and for the national GDP. And in places like Canada those who want more of a exporess or Cadellac program have those to purchase seperately too.
Leave fox alone for a while and you might stop thinking the world is coming to an end because we’re trying to do something to benifit the whole country instead of just those with the most
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Oh hell…more typos…I guess I’m supposed to proof before I hit submit..not after huh?
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Oh yup yup….he’s a failure all right. All the right wing head nodders will agree with you on that. But Osama is dead and GM is alive. Ask the people in Michigan and Ohio who have jobs because of President Obama and see how they feel. Watch the new businesses in the health care industry that will be created (and that’s already started in Michigan in high tech health) and watch the stock market….that is already trending upward today with health-related stocks. Yes….just a miserable failure!
Hot debate. What do you think?
31 
18
While I hope Obama gets another 4 years, I do think that most Republicans who do not necessarily like Romney or support his policies will hold their noses and vote for him come November, simply because he is Not Obama.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
15
This whole event is far from over. Currently a Repub house and after Nov, a Repub Senate and at least a 60-40 chance of ‘Bama losing, repeal of this bankrupting ‘law’ is inevitable.
Talk about “firing up the base”, the Supremes have done the ‘conservatives’ a big favor.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
45
SCOTUS upheld the Mandate? We will see about that!
Voters declared putting an end to the Sioux nickname? We’ll see about that!
Obama elected to a second term? We’ll see about that!
Some people, no matter how much proof, fact, evidence, or statistics you put in front of them won’t quit. They would argue with an encyclopedia it seems.
Yay, fire up the conservative base. We all know what’s going to save this country is years worth of political discourse, pandering, and bickering. That’s just what’s going to fix America. Yup.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
21
Richard,
The chances of the GOP getting a veto proof majority in the Senate in the next ten years is none. The bill will survive for that reason alone.
It may be modified, but it will be here for at least another decade.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
23
You could be correct, but they could totally defund the law and kill it that way. Also since states can now opt out of Obama care it will seriously cripple the law.
Like or Dislike:
12 
14
The Affordable Health Care Act is the law of the land. States cannot ‘opt out’. The medicaid part of it MAY be an opt-out, but when the states see that they will be getting 100% of federal medicaid funds the first year, something like 95% the second year and something less than that the 3rd year, they will go along with it.
Like or Dislike:
18 
9
Come on now….You know damn well that when you use the actual “Affordable Health Care Act” it doesn’t sound like something scary that the black man in the white house is trying to pull on white America. Hell…It actually sounds like a logical approach to a real problem…..So enough of that…After all fox noise has basically sold this Obamacare tag for a couple years now and it’s done wonders for those who would rather listen to misinformation than find out what it’s actually about…..
Like or Dislike:
18 
7
President Obama has not done a very good job of selling his ‘Obamacare’ yet, but by the time Nov. 6th rolls around, the people will see the benifits of this new law and they will like it. Especially those who couldn’t afford it before. And as the years roll by, the people will REALLY like it. And instead of people crying ‘Don’t mess with my Medicare’….you will hear ‘Don’t mess with my Obamacare’.
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
15
you dont need to veto a tax.
The President alone can put an end to a tax.
Obama may like to pretend its a Penalty but the SCOTUS flat out said a Penalty was not possible because that would indicate the Govt was forcing people to buy a product/service. And thats UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Roberts ruled it was Constitutional based upon the FACT that it was a TAX.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Richard, the Supremes were a singing group from the ’60s.
The supreme court are an appointed group of judges.
That’s right, appointed, not elected. If you don’t like what they ruled, too bad. They’re not a group you or anyone’s ‘party’ are able to threaten with being ‘voted out’.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
13
Lighten up bac….agree the ‘Supremes’ can’t be voted out but the law can…
Like or Dislike:
14 
10
Some observations:
1. When this was “Romneycare” it was seen as a good idea by republicans.
2. The conservative think tank Heritage Foundation was all for the mandate as good conservative policy until it became “Obamacare.”
3. Those who have insurance have been paying the medical costs of the uninsured all along — now they will have to pay for themselves.
4. The best way to have kept the costs down would have been to have a government insurance option to compete with the private insurance companies — but that was the first part of the bill that the republicans managed to get rid of.
Given those points, I’ll ask as politely as I can: what the heck is it that republicans want other than getting rid of Obama?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
62 
25
I figure it this way.. For me it is a wash.. I already pay for health insurance so that bill hopefully will go down because I no longer will be paying for the uninsured.. But my taxes are going to go up because I’m going to still have to supplement those people who can’t afford insurance on their own.
Personally I would like to see it go a step further and just get rid of medicaid and make people purchase health care. That would give me more money in the long run.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
20
Personally, I’d like to see the USA join the rest of the developed world with a single payer system. Of course, it won’t happen as long as Congress is defined as the opposite of Progress.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
26
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
26 
36
Do you already have health insurance? If so you are already paying that bill.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
3
LOL, like Europe is one country! Apart from that, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Universal_health_care.svg
When you digest that map, take particular notice that Iraq and Afghanistan have universal coverage — and note who provides it!
Like or Dislike:
21 
8
Europe has a far more comples monetary system than we have because they use one currancy, but instead of one government like we have they have many to deal with……That’s a far cry from our situation in any regard…
Like or Dislike:
18 
9
No to a strictly one payor system, but yes to a hybrid system like England.
Everyone in England receives a baseline of care simply because you are alive. It is not as good as the private system, there are no frills, they will deny you care (no dialysis past a certain age, forget having a transplant unless you are a pristine candidate — Dick Cheyne would have died 10 years ago under the English system so it is hard to say it is a bad system), you will wait for anything elective and you will probably be envious of those who can afford to go to the private side.
The difference is no one dies in the street and the country is not being bankrupt from having to provide care for those who do not pay anything into the system. The baseline care is tax funded.
For those who can afford it, or their employer includes it as a benefit, you can go to a private hospital and sleep in a nice private room, with a color TV, internet access, and have the best of everything. The difference is I am not paying for it. You are.
I am comfortable with two levels of care because as a nurse I know we already have that, despite our completely off the chart expenditures. It is unfair but at least everyone would receive the basics. Right now we treat diseases that could have been prevented because although you can go to the ER anytime you want, you cannot get into your private MD or clinic without insurance. So, instead of treating your diabetes when it starts, we wait till you need a kidney transplant and are disabled because of your host of chronic, preventable conditions.
We routinely cut off our nose to spite our face
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
20
Well said justasec. I’ve outlined what I like about the affordable care act. Can anyone tell me specifically what they don’t like about it, other than a vague reference to bankrupting the country which I consider just another conspiracy/fear tactic.
Death panels? Drive through abortions? Give me an example.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
18
For me I don’t care either way. We already offer health insurance to our employees through which I have my own plan. My only real question is how will it be implemented.
In the long run if it doesn’t cost me more money I could care less. I like I said above, I already pay for the uninsured through my own health care premium. My hope is that this cost will go down because people will be responsible to purchase their own plan.
What do I think it means overall… There are a lot of employers out there in parts of the country who don’t offer health care plans to their employees and will probably be expected to do so. But like I said I would like to know how they plan on implementing this..
Like or Dislike:
19 
6
Obamacare will not bankrupt the country. Not doing anything will bankrupt the country. If no one does anything, if the status quo is maintained, 100% of the federal budget will be spent on entitlement programs in 40 years. That is medicare, medicaid, and Social Security. No defense, no roads, no courts, nothing. 100% will be spent writing checks.
That would cause another revolution. More than likely anarchy followed by fascism. Why did the Austrian Corporal come to power after WWI? He made the trains run on time.
America is not immune to the same thing happening here.
Hot debate. What do you think?
27 
21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
30
Capt: as we have already pointed out, hospitals have no choice but to see you. It is the law (a condition for accepting Medicare).
That is why your last MD visit cost $200 instead of $50
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
12
Mac, very simple. Congress has told me that I must buy health insurance. No choice; I buy it or pay penalties. I am not allowed to self-insure. Please, do not use automobile insurance as an example; with automobile insurance I have a choice, I don’t have to drive – there are millions of americans in large cities who don’t own automobiles and don’t have health insurance.
Like or Dislike:
17 
11
Joe:
Back to your self insure hypothesis. Unless you are a very wealthy individual, you cannot self insure. Many people have catestrophic policies only, and that is still an option. You pay for the day to day stuff and the catestrophic policy only kicks in when something big like cancer happens. In other words you have to set aside $10,000 -$50,000 in a bonded account for these policies. That is the amount you have to pay.
I go back to what I have been saying all along: you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Ever go to a free standing urgent care? Not a hospital based ER? They will guarantee to see you in less than an hour AFTER you pay the bill. You pay for the doctor’s time before you are seen, then anything else (lab, XRay) is paid before you leave. They do not bill insurance, that is up to you.
If you do not have cash, they do not have time.
It is a wonderful system, I use them all the time (getting a MD appointment in a timely manner is darn near impossible).
I believe all healthcare should be that way. If it were, a MD visit would not cost $200 it would cost $50 and an ER visit would not cost $1200 it would be $500.
Until everyone pays I have zero sympathy or tolerance for the nonsense this subject generates.
Personal Liberty = Personal Responsibility; except in America.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
16
Joe, you are very fortunate to have the means to pay for catastrophic medical expenses.
I 100% support a proof-to-pay plan: Prove you can pay for your healthcare either through insurance or personal resources, or go home to momma and have her nurse you back to health.
Or die.
Like or Dislike:
16 
7
sounds like a plan.
If youre not contributing to society you are dragging it down.
Time to weed out some of the dead weight.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
20
If a person can’t afford health insurance, how are they going to pay the penalties?
Like or Dislike:
17 
6
Bob, if they cannot afford health insurance they will have to go home to momma.
There are provisions in place for the unfortunate who cannot afford health coverage. Affordable care act forces people who choose to be a burden to society to man up and pay for their own health care.
Boo-hoo.
Like or Dislike:
12 
8
@Mac, so people who can’t afford to pay for the insurance and can’t pay the penalties will not have health insurance or health care?
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
@Mac, so people who can’t afford to pay for the insurance and can’t pay the penalties will not have health insurance or health care?
Bob, it’s my understanding there is a provision in place for those who cannot afford some basic plan.
It’s also my understanding the government will determine what one can and cannot afford. I understand people not liking that part (in my opinion, it’s kind of like income taxes. I can’t afford what I pay but the government makes me pay it anyway)
There’s no question there are parts that need review and modification. Simply put, we need a system in place where most everyone contributes to the cost of their health care, not just those of us with insurance paying for everyone else. I don’t understand what Repbulicans hate about that.
Like or Dislike:
14 
5
Penalties are based on income. No income, no penalty. If you can’t afford insurance, there are provisions to help with the cost. If you are penniless, you qualify for medicaid. Your scenario of not being able to afford either is not likely to occur.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
@Mac – my guess it is companies like Walmart who don’t offer insurance to their employees and instead give them pamphlets on how to obtain Medicaid. You know those rich guys don’t want to give up their fifth vacation home in the Camens.
There are employers like myself who offer Medical Insurance to our employees. We pay 60% of the costs, its an 80/20 plan with a 1000.00 deductible. I look forward to my competition having to start to carry insurance on their people.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
25
Capt: that argument makes no sense. He is running on the promise to take the Massachusetts Miracle nation wide. Before Obamacare passed he touted what a great system MA had.
In a digital age your words will come back to haunt you. I am sure there are commercials being produced featuring those speeches right now
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
14
Just as there are many many tapes with Obama directly lying to the American people again and again, This is not a tax, this bill will not raise taxes on anyone…………. right; just a trillion dollars is all.
Like or Dislike:
12 
12
There is a HUGE difference between what a state can provide for its people and what the federal govt can.
Until you can get that through your head you will never comprehend the concept of limited govt and states rights.
I shouldnt be surprised though, Obama cant comprehend it either.
Like or Dislike:
11 
17
Captain: I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense on a THEORETICAL basis. As a practical matter it is another story.
Federal Law always trumps state law. That is an established fact, so how “sovereign” are the states? Not much.
States can set their own speed limits, if they want to lose federal funding. How “sovereign” is that?
International relations and all trade agreements are the distinct pervue of the feds. Regardless of what the states want, and these treaties have the power of federal law. How “soverign” is that?
Your point is well taken, it just has very little practical meaning.
ObamaCare is a bad idea, but the belief that the current system can be reformed is simply not true. America needs to grow up. It needs to make a choice: cover everyone or let people die in the streets.
The ACS workers are a valued addition to this discussion. Before the lockout most were like you (at least on these boards): it is a responsibility. Now that they no longer have insurance and no one is paying for their visits or meds, many are a little more mellow towards the issue.
We are all just a few months from homeless. Some of us even less.
As we have determined, doing nothing is not an option. The country will be bankrupt in 40 years.
If we can do nothing, and ObamaCare is not the anwer; what is?
Like or Dislike:
10 
12
Capt, were you wailing about that when it was conservative policy?
Like or Dislike:
13 
9
I’m happy. I know conservatives are upset, but I’m not conservative. Wooot!
Hot debate. What do you think?
33 
20
I second that! Now my relative who has been unable to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions will actually be able to buy what others take for granted. What does that mean? It means that my loved one will not have to sell their house if they get sick or declare bankrupcy if they get cancer. This is huge. What a great day for America.
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
21
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
26
“I cant believe that the Supreme Court believes that forcing me to pay for something i dont want … ”
As a Libertarian I completely agree with that statement, except for one small sticking point: if you show up in my ER or call 911 I still have to take care of you; regardless of your ability to pay. Until that little point is addressed, this whole discussion is moot.
As my previous comments have made perfectly clear, I am for personal liberty and personal responsibility. I am perfectly comfortable with you choosing to be uninsured, as long as you are perfectly comfortable with me not caring for you until your check clears.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
16
I pay for lots of stuff I don’t want, like wars and overly zealous drug enforcement, but I don’t get to choose. The way the Supremes ruled, the mandate is based on it’s being a tax, not something you are forced to buy. The other thing is the law is filled with exemptions for religeous groups for example who don’t use medical services as a tenet of their faith. As far as I am concerned there is nothing I’d rather pay for in my taxes than good medical care.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
13
util the next big thing the govt comes along with.
Nothing like giving up all personal responsibility and allowing the govt to take care of you.
Thats true freedom.
right?
Like or Dislike:
9 
17
“More than eight in 10 Americans already have health insurance.” I find this claim spurious. To get this number they included those who receive medicaid. Medicaid is not insurance. It does not cover the cost of providing services and you cannot bill the patient for the remainder of the bill.
If you have Blue Cross and Blue Shield, after your co-pay and co-insurance requirements are met (mine are $2500 per year before BC/BS pays $1) you are still responsible for 20% of the bill (traditional BC/BS is a 80/20 configuration).
If you had medicaid, not only does the doctor and hospital lose money on you every time they provide care, they cannot bill you for the remainder.
Medicaid is a way to give the doctor and hospital something, a token, for providing what amounts to free care. It is by no means an insurance. To view it as such if false.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
16
What’s the difference between health care and health politics:
Physicians take the Hippocratic oath
Republicans take the hypocritic oath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugtS60oVts
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
20
Providing health care coverage for all American’s is a noble goal. I think that Medicare and Social Security are good programs. Too bad congress keeps taking the money away from these programs and diverting it to other uses. That’s the reason there’s a shortage in the fund. This health care program should be fine tuned and made better so that it provides the same service as medicare and social security. There are too many people not covered. If we’re supposed to be the greatest nation in the world that’s not something to brag about. Let’s all work together to provide for a healthier population. It’ll make us a stronger country. Now, if we can just stop the importing our jobs to other countries.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
19
Its not noble.
Its Socialistic.
We are a Republic, not a Socialists nation.
at least we were until Obama, Pelosi and Reid turned us into one.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
25
Captain: if I remember correctly you are on Medicare. That is a 100% owned and operated healthcare system. The drugs you receive and the procedures you are prequalified for are all determined by a government agency known as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies (CMS).
You, my friend, are already the recipient of socialized medicine. What this discussion is about is whether or not everyone else gets to join you
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
12
at the age of 44 i highly doubt i would qualify.
I go to work every day and earn my check and pay my health insurance premiums.
Wish everyone else would just do the same.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
15
Sorry. Confused you with someone else. I pay $200 every 2 weeks in premiums, then I pay $2500 a year out of pocket before insurance even kicks in, then I pay 20% of whatever is billed.
If it weren’t for the specter of a catastrophic illness I would risk being uninsured as well.
The fact is we as a country are allowing healthcare to bankrupt us. We spend twice as much on healthcare as defense.
For all that our health numbers are terrible.
We cannot continue as we are.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
11
What’s a socialist nation?
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
The discussion on this health care bill is a stitch. You know how to determine if someone has READ the bill? Those are the folks that have found things in the bill that are good and some that are bad. Are you one of those on either side that insist that it is 100% great or 100% bad? Then you’re as bad as the Democrats and Republicans that us sheep keep sending to Washington hoping that the “change” will have an effect.
Like or Dislike:
16 
10
The Country’s broke. Who is to pay for this? If you get cancer and you are drawing Social Security, does this law now rule out Chemo or radiation for you? Do any of you who agree with Obamacare know exactly what is in it? If they are big enough to give it to you they are big enough to take it away. Will Congress have Obamacare? If not, why not? There are a million questions that need to be answered.
Like or Dislike:
14 
14
It’s all about the availability of insurance, lowrent. Insurance companies are the ones who provide coverage, not the government.
Like or Dislike:
19 
8
The government is here to help you and save you money. The left believes that but have yet to deliver on a money saving program. The costs escalate 3 or 4 or 10 fold. This will be no different.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
20
ND BCBS raised their rates $200 a year on the same day it was approved by the SCOTUS.
Just wait until 2014 when the mandate kicks in, we can expect another increase then as well.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
A good point brought up around the water cooler today was, what is this going to do to the rampant fraud that exists in the system.. Is this going to allow it to continue to perpetuate or even get worse? Is the government going to be able to put more oversight or controls into place so hospitals can quit billing 800.00 bucks for a tongue depressor?
Makes you go hmmm.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
28
0/10 trolling score.. you didn’t even try..
However the ‘Fraud’ has existed since like forever.. But they say the majority of those with money are republicans so that means its guys like Romney who are fleecing America right???
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
12
Because as we all know, Democrats are all poor.
Poor Kerry
Poor Kennedy’s
Poor Obama…. etc……
People like to ignore the fact that when they decry the rich, they are also talking about the very people who they voted for.
Show me a Poor Politician.
Like or Dislike:
7 
11
Before he was President.. Jimmy Carter.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
As if he even rates as a President.
At least he wont be considered the biggest failure ever anymore.
Thanks Barack.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
The Billy’s name is incorrect. It is not healthcare reform; it is insurance reform.
Look at this realistically. Insurance services are some of the most profitable enterprises in America.
If this bill threatened that, insurance companies would simply stop selling policies. State Farm refused to insure FL homes after four hurricanes went through there in one year..
This is no different. If this was going to cost the insurance industry a ton of money, they would simply stop writing policies. Have you heard of any of the major players dropping coverage?
The majority of cost associated with this program is subsidizing people’s premiums. We the tax payers are paying private for profit companies to carry out business as usual.
This is not unheard of. The new farm bill does the same thing. Insurance companies are safe.
In the long run I still think it would be cheaper to give everyone Medicare.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
28
My last two comments have been moderated. Some day I will understand how their computer works, but not today.
Like or Dislike:
13 
7
This is good for the people like me who couldn’t care any less about health care or hospitals or any of that garbage. I don’t carry any health insurance because I don’t want to prolong the inevitable. If I keel over just let me be and leave me where I lie. Give my carcass to the hogs.
I can also see this Obombacare clearing out the nursing homes when they refuse to resuscitate the elderly because their insurance doesn’t cover it. I know I certainly wouldn’t want to “live” that ghostly existence in a nursing home, being abused and stolen from by staff.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
22
Soylent Green. I am all for it. Especially for me.
After being a part of healthcare for over 30 years (I started as a nurses aid when I was 16), I am seriously worried about showing up at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter asking me why I tortured God’s creatures during their last few days and hours of life.
My biggest fear is cosmic payback: dying in an ICU stuffed full of tubes, crazy from all the medication and in constant pain from all the pokes and prodding that we call healthcare.
We have gotten away from our calling. We no longer work to alleviate pain and suffering. With the best of intentions, we now cause it for no real benefit — the patient still dies.
Did you know that 80% of every healthcare dollar is spent in the last 6 months of life?
Chew on that a while and then tell me why we are happy to pay for ICU care on terminal patients but balk on covering immunizations, well child checks before school, eye and hearing exams, or any of the myriad of other things that prevent disease?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
7
Why? Because those who say so are in charge.. and darn it if your not going to wipe their rear until they die.
end sarcasm
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
Lost me Mav. What are you trying to say?
Like or Dislike:
7 
8
The people with money and affluence within the political arena are those of the older generation. So we are paying more for end of life because of their interests.. Young people don’t weld the political power and is why we don’t pay for preventative medicine.
Sorry that I didn’t spell it out.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
Could not agree more Mav. That is why Medicare is the third rail of politics, even though as we have discussed it is bankrupting the system.
Our generation has been told since we started working that Social Security will not exist for us; the baby boomers will insure that. It is turning out to be true.
Like or Dislike:
8 
9
ND BCBS just announced that healthcare premiums would rise this year.
Individuals Approx $64
Families Approx $200
Wonder why they would raise premiums? I thought more people paying in was supposed to drop the cost and make it affordable.
I guess you can raise the prices when the Govt makes it a law that you have no choice but to purchase the insurance.
Thanks Obama, you will definately get the HC Insurers vote.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
21
BCBS raise their premiums every year. That dog don’t hunt.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
So much for Obama’s pledge of no new taxes on the middle class. His drooling puppies just lap his nonsense up.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
21
The only way Obamacare can save money and cost less is to deny care. When you get to be 80 or whatever age they choose, that’s it.
Like or Dislike:
14 
12
You are fundamentally correct. What you are overlooking is that happens now. As I have said before (above) the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Studies (CMS) decides what is and what is not covered under Medicare. If they cover it, you are golden. If not, you either do without or pay for it yourself.
People are “denied care” in this country and have been for decades. This is not new. It is just now making the headlines.
Like or Dislike:
13 
8
It may not be obvious to a lot of people yet, but something needs to be done in this country about health care. The U.S. has the highest cost per capita of any country in the world yet is ranked 37th in the world in terms of quality of care. Millions go without health care and die because of it. They can’t afford to see a doctor. Have you seen the video on t.v. of the people who drive for hundreds of miles to attend free health clinics because they can’t afford to see a local doctor or a dentist? Do you know that the U.S. military hold these clinics as a way to give their doctors more experience in treating people with various health conditions? It’s heartbreaking to see these people. Do you know that the U. S. is the only country left in the industrialized world that does not have universal health care? It’s shameful. We can do better than this. I know…I have lived the Canadian system of health care for decades now. I pay no health care premiums…never have since I left the U.S. Employers in Canada do not pay for employee health insurance. My health care is paid for by the taxes I pay. I don’t even notice the slightly higher tax rate. I don’t pay a penny to see my family physician or to be treated at a hospital. Republicans and the far right have been lying to the American public all along about the evils of ‘socialized medicine’. I know. I’ve lived the system. There is nothing wrong with it.
Like or Dislike:
17 
11
That is a complete and utter lie.
The Canadian Dept of Health is trying to drop socialized health care because they cant keep doctors due to low pay, they have to triage patients due to lack of doctors and Canadians are streaming across the border paying cash in the USA for treatments.
Sounds like an awesome system.
Obamacare just forced everyone to buy insursance. period.
My Insurance company ND BCBS just stated that my premiums would rise $200 this year due to this ruling.
People without insurance a week ago will now have to buy insurance at a rate that just increased.
HOW IS THAT FIXING THE SYSTEM?????
Like or Dislike:
8 
17
Sorry….there is no such thing as the Canadian Dept. of Health. The Fed. Govt. passes money to the provinces every year so they can run their own health systems. And within each province you have individual health regions or health districts. They run their own programs. I know. I used to work for those health regions/districts. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about Cap. And sure…the system isn’t perfect….but you’ve never lived it. I can tell. You ‘hear’ things, but you have not experienced it yourself. I just had a procedure done here that cost me nothing. Four years ago while living in MN, my doc said I should have it…I said ‘how much?’ and he said
$2,000. It was free here in Canada. It comes with the taxes we pay. It’s been that way for 50 years…and people are happpy. And by the way…..I spend my winters in AZ…..and you would not believe the number of people who wait to have very serious procedures done down there because the doctors are excellent. And no, they are not Canadian….they are Americans doing this. And they are all from the northern tier of states. And bty….there is no triaging here…..that is absolutely laughable.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/
It is socialism plain and simple.
Like or Dislike:
5 
12
Define ‘socialism’……you haven’t done that yet!
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
If you need healthcare, just kill someone so that you get thrown in prison for life. BAM! Free healthcare. Of course, if your state has capital punishment, you don’t need the healthcare.
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
That’s actually pretty costly…But if you do intend such a health care plan, then your plan has to include extreme removal of health from somebody else, and it has to be impressive or this plan will really be costly….If you survive…..
You can’t shoot sombody because anybody can shoot someone…Hell kids and little white haired grandmas shoot people.
If you stab or club someone that’s a bit more impressive, but there’s still a lot of hard cores who have done plenty of that and wont be all that impressed so you’ll eventually be challenged…
The only way you can do time for three hots, a cot, and free medical and survive the “Adventure” is to kill someone using nothing more than your hands and/or feet. Someone who can beat another person to death with no weapon is instantly respected and most likely wont get challenged (Well…There’s always some crazy sombitch who’ll do it just to see if he can take you) But what the hell…You’re just there for the free lifestyle of living in a pleasant environment that will give you free medical so have at it….But I’ll go the premium route…It’s much cheaper all the way around..
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Skip the next one…This one was put on hold so I just made some changes and re-submitted it….Usually they don’t approve of the original, but this time they did….
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
That’s actually pretty costly…But if you do intend such a health care plan, then your plan has to include extreme removal of health from somebody else, and it has to be impressive or this plan will really be costly….If you survive…..
You can’t use a gun on sombody because anybody can use a gun….Litle kids and white haired grandmas use guns.
If you knife or club someone that’s a bit more impressive, but there’s still a lot of hard cores who have done plenty of that and wont be all that impressed so you’ll eventually be challenged…
The only way you can do time for three hots, a cot, and free medical and survive the “Adventure” is to kill someone using nothing more than your hands and/or feet. Someone who can beat another person to death with no weapon is instantly respected and most likely wont get challenged (Well…There’s always some Crazed fool who’ll do it just to see if he can take you) But what the hell…You’re just there for the free lifestyle of living in a pleasant environment that will give you free medical so have at it….But I’ll go the premium route…It’s much cheaper all the way around
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Lets see how people feel about Obamacare when they start paying higher premiums.
Lets see how they feel when they find laws being passed banning their fasvorite foods and drinks because the govt decides its unhealthy and since they run the healthcare system we put them in charge of our health.
I’ll save the “I told you so” for later.
Enjoy your new middle class tax, lets see how that affects your families prosperity.
But try not to be too upset, just keep telling yourself…. It was the Christian thing to do. A Liberal told me so.
Like or Dislike:
14 
14
I would guess that Capt. is an uneducated white male who needs someone to blame for all of his miseries in life. When you advocate actions of Germany in the 1930′s something is off-base. Why do I think he makes less than 50K and pays little to no taxes?
Like or Dislike:
11 
12
If that were the case i would just get in line with my hand out like the rest of the bums.
FYI, I grew up dirt poor, i now have a Masters degree and a very nice job.
And NONE of it was handed to me, its available for anyone willing to get off their rear and go work for what you want.
Like or Dislike:
5 
14
As far as I can tell the only conservative candidate to actually put his money where his mouth is politically (Ron Paul) lost. He was the only hope for the GOP to regain its soul and they kicked him to the curb in favor of a candidate whose stance is largely the same as the present occupant of the White House.
RomneyCare was part of the blue print used in drafting ObamaCare. With all due respect to the Captain, his state’s right argument falls a little flat.
Romeny will not commit to overturning Obama’s Executive Order on immigration. In other words he agrees with it (So do I. It is a practical response to an intractable argument. The time for closing the borders was 20 years ago. The horse is already out of the barn).
Romney will not move to reinstate DADT (It would be stupid to try but the right is screaming for it)
Romney will not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
Can someone explain to me how voting for Romney is any different than voting for Obama? At least with Obama I don’t have to worry about the failed decisions and decision makers of the Bush administration coming back to haunt me.
Ron Paul:
1. Legalize Marijuana
2. Supports gay marriage
3. Out of Afghanistan and Iraq post haste if not sooner
4. A meat cleaver instead of a scalpel to the budget. That means a whole lot of pet programs and unneeded military bases are going to close.
5. Give the war fighters the tools they want, not the ones produced in Congressman “X” district. Close the bases they do not want.
Ron Paul was real change. Romney is just Obama without the tan
Like or Dislike:
9 
11
Interesting debate.
At least it’s not about some stupid sports nickname or about some sugar vs union crap!
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page7.html
The availability of physicians depends largely on the number of doctors and the current demand for medical services. Currently there is about 1 primary care doctor for every 1000 Canadians.
Yep, thats the system i want. im sure those other 999 appointments will go quickly while you wait to be seen.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
Captain: before you get too far forward on your skies you need to check your facts. A 1:1000 ratio for primary care in the US would be a fantastic improvement. The average Family Practice doc in the US has more than 2000 patients in their practice.
Canadians do not cross the border for primary care. Their system is better than ours in that respect. They cross the border for specialist care & elective surgeries (hip & knee replacements, elective open heart, etc).
The reason they can get a specialist here is because no one wants to be family practice. With our pay for procedure mentality a FP doc cannot make any money.
The highest paid doc at Altru last year earned $1.4 million. The average FP around $200,000 – $250,000
Like or Dislike:
14 
5
Keep up the good job, FN…..good post!
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Of greater concern to us should be the immigration bill, or rather the fair enforcement of it. If you are going to profile all of the possibly illegal Mexicans in the US, you better enforce it just as fairly with our neighbors to the north. The impact, or rather lack of impact from Canadians with no work visa who work in the US but live in Canada, pay Canadian taxes, buy Canadian homes, pay Canadian property taxes, etc., has a staggering effect on our economy. If you enforce the immigration law, enforce it across the board.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
As someone who is a dual American/Canadian citizen (from GF, by the way) and who has crossed and re-crossed the 49th many times in the last 40 years, it has become extremely difficult to cross into the U.S. without a passport and a legitimate reason for coming south. In order to work in the U.S. you need a social security number and a green card if you are a Canadian. Both are extremly difficult to get. The border people have a record in their computer system of every time you crossed the border. They input your passport information in to their computers so they know the exact date and time you cross and why you are crossing. How about some sources of information regarding these Canadians who work in the U.S. and live in Canada full time? Love to see that!!
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Jon Runyan claims Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare program by $500 billion
:
A discredited claim is making a comeback following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the national health care reform law.
U.S. Rep. Jon Runyan said in a press release on Thursday that the law, formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes cuts to Medicare.
“My constituents simply cannot afford the $500 billion in new tax increases and $500 billion in Medicare cuts required to pay for this flawed legislation, nor can our economy sustain the job-killing mandates and regulations it imposes,” Runyan, a Republican representing parts of southern New Jersey, said in a press release.
Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, repeated the claim in his statement about the high court’s ruling, saying “Obamacare cuts Medicare – cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion dollars.”
Both claims distort the truth, as our PolitiFact colleagues have found many times.
The law aims to slow future growth in Medicare spending. It does not cut from the Medicare program.
The health care law made several changes to Medicare, which provides health insurance for millions of seniors and people under 65 receiving Social Security disability payments.
Some of the changes will increase Medicare spending to help cover prevention services and to fill the so-called doughnut hole, a gap in prescription drug coverage for some enrollees, according to a tutorial by Tricia Neuman, vice president and director of the Medicare Policy Project for the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent group that analyzes the health care system.
Other changes aim to reduce growth in Medicare spending, by more than $500 billion over 10 years, though estimates of the future savings vary.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have both released reports since the health care law passed showing that the Affordable Care Act will reduce future spending growth on Medicare by more than $500 billion.
The Affordable Care Act “contains numerous provisions that, on balance, will reduce federal spending on Medicare,” the CBO said in a June 2012 report.
The biggest portion of that savings, according to Neuman’s tutorial, will come from reducing annual increases in payments to medical providers.
But the health care law does not cut $500 billion from Medicare. It just reduces future growth.
With the law, Medicare spending will still increase.
It’s important to note, as PolitiFact has found, that the savings from the reduction in Medicare spending will help offset spending on other provisions of the health care law, a point that Runyan noted in a statement to PolitiFact New Jersey.
“The CBO projects Medicare savings of approximately $500 Billion and instead of using that money to shore up the program, the savings are diverted from Medicare and used to fund other provisions of ObamaCare. Even worse, this piece of legislation is hitting individuals, working families and small businesses with a massive tax increase that will further cripple the economy and slow job creation,” Runyan said.
Our ruling
Runyan, repeating a Republican talking point about Obama’s health care law, said there are “$500 billion in Medicare cuts required to pay for this flawed legislation.”
The legislation aims to slow projected spending on Medicare by more than $500 billion over a 10-year period, but it does not cut that money from the program. Medicare spending will increase over that time frame.
Still, a sliver of truth exists in this claim, because the difference in the spending will help offset costs of other provisions in the law.
We rate this claim Mostly False.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Jon Runyan claims Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare program by $500 billion
A discredited claim is making a comeback following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the national health care reform law.
U.S. Rep. Jon Runyan said in a press release on Thursday that the law, formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes cuts to Medicare.
“My constituents simply cannot afford the $500 billion in new tax increases and $500 billion in Medicare cuts required to pay for this flawed legislation, nor can our economy sustain the job-killing mandates and regulations it imposes,” Runyan, a Republican representing parts of southern New Jersey, said in a press release.
Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, repeated the claim in his statement about the high court’s ruling, saying “Obamacare cuts Medicare – cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion dollars.”
Both claims distort the truth, as our PolitiFact colleagues have found many times.
The law aims to slow future growth in Medicare spending. It does not cut from the Medicare program.
The health care law made several changes to Medicare, which provides health insurance for millions of seniors and people under 65 receiving Social Security disability payments.
Some of the changes will increase Medicare spending to help cover prevention services and to fill the so-called doughnut hole, a gap in prescription drug coverage for some enrollees, according to a tutorial by Tricia Neuman, vice president and director of the Medicare Policy Project for the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent group that analyzes the health care system.
Other changes aim to reduce growth in Medicare spending, by more than $500 billion over 10 years, though estimates of the future savings vary.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have both released reports since the health care law passed showing that the Affordable Care Act will reduce future spending growth on Medicare by more than $500 billion.
The Affordable Care Act “contains numerous provisions that, on balance, will reduce federal spending on Medicare,” the CBO said in a June 2012 report.
The biggest portion of that savings, according to Neuman’s tutorial, will come from reducing annual increases in payments to medical providers.
But the health care law does not cut $500 billion from Medicare. It just reduces future growth.
With the law, Medicare spending will still increase.
It’s important to note, as PolitiFact has found, that the savings from the reduction in Medicare spending will help offset spending on other provisions of the health care law, a point that Runyan noted in a statement to PolitiFact New Jersey.
“The CBO projects Medicare savings of approximately $500 Billion and instead of using that money to shore up the program, the savings are diverted from Medicare and used to fund other provisions of ObamaCare. Even worse, this piece of legislation is hitting individuals, working families and small businesses with a massive tax increase that will further cripple the economy and slow job creation,” Runyan said.
Our ruling
Runyan, repeating a Republican talking point about Obama’s health care law, said there are “$500 billion in Medicare cuts required to pay for this flawed legislation.”
The legislation aims to slow projected spending on Medicare by more than $500 billion over a 10-year period, but it does not cut that money from the program. Medicare spending will increase over that time frame.
Still, a sliver of truth exists in this claim, because the difference in the spending will help offset costs of other provisions in the law.
We rate this claim Mostly False.
Like or Dislike:
11 
5
uviking….you can be perfectly truthful with unbiased resources to back up your claims and you will still be called a liar by some. Only time will tell for the non-believers.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Captain: Just some documentation on why the borders have not been closed. This is from the PHX paper:
Many in Arizona’s homebuilding industry have been concerned about Senate Bill 1070 since it passed two years ago. Thousands of undocumented immigrants picked up stakes and left the state then, and many of those people worked in the construction industry.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/2012/06/26/20120626arizona-sb1070-housing-industry.html#ixzz1zHxs6Ogy
The article explains how homebuilders are fearful of a labor shortage. If you take some of the names in the article and google them along with a list of high dollar Republican donors, you will quickly notice a pattern.
As I said, the only reason the border has not been closed is because business interests (big time Republican donors) do not want it closed.
In other words, Governor Brewer and Sheriff Arpaio make for great press but a review of their actual accomplishments tells a very different story. They are both politicos first, and “public servants” second.
Like or Dislike:
11 
7
Tundra, don’t worry about typos, happens to the bist of us…..BTW, you seem to have a slight aversion to FOX news, who do you consider delivers the best news…NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC..
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Richard asked: “who do you consider delivers the best news…NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC”
This is a great question. If you want the Republican point of view, you turn on Fox. If you want the Democratic point of view you turn on MSNBC. If you do not have time to listen to two newscasts and read three newspapers … you turn on the BBC America broadcast.
It is sad that I have to pay for satellite/cable and get my news from Europe in order to get something that resembles the middle the first time.
Believe it or not MX news (for those that speak Spanish or have closed captioning) is not bad either. They are funded by narco dollars, not the right or left, so they have no dog in the fight and tend to cut a pretty centrist line.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
First off fox hasn’t been a news channel for years. They’re all opinion all the time…Unless something major actually happens that they can’t just ignore because everyone else is covering it. But I do loath fox for their not stop propaganda. I’ve seen some of the WW2 propaganda films and the style is pretty much right on.
As for the others….Most of them have become less news channels and more opinion tv with their own agenda too….Some seems propaganda too, but fox has basically made it their only format. Remember when any time day or night you could turn on Headline News and that’s what you actually got…Hell…After the morning segment it’s a crap shoot what you’ll get and night time is anything but news…..I sure miss real news channels…….Like FN I too look at other outlets such as the BBC….But I find more news on line, and from what I recently heard it seems that there’s so many of us doing this that all the so called news channels are feeling the crunch…..
Like or Dislike:
10 
5
Good opinion answers from both you and FN regarding news channels. But just based on ‘ratings’ alone, especially for cable channels, sure does seem you fellows are in the minority-thinking; seems FOX has been blowing away competition for over a decade….right, wrong or indifferent, it’s a fact.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
There was a time when the average American could tell the difference between news & opinion. From conversations around the water cooler & on here, I am not so sure anymore.
There is absolutely nothing more disturbing than to hear two people arguing politics, one parroting Rachel Madow & one doing a Rush impression, & neither realizing both are wrong.
In a democracy you get what you deserve – vote for. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
As for ratings: one of the most popular shows of all time was MASH. Most people realized it was 1. Fiction 2. About Vietnam (at least the movie).
You did not cite it when doing a paper about the Korean War.
People forget when you are talking about Rush or Rachel the same rules apply
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
You hit it damn square on the head. When I first started on these boards I thought you were a right winger, but I’ve come to realize that you’re a person who doesn’t box hyourself into any one corner….Like myself…..I too can only listen to very small amounts of any pundits because they all have their own adgendas, and [pad the hell out of their reports to make them fit. I guess the closest I get to pundits is John Stweret and Steven Cobert and neither are actual pundits, but man do they tear apart both sides for their hyprocracies……
Oh….And Richard…..If you want to see the real fox…Watch the daily show. They constantly show clips where something the previous adminstration or basically any GOP did they defend as being absolutely the right thing and shouldn’t be questioned so those who are are just being political…..But then move to the current administration or a Dem doing or saying the exact same thing and fox comes across like it’s nearly an act of treason…..And the reason I never capitalize the “F” in fox is because they don’t deserve that much rexpect…
I truely loath them, but they actually were a really good news channel in the beginning when they were set up against CNN that was actually a news channel too. I think the FCC should have some rueling that in order to call itself a news channel that at least 90% of the content should be news and not opinion….For all news channels.
They get the ratings they do because they’ve managed to get many big conservative companies to have fox on tv’s that are playing in resturants, and lobies of a lot of major establishments. In motels you almost always have fox, but often MSNBC is missing and sometimes CNN…Coincidence? I doubt it….
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
IMDB says, “The staff of a Korean War field hospital use humor and hijinks to keep their sanity in the face of the horror of war.”
In Vietnam to keep a shard of sanity one often needed humor (black), hijinks and high jinks.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
The original movie producers wanted to make a comment on the absurdity of war, especially the Vietnam War, but wanted to fly below the radar (at the time the studios would not touch Vietnam as a subject). They did so by coming up with a band of zany characters.
Remember the movie was a little on the dark, and definitely irreverent side. It was not the vanilla version made for TV.
Part of the reason the movie and the show were so popular was the American public got it. They understood this was not real. Surgeons with a still? A theme song that says “Suicide is painless?”
One of hollywood’s best vehicles to make fun of their subject, make a political statement, and get away with it. They didn’t even end up on Nixon’s list of enemies.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Tundra,
Make fun of FOX all you want but as i recall it was NBC who has twice now come under fire for editing footage to put their spin on things.
Never heard of FOX being bashed for that.
And as everyone knows, Jon Stewart is a Liberal, as if he would try to spin anything negative against MSNBC.
Half of his show is playing clips from FOX that he stops right in midsentence so the viewer doesnt get the “Whole” story.
Its comical when he does it, but its just bad press when your friends at MSNBC do it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10
Obviously you’ve never seen much of the Daily show Cap because your assesment is completely wrong…I’m guessing your primary source might be from….Hmmmm….Fox maybe? They are the ones who do cut things off in mid broadcast, and as for the direct quotes….It’s obvious their arguments go from positive to negative on the exact issues depending on who is involved. If GOP then they defend with all their might, if Dem then they condem and persecute as if they’ve commited treason.
If you think I’m holding any other so called news outlet as more supreme….Not a chance….They’ve all become coporate controlled to feed us only what they want us to hear. Don’t just drop fox…cut way back on the vast majority and look for other outlets because the “Free Press that’s supposed to keep us informed really isn’t………If you want to accept opinion reporting as news…Then you better have some very big flashlights to grope around in that dark as it consumes you.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0