I believe that just because a law is ruled "constitutional" .... it does not mean it's a "good idea". Perhaps there are parts I would keep, but still rubbed raw at how it was forced down our throats w/out a thorough review by voters

Tonya Hudson, is that your own quote, or is it from one of the southern politicians at the ending of slavery ?

Oh Ray... I love how you liberals tolerate other viewpoints because not liking a almost $2 trillion dollar monstrosity that will destroy the health care system must mean you are racist.

To Chief Justice Roberts, I can only this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv9iueuI3Sw

The headline should read Poll: Do You Agree With Supreme Court On 'obamneycare'?

Thank god for Chief Justice Roberts finally a conservative with a brain.

Considering they upheld, the mandate as a tax and, shot down the government forcing states to put all the people on Medicaid, or lose the federal funds, we are still screwed, because now they still have to put all these people on Medicaid, but do we really think the federal funds will cover it? It never has before, so look for State taxes to rise enormously on this and more and more Doctors will say bye bye
Not to mention the businesses that will be cutting wages, to pay for the mandatory healthcare they have to provide. Some have done this all ready, and well they say, you would have had to spend that 5 to 10 thousand a year out of your wages anyway, you had a choice before, and many young people did not choose it. They now will be very short on pay, but hey they have healthcare that they will hardly use at all for years to come but will need 2 jobs now where they are lucky to have one.
Now you will see Minimum wage advocates screaming, Expect the price of food to rise and every other product. Tip of the iceberg.
Hopefully this "we need to pass it to see what’s in it", will shredded next year. The revisions can be done a lot better and cheaper. All that this had done to paraphrase Oppenhiemer, " I have become death, destroyer of the US". Thanks DEMS. Couldn't have given a better excuse to take over all of congress and the white house in November.

Talk about digging a hole you will never climb out oflol Thanks again for the win in November that is a slam dunk now

Part 1
Ray
You said “southern politicians at the ending of slavery? Does that not insinuate Racism?
“The same point could have been made by substituting in civil rights or women’s suffrage”

No offence Ray but it is best to have facts Ray before insinuating Conservatives were some how racist voting on the 1968 Civil Rights Act, which included Women’s rights also.

It also was not a “constitutional issue” as I do not remember it being challenged in the Courts as unconstitutional. In point of fact the Congress used the Constitution as its right to make the law. Under the exact same reasoning as this Mandate clause in the Health care bill surprisingly.

Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

Notice more Dem’s voted against the “Civil Rights Act” in all cases then GOP, had it not been for the GOP it would not have passed. Fact that I see DEM never admit for the most part. So your point of the losing side should apply to DEM in the same insinuation of racism as your insinuation in the slavery quote of GOP, should it not?

Part 2

Vote totals for the 1968 Civil Rights Act for African Americans and Women
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).

By party
The original House version
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Question... if we now need more Dr.s as the # of patients increased exponentially and the # of providers has not......
Will the acceptance boards at medical schools now lower their standards to fill the need of more doctors?
What will that mean?
And... reading some of the new law... Dr's, no matter their specialty, will be reimbursed the same $. What incentive do they have to specialize in more demanding fields?
So many questions...

So Whitehouse, Reed, Langevin, Obama and every Democrat lied when they stated up and down that this 2,700 page "care package" was not a tax. You will now see more fees and taxes than at any time in US history. Now will the D's finally take credit for a government takeover of healthcare?

"The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers."

The Affordable Care Act (not Obamacare, although you can keep calling it that if you want to because all I hear is Obama Cares) was designed after Romneycare, fyi.

If you think you're going to do better with Mitt Romney as president, you're wrong. Sure, he'll cut taxes. But with lower taxes, the economy plummets. Again. Unemployment goes up. Again. What is the eventual outcome? Take a look at Greece. Seriously, go take a look at Greece and tell me if you want the US to follow in their footsteps.

Taxes are the price you pay to live in a country that is supposed to be the land of opportunity. Without the AFA, MILLIONS of Americans would go back to being uninsured, unable to get the medical care they need. No one should ever have to make the choice to get treated for an illness or put food on the table. Whine all you want about paying taxes but at least you're lucky enough to be middle class.

I have only one comment. If you want change in the country, then for God's sake lets start the change at the top and continue it down. We need a complete change of president, congress and senate. VOTE FOR SOMEBODY NEW. EXERCISE YOUR FREEDOM BY CHANGING THE COUNTRY BY CHANGING YOUR CONGRESS.

Part 1

The Shill

“But with lower taxes, the economy plummets” Better study some history on that Shill because you cannot get father from the truth on that one.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
By Daniel Mitchell, Ph.D.
August 13, 2003

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

Part 2

According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

Part 3

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:
At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.
2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

Part 4

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.
Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

This WebMemo is excerpted from the author's, Daniel J. Mitchell's, Backgrounder, The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates, published July 19, 1996. The original publication, found here, contains footnotes and numerous charts

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa532.pdf

Something to consider while you're celebrating this.

Part1

http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/nesi/full-speed-ahead-on-health-law-in-ri

“The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates up to 53,841 more Rhode Islanders will enroll by 2019 in Medicaid, the program for low-income Americans, under the health law at a cost of $1.9 billion over five years. The state will pay $100 million of that and the federal government will cover the other $1.8 billion or so.”

Let’s see now, where is the $100 million really coming from, if the State is currently in deficit spending more, and the so call stimulus money, accomplished nothing at all on the job front here. Not to mention the Chaffee’s estimate of $97 million that Studio 38, stuck the taxpayers with. That as we all know will be pennies on the dollar.

Who here believes the Fed. Will be really paying $1.8 Billion. The fed has never followed through on these types of promises ever.

Part 2
Lt. Gov. Elizabeth Roberts “The Obama administration has awarded Rhode Island nearly $65 million so far to fund the technology behind the exchange, which Roberts likened to Amazon.com as an online one-stop shop where residents will be able to access any programs for which they're eligible, such as Medicaid and food stamps.”

Why does this Quote sound like total socialism, in keeping people on these social program, with not a word or plan about getting people off them? More government control and creation of generational laziness. Once the government gives freebees, it never quits, creating dependency and no incentive to even become productive and leave these programs, same as what has happened in Greece and is starting all over the EU.

When are the people who support these types of government plans, going to realize they have never worked in history, it would be wise to remember the quotes of the intelligent people of history.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,"
Gerald R. Ford

“The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.”
John F. Kennedy

Part 3

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.”
Thomas Jefferson

I saw no problem with Rays analogy, it is the same right we all defend from the war we fought nearly 100 years vefore the Civil War. Ray is right, the 'Confederate States of America' felt that the emancipation proclaimation was being shoved down their throats. That is a fact, Jack.

Part 1

Ray

Not to say the GOP was not wholly involved in trying to stop the however, do you not remember the video of the GOP being literally locked out of negotiation with the doors chained no less?

Do you not remember Reid’s and Pelosi’s refusal to allow amendments, or debate on many of the provisions? Do you not remember who had super majorities the first 2 years and the White house?

A year in the making is not true Ray. Much of it was done in secret. We never heard the particulars of what was in it, just talking points. How come we had to pass it in order to see what was in it then?

How come even the Party that pushed and the party that opposed it said they didn’t even read or know all that was in it. I can tell you why, because they did not want those provisions that were very controversial, debated in public forums.

I actually do not have a problem with the Bill 26, because my insurance did that anyway if your child was in college, now that’s not required. The largest insurer in the Country (United) decided before this was even ruled on to keep doing the pre-existing condition. You can bet all other would have followed suit, that’s competition

Part 2

Open the State Borders; insurers can sell across state lines. Competition with uniform Rules of healthcare; every State has different rules. The money that would save States with Competition would boggle the mind. The most population State in the Nation; California, has 3 insurers. No competition there, does this bill fix that, no not in the least. All of this could have been done by any President, decades ago with an executive order.

My point is the many things that people would support, should have and could have been done separately. So much time was wasted on a bill that is so convoluted it will be confusing for decades wrought with fraud waste and abuse that will stagger the mind and exceed all government programs combined in my opinion.

We all know once a government program is in place, it is there forever. I can only hope Congress comes to it senses and does this right by my suggestion and many others from people who believe there is merit in fixing the health care system in this country.

On a final note, if you feel I was too harsh on you, with the racist thing, I apologize, I do go overboard on the racist thing, as I tire of this years now of national “race baiting” and accusation that anyone who disagrees with this President is a racist. It is wrong and beneath any American in this day and age to use that crappola. I am not saying you did however, I will take you at your word what you say you meant with your comment. Peace.

Jack, no one was comparing socialized medicine to slavery, but AGAIN simply The Reaction to both situations by those who opposed it. You seem to enjoy looking for arguments where none exist..lol. A good reason to now click on by your posts which lose me after the first few sentences when I see your long winded mindless missives related to your gross misconceptions and subsequent statements on how you think other people should feel and say. Please do not respond, it will be ignored, but I certainly wont judge, handslap, re-interpret your opinion *for you, or throw out mindless hyperbole if you do..lol....

Jack, there are facts, statistics, and viewpoints ... and then there is bloviating and long windedness.

In this thread, which is a simple poll, but has gotten to be quite lengthy ...
Content by Jack Baillargeron - 72%
Content by all other posters - 28%

Well Ray, in a free society you have choices, if you don't like my post, don't read them or reply. Simple as that in this Country any way.

To Statictics; "I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. - Plato"

"A statistician can have his head in the oven and his feet in ice, and on average he feels fine. – Anonymous"

On another note; if you are a person who allows Polls to determine your thoughts or actions, you have failed at life.

Don't know who ever said that, but if it is me, it sure makes sense ;-}.

Just curious, did you really spend the time counting ever single word on each post in this blog to come up with that statistic, that proves absolutly nothing, or is that a guess? lol

You should apply for government a grant to get an "ear mark", to continue your studies in "bloviating and long windedness". Because you sure are failing at "Freedom of Speech". lol

No I did not (myself) count every word. I'm a computer programmer, I wrote a quick script to total the amount of text in your posts compared to all the others, it's accurate to 1% for rounding, so yes, you really are that verbose. As far as failing at Freedom of Speech, I really don't see how having made no attempts to limit anyone's speech.

Jack
You're mocking "lol" that I could have done the same in Word was unnecessary and misplaced. You do not know the scripting and rss processing tools I have at my disposal.

Indicating your verbosity is not equivalent to telling you not to talk, that is purely a conclusion you have derived. If I say that 99% of Best Buy stores are blue, that isn't an indication that I want them to change to another color. When I say that you talk a lot, the only point I am trying to make is that you talk a lot.

Jack,
I actually have read every post and enjoy your verbosity! ;) but then again I have been accused of beating a dead horse myself.

Larry,
I hate to burst your bubble but just because my candidate did a stupid thing in Mass doesn't mean we should repeat it. I would also point out that if you look at the laws they only have a passing resemblance to each other. Our elected representatives still have no clue as to what exactly the (un)Affordable Care Act contains as they still haven't read it.

Thanks Troy, lots of dead horses around my house, the neighborhood, the town, the county, the State, oops doing it again ;-}.

Agree Romney, some family members live there, hate the plan, but will tell you it is far from Obamacare. I find that most have not read the Obamacare Bill just listened to the talking points and a few of the things that have come out, that most agree with anyway, such as the 26 child rule, which many company’s were doing anyway.

Only difference; they don’t have to be in school. Lot more in there than just healthcare. The government agencies it creates and powers to appointee's rather not elected officials are enormous and unprecedented. People also keep forgetting that many economist, and yes the CBO, state clearly it cannot be paid for. It is unsustainable as written, before it is even implemented.

Main ones even admitted to by the administration is the ½ trillion savings from Medicare fraud and waste to be used as actually fund the program that does not exist yet and probably never will. The cuts of Doctors fee’s that keep not implementing; because it is driving Doctors to not accept Medicare or right out of business. This Bill is still an abortion, if people take the time to read it.

People thought prohibition was a great thing also. Didn’t work out so well did it? This is no different in my opinion. When the government says it is for the good of the people, watch out for the other shoes to drop, (Rationing).

The system we have now: everybody pays higher premiums to subsidize emergency rooms The system we are going to get: everybody pays into the system that can, eliminating freeloaders This should have bipartisan support. It's flat-out false to say this was rushed, that nobody knows what the bill is, and that we should wait for the "do nothing" Republicans to do something. They had their chance. Obama, at his health-care summit where both parties were invited, looked around at the table and said that he would give them anything… ANYTHING… all they had to do was agree to cover all Americans. Not everyone except for 5 million… EVERYONE. Would they like anything in return to support this? I personally watched him ask this. All the Republicans around the table said nothing. They looked at the president slack-jawed and stupidly. Not a word was spoken. So here we are with a system that reflects competition instead of single-payer (Republican value) that covers every American. The only real problem with this bill is a Democrat president pushed it through. Everyone knows that's the problem. After all, Romney did something just like it in Massachusetts! So all of the whining, all of the misinformation, all of the crying and moaning… just shut your piehole and move on to the next issue. You lost, the people won, we are moving on in spite of you, dragging you kicking and screaming into the 21st century. You're welcome.

Just a quick observation the medicare tax is roughly 3%, this is taken on every man, woman and child who works, including self employed, with no cap on the earnings taxed. This taxed is used to cover health insurance for those over 65, The people over 65 still buy private insurance to cover the gaps in the government insurance and people over 65 pay more for medicare based on their income. Medicare is going broke with 3% of all wages in the US paying for it while only covering 13% of Americans. Draw whatever conclusions from this you choose.

Happy 4th to everyone and I really will shut my piehole in this conversation now.

And We should care about the comments of somebody who calls itself The Shill?
The definition of a shill really doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

Shillster, I hate to burst your bubble but a lot of Republicans suuport some of the reforms in this bill, the problem as stated earlier is that it is 2700 pages long with no one knowing exactly what the overall consequences are, but hey it is the law of the land and I will shut my piehole as you so eloquently put it. Be careful of what you wish for because the supreme court just gave it to you.

The Shill

Yet again, you seem to only see what you want to see and have no clue what the UCMJ is obviously. Your statement in your post is not only totally misleading and factually incorrect, but shows you only read what you want to see. Not going to get into all the things wrong with your post, since you obviously have not read the UCMJ and probably got your info from some pundit site.

Do some research on your own; there is a big difference between doing things in Uniform and not doing things in Uniform. You also have massively misstated everything in your post. None of your post means anything with out reference and the whole context of explanation and definitions of what is and is not allowed. By the way, ever hear of non-partisan. There are guidelines, but not as cut and dry as you seem to think. No links because obviously you need to visit a library, the sites you go to obviously are BS talking points.

NUMBER 1344.10
February 19, 2008
USD(P&R)
SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces
References: (a) DoD Directive 1344.10, “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty,” August 2, 2004 (hereby canceled)

The Shill.

The military is by design, a “dictatorship”, for a very good reason. You cannot have discipline with out it. (i.e. a squad of soldiers voting to not go into battle etc). The free speech is only limited to the extent of, dishonoring your Oath or the Military and Sensitive Information (think Traitor Manning who accomplished all 3 and then some).

Yes the President is the “Commander in Chief” and therefore the head of the Military. No different then mouthing off to your Company Captain, again the reasoning for it being a “dictatorship”, only an idiot in the military violates those regulations. By the way the UCMJ is a few thousand pages, depending on the type set and space, kind of like the healthcare Bill you have no clue what all is in the either obviously lol.

But you can be sure they all know them. (Article 15’s are costly). They also sure don’t need someone like you to tell them or even try to be someone who knows what they are talking about with the military, (as I doubt you are a vet), and if you are, well guess you learned nothing in the Military either. Lol

Futher reading before you start thinking you know about it, should be the “Hatch Act of 1939” (An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities) before you start saying you know about Federal Employees political activities also lol