BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 03:40 AM

This will just give Big Brother more control.
=(:-( 0)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:47 AM

""Songwronger is right. You'll see. It's all a big power grab.
The Repubes and Demigods are in cahoots.""

I've got a broken watch at home that is right more often than Songwronger, or for that matter you, Henry.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 06:58 AM

Time will tell.
Broken watch notwithstanding.
No brag. Just fact.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 09:14 AM

Reality is that we are spending 18% of GNP on health care... That is unsustainable for any country... The Affordable Care Act, at best, might knock that down a percentage point but won't fix the problem... The problem is that we are "consuming" too much health care and that health care is too pricey... These can be fixed but the folks who are raking in the BIG $$$ (health care providers) aren't going to like it and will run all kinds of attack ads on anyone who suggests common sense regulations...

Remember the "death panels"??? Reality was that a doctor could be paid to discuss "end of life" alternatives... I know... HORRORS!!! But lert's get real here... If Medicare is paying out $50,000 to keep someone alive and extra couple months who benefits??? Not the patient... Not the patient's family... Not the taxpayers... I mean, let's get real here... Doctors have been around... They know when someone is getting ready to check out... For them to not be able to have a rational discussion with a patient and his or her family about end-of-life care doesn't serve anyone except...

...you guessed it... The health care providers...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 09:24 AM

hey Bobert... do you remember the movie with James Spader about that very thing...

Critical Care??? I think was the title... oldtimers, sigh

I agree with Shakespeare's attitude regarding lawyers... getting a system of rational review board evalutaions of medical issues that has to sign off on malpractice suits...

it's like hitting the lottery for those guys...

and if you doubt that, let me tell you that the federal Superfund Program that was supposed to be used to clean up toxic waster sites has spend far more in legal fees then actual cleanup... jeeze... imagine that... elect lawyers and you get laws that create increased legal fees... who'd a thunk it..

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 09:27 AM

LOL...

No, I don't remember that movie...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 09:56 AM

At the end of the day, the working person will just have to work harder. And pay more.
No brag. Just fact.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 10:55 AM

"At the end of the day, the working person will just have to work harder. And pay more."

The alternative of course is to have more people working.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Songwronger
Date: 06 May 13 - 06:19 PM

Lawmakers, aides seek Obamacare exemption while Individual policies to cost 25-50% more next year

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/wtf-lawmakers-aides-seek-obamacare-exemption-while-individual-policies-to-cost-25-50-more-next-ye

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:09 PM

Obamacare Website Quietly Deletes Reference to 'Free Health Care'

Even as President Obama and his administration are making a last minute push to encourage enrollment in Obamacare, a quiet change was made on the Healthcare.gov website regarding those who will still not be able to afford coverage after the program kicks in. From at least June 26, 2013 to as recently as September 15, under the topic, "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community?" the following statement appeared: "If you can't afford any health plan, you can get free or low-cost health and dental care at a nearby community health center."

However, sometime between September 16 and September 23, the reference to "free" care was dropped. The title of the topic was changed as well, and now reads: "Where can I get low-cost care in my community?"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-website-quietly-deletes-reference-free-health-care_757348.html

Obama and his fascist insurance industry buddies squeezed out the turd of Obamacare, and now that it's about to splat, they remove the "free healthcare" language. THAT'S conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 08:51 PM

Let's review the facts here:

1. Obama went to the Republican caucus very early in the health care reform debate and asked them for their ideas...

2. The Republicans had only one idea: Do nothing...

3. After a year of debate and hearings and deals Obama reluctantly signed into law a reform that was 100% Republican in it's origin and fashioned after Romneycare in Massachusetts...

4. The health care industry went ballistic and funneled BIG $$$ thru Freedom Works which hired "community organizers" and rented buses and printed up all kinds of stuff for the moron Tea Partiers to make asses out of themselves...

5. Now Songwronger and his fellow TeaPublican Obama haters want to shut down the government because they hate Obama because is the wrong color for them...

The End

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 09:14 PM

But Obama promised free healthcare for the poor, up until the eleventh hour, and now he's pulled that promise.

Won't that disproportionately hurt people of color?

Your race-hate rage has no place here. Obama is a half black, half white fascist.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 09:42 PM

"The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the Standard has been described as a 'redoubt of neoconservatism' and as 'the neo-con bible'.

"Since it was founded in 1995, the Weekly Standard has never been profitable, and has remained in business through subsidies from wealthy conservative benefactors such as former owner Rupert Murdoch.

"Many of the magazine's articles are written by members of conservative think tanks located in Washington, D.C.: the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute. Some individuals that have written for the magazine include Elliott Abrams, Peter Berkowitz, John R. Bolton, Ellen Bork, Ed Gillespie, Roger Kimball, Harvey Mansfield, Joe Queenan, Wesley J. Smith, David Brooks and John Yoo. The magazine's website blog, titled the "Daily Standard", is edited by John McCormack and Daniel Halper and produces daily articles and commentary."

Consider the source, folks.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 10:25 PM

Another un-dead thread - kept artificially alive by the brain dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 10:30 PM

Consider the source indeed. The source is whitehouse.gov.

Look at the screen captures the article posts. The white house changed its promise of free health care. Carrot and stick to get the poor to go along, then the carrot was removed. Obama just fucked tens of millions of poor Americans who thought they would get free healthcare. Now they learn that they will be offered "low-cost" care instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 10:33 PM

Yo, ShitWringer: Blow me.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 11:10 PM

No, Songwronger, the source was a neoconservative opinion magazine.

Ho hum! What else would one expect from such a source?

Don Firth

P. S. Greg F., if one does not expose what one knows to be a lie, one then becomes morally complicit with that lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Songwronger
Date: 30 Sep 13 - 11:39 PM

It's healthcare.gov, not whitehouse.gov. My mistake. But the website is still a government site (hence the .gov designation).

The proof that the page has been altered is in the discrepancy between the title of the topic and the URL.

The title of the topic is, "Where can I get low-cost care in my community?" But the title used to be, "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community?"

Now look up at the top of the page, at the URL in the address bar:

https://www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-get-free-or-low-cost-care/

The webmaster making changes to the site can't remove the "free or" from the URL, because that would point the links on other pages to a dead URL. All he could do was change the title of the topic and leave the URL as is. The proof that Obama's healthcare.gov website used to promise free healthcare is in the URL.

Really, Watson, it was simple. And yet the diabolical Professor Obama continues to run unchecked, causing mayhem.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:39 AM

Don - I sure as hell wasn't referring to YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 01:02 PM

Okay, Greg. Got it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Songwronger
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 07:05 PM

Today is Obamacare Day. Obamacare is implemented today. The big "government shutdown" story is a smokescreen to cover up this dark event in American history.

From the World Socialist Website:

The Obamacare fraud...

The process now underway demonstrates that a colossal fraud has been perpetrated against the American population in the name of Obamacare, and that all of these promises were lies.

Any nominally progressive feature of the legislation has been long since stripped away or abandoned. But the truth of the matter is that it was never about improving medical care for ordinary Americans, and it was always about setting up an even more heavily class-based system of health care delivery. From the beginning, Obama promised that his "reform" would slash hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, and costs would be further cut by eliminating "unnecessary" treatments and services....

...According to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care overhaul will leave an estimated 31 million people—about a tenth of the US population—uninsured by 2023. Undocumented workers and their families are barred from purchasing coverage on the exchanges. Due to a "family glitch" in the law, businesses are only required to provide "affordable" insurance to their employees, not to their employees' families, so those family members will not receive subsidies to purchase coverage on the exchanges....

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/01/pers-o01.html

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:13 PM

World Socialist Website??? Sounds like a white supremacist organization... Seems they all have "socialist" in them... Never figured that out... Oh, that's right... Hitler was a "socialist", wasn't he???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:18 PM

Never underestimate the awesome power of stupidity couples with ignorance, Bobster..... its what's got the U.S. where we are today.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 08:44 PM

10-4...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 13 - 09:29 PM

Free health care good, low cost healthcare not so good, high price health care far worse.

And the impression I have is that most of those crying "obamacare" favour the third option. Sadists and masochists united...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Songwronger
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 12:13 AM

The "liberal left" has been reduced to calling those who don't agree with them racists.

Fact is, the Obama regime enthusiastically embraced Romneycare. And today that fascist legislation was implemented. The World Socialist website has always endorsed an expansion of Medicare to all, as I have.

God you "liberals" must hate yourselves. You supported Obama while he set up fascist healthcare, and now you desperately try to blame the Republicans, or the racists. Medical is 1/6th of the US economy, and with your backing, Obama has now set up a way to feed that money directly into the coffers of the insurance companies while cutting medical services to the poor.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 04:56 AM

From where I sit - in the UK - the whole business seems weird.

All my life I've paid a National Insurance contribution from my salary. And all my life I've had nearly free treatment from the UK's National Health Service - I say "nearly" because, until I retired, I had to pay nominal, standard sums for prescribed medicines. Since retirement, I don't pay NI contributions and all my prescriptions, such as they are, are completely free. I'm guessing the latter is the equivalent of US Medicare (correct me if I'm wrong). My friend Chris recently broke his shoulder badly. Within 1 day it was checked, operated on by the best surgeon in the local hospital - and is now healed beautifully. All for free and without questions of any kind.

We've been used to this system all our lives, and it's superb, in the main. (The problem is, it's also at the mercy of greedy, penny-pinching, critical governments who constantly interfere and are always on the edge of privatising this and that.) But what on earth is wrong with the principle? It's painless; it's part of our system; and we've all lived with it for over 60 years. Is the health of a nation not worth paying for?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 13 - 07:58 AM

Lets put it this way, wrongman...

Obama pushes a Republican health care plan and Congress passes it... Right??? The Supreme Court upholds it...

Now Republicans are willing to shut down the government because they say they don't like their own plan...

What other reason can there be for these people, who BTW represent white congressional districts in mostly southern states, to oppose their own idea???

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: John J
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 05:27 AM

Will Fly beat me to it....

I'm a UK resident who has the great benefit of receiving virtually free healthcare from our National Health Service. It's not actually free, I pay a small percentage of my income as National Insurance with funds the National Health Service and the Social Security system.

If I'm unfortunate enough to find myself out of a job, I don't need to pay National Insurance contributions - but I still enjoy NHS healthcare.

As Will Fly points out, our current government seem hell-bent on interfering with the NHS and screwing it up, but that aside:

If I have a health problem I simply pop down to my doctor who does whatever is necessary - AT NO COST TO ME.

If I'm unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident, an ambulance will come along, scrape me up off the ground and deliver me to hospital to be treated - AT NO COST TO ME.

To use Australian parlance....'no worries'.

I keep asking myself the simple question:

What on earth is wrong with having a system that provides healthcare to everyone as a right?

I'm a bear of little brain so simple questions suit me well.

I visit the USA a couple of times a year (indeed I'm in the USA now) and I never fail to be amazed that the richest country in the world seems unable (unwilling?) to provide a competent healthcare system for its citizens.

Interestingly I haven't come across an American citizen yet who thinks that a virtually free 'cradle to grave' healthcare system is a bad thing.

Call me a cynic if you like, but I can't help wondering that the people (politicians) who are objecting to Obama-care are those who have a vested interest in the private health insurance companies over here - those companies will be the losers.

I'll go and lie down in a darkened room.

JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 10:07 AM

We do not have a government "for the people and of the people", John J...

We have one that is "for the 1% of of the 1%" and they are all greedy, immoral crybabies...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 10:20 AM

Is it not also true, Bobert, that a common levy on rich and poor - on which everyone can call when necessary - is seen as "socialism"? And socialism is perilously close to communism, which seems to be the dirtiest word in the US rightwinger's vocabulary (next to Obama, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: John J
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 10:55 AM

That certainly seems the way it is to me Bobert.

Sad that Obama got voted in yet it seems the bully-boys in the playground don't want to play - they'd rather throw their weight around and hamstring a good man with a good idea.

A decent person with a social conscience, no matter what their political colour, surely wouldn't allow America to grind to a halt just because they disagree with a policy.

Well actually it seems that they would. They have.

I don't pretend to know much a all about American politics, and what I do know I've learned from the BBC, but Obama seems to be a good man with a social conscience.

I'm sure Obama's not perfect (who is?) but he's done an enormous amount to improve much of the world's impression of America. Certainly a majority of British regard him as the best thing that could have happened to the USA.

I can't help wondering whether many of those who DON'T like Obama might just have the teeniest, weeniest problem with the great man's colour. Sorry, color.

Right, I'll get off my soap-box now and go back into that darkened room. Talking politics makes my brain hurt.

JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 12:53 PM

Particularly in response to Songwronger's post of 02 Oct 13 - 12:13 AM just above.

Political primer:

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

The 17th century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty, and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights.

The Founding Fathers of the United States were Liberals.

This should be obvious to anyone who stayed awake in high school history and civics classes.

Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and seek to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.

Liberalism is strongly opposed to systems such as Communism and Fascism, both of which rely on a strong, arbitrary central government, which Liberalism, by its very nature, opposes.

Songwronger, your attempts to juxtapose and equivocate these quite different political concepts is pure Orwellian "doublespeak" and displays either your ignorance or your duplicity.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 13 - 01:20 PM

"A common levy on the rich and poor" is far from "Socialist" - in fact, in the form of the Poll Tax it was one of the most hated policies of the Thatcher regime, and the resulting riots ensured that the Tories dumped her as a liability ( and won a subsequent election from a grateful nation).   The point is, a common tax that is insignificant to a rich person is a crushing burden on a poor one.

And I wouldn't agree with Will Fly calling the prescription charge modest and nominal, at
£7.85 per item. If I was younger, with the same regular prescriptions as I have, I'd be in real trouble. Mind you, if I was in the USA I'd probably be dead...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Will Fly
Date: 04 Oct 13 - 04:23 AM

MoH - there's a subtle difference between the Poll Tax and NI contributions; the latter is a common fund on which all freely can draw, regardless of income or medical problem.

If you think £7.58 per prescription item is expensive, then you should cast your eye over the actual cost of making up some of the items prescribed. In some cases, the prescription drug can be bought cheaper over the counter, but in the vast majority of cases, the drug costs outweigh the production costs many times - and, yes, I know that the drug companies make substantial profits. This is why there are such arguments over the availability of certain very, very expensive treatments and why some surgeries have limits on what they can afford. (My better half worked for many years in our local medical centre and saw the ins and outs of care costs both public and private in some detail. Lots of interesting stories there for some other thread...).

What you don't get directly charged for is the doctor's time, the nurse's time, the pharmacist's time, the medical centre staff time, etc. - that's what NI is for.

I have an American friend - a guitarist - who has an English wife and lives and works in the UK. He has many friends and family back in the US, but can't afford to live and work there because the costs of his medication would bankrupt him, even with medical insurance. As you say, he'd probably be dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Will Fly
Date: 04 Oct 13 - 04:56 AM

"the drug costs outweigh the production costs many times"

should have read:

the drug costs outweigh the prescription costs many times

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 13 - 11:51 AM

I'm not saying the charge is excessive in relation to costs (though it is in many cases), but it's not nominal, particularly for low paid people. The original principle of a free health service all the way was right and of course it costs a lot. But aside from everything else, yes, it costs a lot, but a lot less than the alternatives when all is said and done (though that's a side issue - if it cost more it would still be worth it.)

drug costs, and the priorities of drug production, are grossly distorted by our profit driven model. But that's another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Oct 13 - 06:59 AM

"".According to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care overhaul will leave an estimated 31 million people—about a tenth of the US population—uninsured by 2023.""

That would seem to be a big improvement on the 47 million who were without care under the Bush administration, a reduction of one third, which might have been so much more if it hadn't been for the gutting of the original proposal by the adamantine opposition of the Repubs, who don't give a shit about the poor.

Republican take on healthcare?......."Not one cent of my money to support losers!"

DESPICABLE!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Oct 13 - 08:52 AM

Says it better than I can:

http://news.yahoo.com/animosity-toward-affordable-health-care-hard-fathom-050012037.html

Will add only that the original criticism of O-care was that it was "socialism" and impossible to pay for.

Strangely I haven't heard that mantra lately. All I hear is that "The American people don't want Obamacare!"

A few years back, the TP demanded to scrap the O-care plan (based as we all know on conservative Mitt Romney's system in Massachusetts) and start with "a blank sheet of paper" to work out something better.

So far as I know, that sheet is still blank. Meanwhile, O-care is the law of the land, approved by all three branches of government, and the Fools on the Hill swear to hold their breath till the dog wags.

That, they claim, is democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 13 - 09:08 AM

What is increasingly clear is that more than Obamacare is at stake here... Democracy itself is the what the Tea Party is attacking in trying to force minority tyranny on all of us... If they are allowed to win then we are seriously messed up as we have no legitimate democratic governance...

Oh, and please... No lectures about "republics"... Especially by people who are clueless about what "republics" are supposed to be about...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Oct 13 - 09:44 AM

And make no mistake: the Fools are, in effect, about 40 TP Congressmen out a House and Senate of 535 legislators.

The Top Fool, at least for now, is Speaker of the House John Boehner.

All he has to do is call for a vote on a no-strings resolution to "reopen the government." It would pass handily in both the House and the Senate.

Instead Boehner has just called the showdown "an Epic Battle." (Over what? A law designed to help people?)

What he means is, "an Epic Battle to keep me from facing a crazed TP opponent in a GOP primary in 2014."

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: GUEST,John J on holiday in USA
Date: 05 Oct 13 - 11:48 AM

Re: Lighter's comment: All I hear is that "The American people don't want Obamacare!"

In the last two weeks of my stay here I've not spoken to ONE American who doesn't think Obamacare is a good plan. From my observations here it seems that it's only the tossers holding the country to ransom who don't like the idea.

As a Brit I find it incredible and infuriating that the USA is being shafted by those who weren't voted into power but actually have it.

I get the distinct feeling from listening to the BBC that the UK in general can't believe what's happening here.

It's not often I spout politics in a public forum, but to be quite honest the crew who are responsible for shutting down the USA want stuffing. They're completely irresponsible....but they've got money.

JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Oct 13 - 12:32 PM

In TP usage, "the American people" logically designates "voters in my Congressional district who voted for me rather than my Democratic opponent, and who *also* believe that fear of Obamacare is worth shutting down the government, making the US an international laughing-stock, and possibly forcing the country into catastrophic default in the next two weeks."