The Day that Freedom Died…with apologies to Don McClean


~A long long time ago

 I can still remember how

That freedom used to make me smile

And I knew if I we had our chance

We could get people out of their trance

And maybe they’d be lucid for a while

But my computer made me shiver

With every web page it delivered

Bad news on the doorstep

I couldn’t take one more step

I can’t remember if I cried

When I read Roberts bought the lies..

But something touched me deep inside

**The day that freedom died**



Bye, bye Miss American Pie

Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry

Them good ole boys were drinking whiskey in Rye

Singin’ this is the day freedom died

This is the day freedom died.

Did you read the book of Marx

And do you see people in light or dark

If the Networks tell you so?

Now did you see that latest poll?

Can socialism save your mortal soul?

And can you teach me how to bleed real slow?

Well, I know the MSM’s in love with him

Cause I saw them dancin’ in the gym

They smiled and fawned away

Cause socialism’s here to stay!

I was a regular guy just tryin’ to make a buck

With a pink carnation and a pickup truck

But I knew I was out of luck

The day that freedom died

I started singin’


For over 200 years we’ve been on our own

Now moss grows fat on a rolling stone

But, that’s not how it used to be

When the jester sang boy he was stinkin’

In a coat he borrowed from ol Abe Lincoln

And a voice that came from NBC

And while Lady Liberty was looking down

The jester stole her noble crown

Now SCOTUS had adjourned

A vile verdict was returned

And while Michelle read a book on Marx

And Maoists revelled in the park

We sang dirges in the dark

The day that Freedom died

We were singin’


Helter skelter in a summer swelter

What’s left of liberty in a fallout shelter

Paddles attached and fading fast

It landed foul on the grass

The players tried for a forward pass

But the Jester on the sidelines was an ass

Now the half-time air was stale perfume

While the MSM played a marching tune

We tried to break the trance

Oh, but we never got the chance

Cause patriots tried to take the field

But the Supreme Court refused to yield

Do you recall what was revealed

The day that freedom died?

We started singin’


Oh, and there we were all in one place

A generation lost in space

With no time left to start again

So come on Barack be nimble, Barack’s solution

Barack just burned that Constitution

Cause fire is the devil’s only friend

And as I watched him on the stage

My hands were clenched in fists of rage

No angel born in Hell

Could break that Satan’s spell

And as the flames climbed high into the night

To light the sacrificial rite

I saw Obama laughing with delight

The day that Freedom died

He was singin’


I met a girl who sang the blues

nd I asked her for some happy news

But she just smiled and turned away

I went down to the health care store

Where I’d experienced freedom, years before

But the man there said the government wouldn’t pay

And in the streets the children screamed

The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed

But not a word was spoken

The Liberty Bell was broken

And the three men I admire most-

the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost-

They caught the last train for the coast

The day that freedom died.

They were singin’


“Today, individual sovereignty in America has been defeated.” – Rep. Allen West 

89 thoughts on “The Day that Freedom Died…with apologies to Don McClean

  1. Amazona June 28, 2012 / 1:30 pm

    There is a different take on the ruling, one I don’t necessarily buy into or agree with but which does add an element of legitimate discussion:

    From NewsMax:

    If the U.S. Supreme Court had wanted to make history, it could have: Striking down the individual mandate in the health-care law would have been the most weighty Supreme Court ruling since Franklin Roosevelt’s first New Deal was ruled unconstitutional three-quarters of a century ago.

    By upholding the individual mandate — after honestly acknowledging that making people buy insurance is a tax — the court chose the more cautious course.

    In the spirit of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Felix Frankfurter, the court adopted the strategy of judicial restraint. The man most responsible for this comes as a surprise: Chief Justice John Roberts, a tried and tested conservative appointed by George W. Bush to the near-universal plaudits of the right. Roberts said in his confirmation hearings that he believed in judicial restraint. That has become a cliche, repeated by every would-be judge raising a right hand before a Senate committee. When the chips were down, Roberts did exactly what he had sworn to do under oath. He stayed the court’s hand and rejected activism.

    The court’s explanations were sufficiently complex that CNN briefly reported the mandate had been struck down. But the core logic of the holding was a model of analytic clarity. To require people to buy insurance or else pay a penalty is a tax. The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax in order to accomplish its legitimate goals. Calling the mandate what it in fact is makes this result crystal-clear.

    Word Choice

    These words sent a direct message to Democratic politicians who refused to call the mandate a tax: You should have told us the truth in the first place. Had the mandate been called a tax from the beginning, all this legal wrangling might never have occurred. It would have been essentially impossible to argue that the mandate was unconstitutional if the bill had directly relied upon the taxing power.

    Of course, politicians are unlikely to take this object lesson seriously. Calling the mandate a tax might have stopped it from passing. Now, the mandate has been upheld. The Democrats’ game of bait-and-switch worked — after a fashion. Now the drama of the last several months, and the serious worry about the court striking down the president’s signature domestic policy achievement, can be conveniently forgotten.

    What is most shocking about the outcome is who brought it about: Roberts, not Justice Anthony Kennedy, cast the deciding fifth vote to uphold the law. When Roberts was up for confirmation, many liberal insiders to the world of the Supreme Court bar were optimistic that he would be a reasonable and evenhanded chief: a conservative, of course, but one who played by the rules. He had little written record to go on, so no detail was too small to escape comment. While still a lawyer, Roberts had occasionally participated alongside liberals in the private, informal moot courts that are part of the preparation for a Supreme Court argument.

    Once he became chief justice, however, Roberts seemed to many liberals to have reverted to his origins as a clerk for former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and a longtime supporter of the Federalist Society, a powerful conservative legal organization. His decisions have for the most part been consistent with those of Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the conservative bloc. Together these four conservatives have won when Kennedy joined them and lost when he defected to the liberal side.

    Historically Important

    In the health-care case, Kennedy joined the conservative dissent. This is itself worthy of comment, because Kennedy has become a historically important liberal justice through his opinions on gay rights and on habeas corpus rights for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But Kennedy has remained a conservative on issues of the government’s power to regulate; and in the end, after all the guessing about his views, he stuck with that position here. One can only speculate on what Kennedy might have done had Roberts not given him the option of joining the conservatives in dissent.

    Roberts did wave the conservative standard on the question of Congress’s power to regulate commerce, squarely stating that the regulation of inaction would have been too great an extension of the Commerce Clause power. Yet he balked at stopping Congress from imposing a tax. Conservatives who want to make the health-care plan into a central campaign issue can take some small solace in that the court has called the individual mandate a tax. But there will surely be major shock among those who counted on Roberts to toe the party line, as there is shock among those liberals who had given up on the vision of Roberts as a lawyer’s lawyer.

    What explains this result? One possibility is that John Roberts, former law clerk, former high-powered Supreme Court litigator and now chief justice, loves the Supreme Court more than he loves political conservatism. A student of the history of the court — and as a participant in history — Roberts knew the consequences of striking down the individual mandate: He would have been attacked by the president and the news media as the chief of the most activist conservative court since the 1930s. For “the Roberts Court” to become a title of infamy would have been a sadly negative culmination of a highly successful career.

    Then there is that most old-fashioned of motivations: principle. Frankfurter, who did more than anyone to popularize the idea of judicial restraint, was a liberal New Dealer who became a judicial conservative because he stuck with the principle of restraint even when liberals had five votes.

    Roberts now enters the pantheon of true judicial conservatives, judges who hold back from activist results no matter how it affects presidential politics. By helping the court avoid making history, Roberts’s place in history is assured.

    To me, it comes down to this one sentence: The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax in order to accomplish its legitimate goals.

    What the Court did not rule on, because it was not asked to, I guess, was whether or not forcing state-run health care on the people is a “legitimate goal”. I believe it is not, and furthermore is an illegal and unconstitutional expansion of federal power.

    • Count d'Haricots June 28, 2012 / 4:56 pm

      Had the mandate been called a tax from the beginning, all this legal wrangling might never have occurred. It would have been essentially impossible to argue that the mandate was unconstitutional if the bill had directly relied upon the taxing power.

      It had been argued that it was a tax by the Administration in the SC and in lower courts leading up to this case. It was countered that a tax for inaction was unconstitutional.

      The Supreme Court rejected that argument.

      As to illegal and unconstitutional; because Obamacare is the law it is not illegal (or unlawful for that matter), and Roberts has insured that it passes Constitutional standard.

      • Count d'Haricots June 28, 2012 / 5:17 pm

        And by “rejected that argument” I mean the argument that the mandate is commerce.

      • neocon1 June 28, 2012 / 5:39 pm

        maybe time to talk of succession from this marxist regime who wipes their buts with the US constitution.

        Ubama must have a picture of roberts with the forkers he is using as black mail

      • neocon1 June 28, 2012 / 5:41 pm

        if every business refused to with hold federal taxes from paychecks for six months and every person refused to pay those taxes them selves maybe washington would get the idea that we Americans REJECT this tyranny.

      • neocon1 June 28, 2012 / 5:45 pm

        Amen Allan Amen

      • Count d'Haricots June 28, 2012 / 6:27 pm

        Restricting the Individual Mandate to Congress’ ability to Tax for a legitimate goal, and voting with the Left side of the Bench takes away 1) the Democrats’ argument of an Ideologue Court legislating by Party Affiliation, 2) the Commerce Clause as an all-purpose excuse du Jour for any legislation, and 3) requires that they now campaign on the largest most regressive tax in American history.

        Roberts is brilliant!

      • Retired Spook June 28, 2012 / 7:21 pm

        requires that they now campaign on the largest most regressive tax in American history.

        Roberts is brilliant!

        That was my take on it.

      • Amazona June 28, 2012 / 7:32 pm

        After my first knee-jerk reaction, and subsequent post, I started to rethink my original position, and have come to the conclusion that Roberts probably did execute a maneuver so subtle and yet so far-reaching that it will end up having far greater ramifications than we can even predict today.

        I liked Roberts from the get-go, and have had faith in him, so it was hard for me to suddenly think he had flown a false flag. When I started to get deeper into the decision, and evaluate it on less emotional grounds, that faith was, I think, justified.

      • Count d'Haricots June 28, 2012 / 9:08 pm


        I think (therefore I don’t know for sure and for certain) yours is the reaction from most people left-right-and-yech-center. The Constitutionalists and Constructionists may well scratch their respective heads at Roberts’ logic, but we (mostly) have faith in our center-right Jurists.

        I haven’t read Scalia, Alito or Thomas yet so I’m withholding judgment on Roberts Constitutional bone fides on this case. But, from a strategic (political) standpoint, the Roberts decision is a win for the Right.

      • Cluster June 28, 2012 / 9:59 pm

        This ruling is, as Count said, a deft move by Roberts keeping this bill constitutional by removing the commerce aspect, but in doing so he is engaging in judicial activism. The manner in which Roberts ruled, calling this a tax, was not the manner in which it was sold or written, so Roberts essentially re wrote the bill. Had they tried to sell this mandate as a tax, it would have failed, miserably, so the American people have once again been falsely sold a bill of goods by the democrats. Remember those “shovel ready jobs”?

      • Cluster June 29, 2012 / 1:43 pm

        Dave buddy,

        As the bill was written, it was unconstitutional. Roberts made it constitutional. Did you not follow that?

      • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 2:55 pm

        OMG, Dave is still stuck on that stupid whine that conservatives are sooooooo emotional, that we/they fly into fits of emotional turmoil whenever a Lib speaks, etc etc blahblahblah.

        It hasn’t ever worked, Dave, it will never work, and all it does now is make us wonder what it is, exactly, about this fantasy that floats your little boat? So desperate to incite something besides bored indifference that you have to INVENT passionate reactions to what you say? Too sad……….

        For a change, I don’t agree with Cluster’s phrasing of what the decision means.

        Roberts is a strict Constitutionalist with a strict idea of the role of the Court. The Court was asked if the individual mandate was within the restrictions on the federal government within the Constitution. That is all the Court should have considered, and all that Robert considered.

        The Court allowed the government a lot of leeway, letting them argue one day that the penalty would be a tax and then that it would not be. Roberts ruled that, under the Commerce Clause, the penalty would not be constitutional, but as a tax it is.

        The Court did not rule on any other aspect of the bill. So no, the Court did not declare the health care act to be constitutional, or “affirm” it. It just said that people could be taxed for not providing their own health insurance. Roberts went on to say, or was quoted as saying anyway, that Congress has the right to impose a tax for a legitimate purpose—leaving the door wide open for an argument about whether or not this is a legitimate purpose.

        And Dave is stuck with lying, about the decision and about his fantasy that anyone cares enough about him or what he emotes about to have a strong reaction.

      • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 3:04 pm

        In the meantime, this decision effectively strips away any possibility of the Left trying to use the Commerce Clause to defend this, and probably many other efforts as well.

        It brands all who voted for it as responsible for the largest tax hike in history.

        It has energized so many people that they rushed—–RUSHED!!!! I TELL YOU !!!—–to donate to Romney’s campaign, dumping about $50M into his coffers in about an hour. (Now THAT is something I can have a strong reaction to, along the lines of Yippeeee!)

        It has put the issue of Obamacare back on the table, right in the middle of the fray for this election cycle, when the Left wanted it off to the side and out of discussion, knowing that well over half the people in the country disapprove of at least some of it, and that without even hearing about the worst of it. They ran on it last time as a vague promise, as a blank slate anyone could fill in to say whatever they wanted it to say. We had to pass it to see what was really in it. And what was in it stinks. This is not what the Dems wanted as the centerpiece of their campaign, this OR the economy.

        And it moves the Court back away from politics and into addressing specific issues of constitutionality, regardless of personal ideology—a refreshing change.

        And BTW it also spotlights the dishonesty and trickery of putting Kagan on the Court and then her refusal to recuse herself from voting on an issue she herself promoted and defended in her last job—that’s not going to look very good for her OR for Barry.

        Nah,upon reflection I’m not upset about the decision at all.

      • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 5:18 pm

        Yeah yeah yeah, Dave, blahblahblah.

        Everyone who had an immediate strong reaction calmed down within an hour or so, when the nuances of the decision started to sink in and there was time to mull it over.

        But you just keep on reading in hysteria and so on, because that’s what you need to see to feed your own bias and bigotry.

        No, I did NOT contradict myself. You merely misstate the decision and what I said. A mistake or a lie? Going by your past performance, I’m going to go with lie.

        Though you find clarity a hindrance to your emoting, let’s just take a look at what I said, OK? And by the way, you didn’t even quote me correctly. A mistake, or a lie? You claim “As you (accurately, for once) state, the Court was asked to address the constitutionality of the law…” But no, I did not state that the Court was asked to address the constitutionality of the law. On the contrary, I said:

        The Court was asked if the individual mandate was within the restrictions on the federal government within the Constitution. That is all the Court should have considered, and all that Robert considered.

        Do you need time to process that? Not the whole bill, not the so-called health care act, but just the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. You simply lie when you claim otherwise, as well as when you claim I said it was anything else.

        I then said:

        The Court did not rule on any other aspect of the bill. So no, the Court did not declare the health care act to be constitutional, or “affirm” it.

        Why did I say that? Because the Court didn’t, that’s why.

        They considered the mandate, they heard arguments on the mandate, they discussed the mandate, they ruled on the mandate.

        Not on the bill itself.

        About 2000 pages in the bill, more detail than anyone could possibly address, and of all this verbiage and all these laws and rules and so on, the Court heard arguments on only one single aspect, and ruled on only one single aspect.

        And you appear to be bragging about the fact that you simply cannot understand this.

        I know how desperate you are. Your posts reek of pathetic desperation to be relevant, to prompt strong responses, to be able to get a ‘gotcha’, but the fact is, you are simply impotent and a failure at every turn.

        You can bleat all you like that I contradicted myself but when the words you quote in a silly effort to ‘prove’ this actually prove the opposite, you’re just a joke.

      • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 5:25 pm

        Again the choice: wrong, or lying”

        Again, we have to go with “lying”.

        “the Court was asked to address the constitutionality of the law”

        No, it was not. The arguments in front of the Court did not address the constitutionality of the bill, or act, or law, or whatever you want to call it.

        The case was about the constitutionality of requiring people to enter into contracts with third parties or pay a penalty for refusing to do so. The arguments by the government were both that the penalty was a tax and that it was not a tax, as well as that it was allowed under the Commerce Clause.

        The Court struck down the claim that it was allowed under the Commerce Clause, and said that as a tax it was constitutional. The Court did not address the constitutionality of the bill itself, nor was it asked to, nor did it hear arguments to that effect.

        You lie.

      • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 9:42 pm

        I didn’t, my words are there for anyone to read, they are quite clear and easy to understand, and it takes either a liar or a fool to point at a written statement and claim that it says what it does not.

        And is so often the case with you, the two are not mutually exclusive. While your past history here shows a willingness to lie, it also indicates a serious inability to understand simple concepts, so I guess you qualify on both counts.

        No one “tried to strike the law down”. No one ruled on the law. The Court ruled on one specific aspect of the law, and the only way it passed muster was to be defined as a tax. The rest of the law has not been the subject of a Supreme Court hearing, much less a ruling.

        Unless you are arguing that this was a Stealth Argument made by not making it, and ruled on by not ruling on it. That would be no goofier than the rest of the swill you dump here.

        I can easily believe that you lack the intelligence to see this, and also that you would be quite happy lying about it, but it’s hard to understand why you have so little sense of pride or dignity that you persist in making your bizarre claims after they have been so thoroughly refuted.

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 1:03 pm

        Dave, I was not able to listen to all of the government’s arguments in front of the Court. As you are claiming that these arguments included arguments about the overall constitutionality of the entire bill, perhaps you would be willing to quote those arguments, or even just cite them so I can look at them.

        What I heard were arguments that the individual mandate was constitutional, and what I read in the decision was that collecting a tax on those who did not buy insurance—which is just another way of saying the same thing, as the individual mandate IS the forcing of individuals to buy insurance—–is constitutional.

        You are quite insistent that the issue before the Court was the constitutionality of the bill in general, including the ability of the federal government to engage in activities far beyond the enumerated duties to which is legally limited by both the original wording of the Constitution and then by the 10th Amendment.

        As the issue of the entire bill itself is much larger than that of just the individual mandate, it seems logical to assume that the bulk of the arguments before the Court would center on that, and not just on whether or not the government could force people to buy something they don’t want.

        But you say they did make this argument, and furthermore that it was upheld, and that the Court ruled on the constitutionality of the entire Act.

        To most of us, the individual mandate was just a small part of the overall Act. Are you saying it WAS the entire Act? Are you saying that although it is only part of the Act a ruling on this one part is really a ruling on the whole? Are you saying that it is quite acceptable to just imply legal rulings without specifically stating them?

        Please share with us those arguments, and the parts of the decision which extend constitutional authority to the entire Act, or at least a link to where we can read them for ourselves.

        Clearly it is time for you to back up this assertion.

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 1:06 pm

        While you’re at it, Dave, please quote the wording in the appeal to the Court which states that the intent is to “strike down the entire Act”. Admittedly, my experience with court actions is limited, and as far as national court actions nonexistent, but I have always thought that when you ask a court for a ruling you have to actually tell the court what you want it to rule ON.

        Perhaps it would clear things up if you will just quote the part of the appeal in which the Court is asked to rule on the overall legitimacy of the entire Act.

        Otherwise, we are pretty much stuck with the way the law works, which is that you have to specify what you are talking about, and can’t ask for one thing and when you get it claim that what you got covers a whole spectrum of things that were never in the original appeal.

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 1:18 pm

        From the Healthcare Financial Management Association:

        The Supreme Court has granted review of four issues from challenges to the Affordable Care Act that have been pursued in the federal courts since passage of the act in March 2010. The court originally set aside 5 1/2 hours for oral argument (arguments at the court are typically restricted to one hour, with each side granted a half-hour of argument), but has expanded the total argument time to 6 hours, spread over three days (March 26, 27, and 28, 2012). The four issues on which the court has granted review are:

        • Whether the Anti-Injunction Act prevents challenges to the Affordable Care Act at this time (90 minutes of argument on March 26)

        • The constitutionality of the individual mandate, requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 (2 hours of argument on March 27)

        • Whether the individual mandate is severable if it is found to be unconstitutional, or whether the entire Act would have to fail (90 minutes of argument on March 28)

        • Whether the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the Medicaid program is constitutional (1 hour of argument on March 28)

        The issues of the constitutionality and severability of the individual mandate have attracted the most attention in the federal district and appellate courts. The possibility that the Anti-Injunction Act might bar challenges to the Affordable Care Act has also emerged as a significant issue, hinging on the question of whether the penalty for failure to observe the individual mandate functions as a tax.

        The argument that the act’s expansion of Medicaid is unconstitutional has not been successful in lower court challenges. This argument asserts that the act violates the Constitution’s Spending Clause (Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 1), based largely on speculation in preexisting Supreme Court case law that financial inducements offered by Congress to encourage state action could at some point pass a threshold and become coercive.
        The discussion below summarizes district court rulings on the challenges to the Affordable Care Act, followed by a summary of reviews of the district courts’ rulings in the federal appellate courts.

        An Overview of Challenges to the Affordable Care Act
        Opponents of the Affordable Care Act have turned to the federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. The focus of the litigation is on the “minimum essential coverage” provision in Sec. 1501 of the act. This provision—commonly known as the “individual mandate”—requires that virtually all legal residents of the United States obtain minimum essential health insurance coverage for each month, starting in 2014, or pay a penalty that will be included with the individual’s federal tax return.

        Although challenges to the law have deployed a wide range of constitutional arguments, the most attention has been given to these four issues:

        • Whether the individual mandate is a permissible exercise of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution

        • Whether the individual mandate is permissible under Congress’s powers to tax for the general welfare in Article 1 of the Constitution

        • Whether the individual mandate is permissible under the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution

        • Whether—if the individual mandate is an impermissible exercise of Congress’s power—the mandate can be “severed” from the Affordable Care Act, leaving the rest of the act’s provisions intact

        • Published June 28, 2012

        • The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld nearly all of President Obama’s health care overhaul, in a landmark ruling that will have sweeping consequences for the economy, the election and America’s health care system.

        • In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.

        • The ruling is a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains mostly intact. It also ensures that the law will play a prominent role in the general election campaign, as Republican candidate Mitt Romney vows to repeal the law if elected.

        • Obama is expected to speak publicly about the ruling later in the day.

        • Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in crafting the majority decision.

        • “The Affordable Health Care Act survives largely unscathed, ” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of those justices, declared at the end of the reading, claiming the “setbacks” going forward will be “temporary blips, not permanent obstructions.”

        • The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government’s power to tax.

        “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” Roberts wrote. “That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

        • Roberts stressed that the decision does not speak to the merits of the law. “We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation’s elected leaders,” he said.

        The ruling did rein in one element of the law — the expansion of Medicaid across the country to take in millions of low-income Americans. The opinion allows Washington to offer more funding to states to expand the program, but says the federal government cannot penalize states for not participating in the new program by withholding existing Medicaid funds.

        Read more:

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 5:04 pm

        I believe what is obvious, which is that the Supreme Court ruled on what it was asked to rule on, and nothing else.

      • Amazona July 2, 2012 / 11:37 am

        Yes, the law that says the government can tax those who do not buy private health insurance has been declared constitutional.

        I never denied this. “Finally jumping on board”?

        I’ve been saying this from the beginning. You really do have comprehension problems, don’t you? Why did it take so long for you to figure this out? I have repeated it several times.

      • tiredoflibbs July 2, 2012 / 12:17 pm

        It is interesting, Ama, that the Democrat looters are not calling this a tax but a penalty!!

        They don’t want the stigma of raising TAXES on the MIDDLE CLASS (up to 21 new taxes) during an election year.

        They are calling this a PENALTY, which is what it was originally called and crafted into legislation. They want it as a PENALTY for the election, but a TAX to be considered Constitutional. They want it both ways.

        I do believe that Justice Roberts determined the Constitutionality of of the MANDATE by stating that the Congress has the ability to TAX ONLY!!!

        Interesting how politics fool mindless drones like davey. They are so easily duped!!!

        Also notice how davey twists words of others’ to get his pathetic “gotcha” moment.

    • dbschmidt June 29, 2012 / 12:42 am

      Roberts made a twisted logic argument to side as he did. Give me a few moments after beating my head upon the desk and I will find recourse. Nevertheless as Roberts is playing a game that the rest of us have not seen yet. He is the Chief Justice with a lifetime appointment. Now think.

      In the time after Obama (1 or 2 terms) there is still plenty to fix. Basically, what Roberts did is kick the ball back into the political arena and said “fix it there.”

  2. bloodypenquinstump June 28, 2012 / 7:06 pm

    So this Republican health care plan that has been implimented by the Dems is the biggest eviel of socialismo that ever socialized a socialist socialism. Good to know, I will never vote republican now.

    • Count d'Haricots June 28, 2012 / 7:58 pm

      If you can’t keep up, take notes.

      • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 3:07 pm

        Personally, I am taking notes so’s I can study me up some on that “eviel of socialismo” stuff. Do ya think it will convert ME, too, away from voting for a Republican, the way it did stumpy? Sounds pretty potent to me……

  3. Jonathan Holmes (@holmes0423) June 28, 2012 / 7:17 pm

    June 28, 2012 at 5:39 pm #
    [quote]maybe time to talk of succession from this marxist regime who wipes their buts with the US constitution.[/quote]

    You know, it would probably help your case (barely) if you knew how to spell “secession”.

    • Count d'Haricots June 28, 2012 / 8:00 pm

      It would help even more if we all ignore the spelling Nazis.

      • Amazona June 28, 2012 / 8:04 pm

        Now, Count, don’t be trying to take away my job on the Spelling Patrol.

        The thing is, I don’t use it as a substitute for content. It’s just that when the most pompous of the pseudo-political poseurs makes a particularly egregious error, it can be fun to point it out, but in the context of addressing what he said, not just to make fun of him.

    • tiredoflibbs June 28, 2012 / 8:38 pm

      It would help your case to comment on topic, rather than a typical proggy childish tactic.

    • neocon1 June 28, 2012 / 11:13 pm

      thanks BRO

  4. Amazona June 28, 2012 / 11:21 pm

    What I don’t understand is how and why Kagan was allowed to vote.

    • dbschmidt June 29, 2012 / 12:49 am

      Kagan had to recuse herself. No other justice could ask, beg, bugger, or demand. It is a personal choice by each of the justices. Do I stay or do I go? It is all too personal for anyone else to decide.

    • dbschmidt June 29, 2012 / 12:52 am

      Not really sure on this one but once you reach “supreme” level your crap no longer stinks and no matter your opinion–>you are right !!!!

    • patriotdad1 June 29, 2012 / 1:12 am

      What I don’t understand is that the individual mandate had Republican support at some point not so long ago. Now it’s the “death of freedom”?

      • Retired Spook June 29, 2012 / 6:44 am


        Maybe this will clear it up for you.

    • Amazona June 29, 2012 / 9:24 am

      db, it was a rhetorical question, as I know that Kagan would have had to have the integrity to recuse herself. And didn’t. I just think it is a question that should still be asked, to spotlight that total lack of professional ethics and basic honesty.

  5. mitchethekid June 29, 2012 / 12:57 am

    I’m getting such immense pleasure watching your hate-fueled, frustration laced, apoplectic meltdown over this. As Kurtz said in Apocalypse Now… “The horror. The Horror”. Has it occurred to you all in the past 12 hrs that maybe you are out of touch with progressive society? Oh I know. Roberts made his decisive decision because he secretly pines to be accepted by the DC chattering class. Yeah, that’s the ticket! He abdicated his professional and judicial duty to interpret the constitution because he had self-serving interests. Maybe he was using Scalia as a role model. The fact is, radical, anti-government, anarchy promoting, class dividing, morphed into hideousness conservativism has failed. It was destined to failure because the only purpose it serves is to alienate and divide.You all can stamp your feet until Amazona’s cows wander back home. Universal health care has now been decided by the highest legal authority in our nation and no matter if the “Republicans” refuse to accept that their collective heads have been chopped off, and continue to refuse to accept the outcome over an issue that was THEIR IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE (the individual mandate) nothing will change. The irony could not be more rich. A universal health care plan, conceived by conservatives, enacted by a centrist democrat, has passed the muster of a conservative court! The Art of War. Exploit strength as a weakness and vice versa.
    In my day there was a saying… America. Love it or leave it.

    • Retired Spook June 29, 2012 / 6:51 am

      I’m getting such immense pleasure watching your hate-fueled, frustration laced, apoplectic meltdown over this.

      I guess small minds amuse easily, Mitch. I’m not sure exactly who you’re referring to. After an initial adverse reaction to the decision, the majority of us here are not all that upset with Roberts doing what he did. The law will likely not stand as, in it’s entirety, it’s immensely unpopular. It’s just that now it will be repealed and/or replaced by the legislature instead of struck down by an “activist” court.

      • mitchethekid June 29, 2012 / 9:24 am

        Good luck in getting repealed or replaced. A solution would be to give the right 100% credit for it, after all most of the provisions came from conservatives anyway. But this is just an example of if the president is for it, the right is against it. And it doesn’t matter what the issue is.
        PS. I’m very sorry to hear about your mother. What you wrote was eloquent and from the heart. I lost my mother to cancer as well and courage in the face of the inevitable is an admirable quality.

    • Amazona June 29, 2012 / 9:31 am

      My goodness, mitche, you are quite off the rails this morning, aren’t you?

      The conservative response I have seen has been pretty mild. Disappointment, some confusion about the odd wording of Roberts’ ruling, but hardly the litany of shrill hysterical hyperbole that you shrilly and hysterically attribute to us. Those voices in your head are doing you no favors, son, if they are encouraging you to make such goofy claims as this.

      As for the rest of your rant, you could save yourself a lot of time and Matt a lot of bandwidth by simply posting “I AM INSANE” every hour or so, and not filling in the blanks. Things like “….radical, anti-government, anarchy promoting, class dividing, morphed into hideousness conservativism ..” really ought to be reserved for those clearly too-infrequent sessions with your shrink.

      It’s almost as indicative of a psychotic break as referring to Obama as a “centrist democrat”.

      Clearly you have won the title of Poster Boy For the Unhinged Pseudo Left—and believe me, there was a lot of competition.

      • mitchethekid June 29, 2012 / 11:02 am

        And just whom was my competition? I’m trying for the finals.

      • dbschmidt June 29, 2012 / 12:35 pm


        Have you ever been audited by the IRS or told you owe our government more money than you paid by them? Probably not because if you had you would realize that “Gestapo-like powers of the IRS” is not hyperbolic in the least.

      • NEOCON1 June 30, 2012 / 1:09 pm

        DB the asshat trolls who post here are in the 47% who pay no federal taxes..why would they be audited for food stamp fraud? LOL

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 5:15 pm

        The IRS is the only government agency which is not restricted by laws that apply to others.

        For example, the IRS can, without a hearing, seize your assets and freeze your bank accounts, as well as examine your bank accounts and business records without a warrant. It has no accountability. It can pursue a person without cause, and if the individual finally prevails has no requirement for reimbursement of costs or damages, and personnel who do this kind of bullying are not fired.

        True, the EPA is hot on their heels, what with being told by presidential fiat that they, too, have unlimited power in simply decreeing anything to be a “pollutant” and then doing whatever they deem necessary to deal with it, but the IRS has had nearly unlimited power for decades.

        It can, and does, uses its massive powers to punish and reward political enemies and friends. It can, and does, use its massive powers to push and promote political agendas. But it is the ability to search without warrants and seize without proven guilt that make it appropriately described as America’s version of the Gestapo.

        And this is written in a very calm, relaxed and unemotional manner.

  6. mitchethekid June 29, 2012 / 1:31 am

    I’ll continue. The ignorant fear you are promoting has no basis in both reality and in Roberts decision. The only people who could be penalized are those that can afford insurance and yet refuse to purchase it. This “tax” is also unenforceable and if it were to be enforced, the penalty is about $90.00. Furthermore, those who may be effected are less than 5% of the population. Amazona can pontificate all she wants about what an enlightened constitutional scholar she is but her arguments are purely academic. Yeah, she ‘s good at making them but they have no practical application in the real world. Which renders her musings moot. Or in her case, mute.

    • Cluster June 29, 2012 / 8:48 am

      Mitch, you are an interesting study. In your last two hate-filled, divisive posts, you accuse others of being full of hate and divisive – do you see the irony in that? I would like to invite you to think about a couple of things:

      1. The government is already the largest health care insurance provider so how does expanding that role resolve our problems?

      2. Since 1965, every health care issue this country faced was met with more government involvement, and yet today, we still find ourselves trying to resolve more health care problems with more government – how is this working out for you?

      3. 13% of the population had no insurance, so liberals devised a plan that impacted the other 87% – why do you suppose that was?

      4. Low income families are exempt from the mandate, or excuse me “tax”, so how does exempting the same people that were not paying before resolve this problem?

      5. How will Obama defend being the largest tax and spend president in the history of the United States?

  7. Charles Pendergraft June 29, 2012 / 8:06 am

    Although I have to applaude many of the features of the ‘Affordable Health Care’ act, my first thought on hearing of the Supreme Court’s decision was – welcome to the United Socialist States of America. During our Civil War, Abraham Lincoln stated that we were engaged in a struggle to see if our nation, constituted in freedom, could long endure. I guess we now know that it depends on your definition of ‘long’. Apparently it’s somewhere between 200 and 250 years. Welcome to what I hope Is NOT the final nail in the concept of individual freedom from undue government interference in our personal lives.

  8. mitchethekid June 29, 2012 / 9:30 am

    A government with the power to force us to buy health insurance also has the power to force restaurants to serve black people.

    • tiredoflibbs June 29, 2012 / 9:45 am

      mitchie drones on: “A government with the power to force us to buy health insurance also has the power to force restaurants to serve black people.”

      Apples and oranges drone.

      Too bad the government can’t force imbeciles like you to be intelligent.

    • Amazona June 29, 2012 / 10:11 am

      And a government which can just change or ignore its basic foundational rules and principles, without the bother of going through the amendment process, can pretty much do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants.

      Which is the very model the Founding Fathers tried so hard to make impossible, when they carefully wrote a Constitution which was designed to keep this from happening. THEIR massive and all-powerful central government was the English monarchy. The one the Left now wants to put in place is a Leftist behemoth with several labels, all designed to confuse, but variously called Liberalism or Progressivism in these days. (As these names become tainted with the harsh reality of the system, they will no doubt come up with another benign-sounding label to rebrand it.)

      • Cluster June 29, 2012 / 9:01 pm

        Modifying behavior with the use of “green” taxes is sure to follow.

        I am encouraged by Spook & Count’s optimism on the November election, and I hope they’re right. I can’t imagine 4 more years of this.

    • NEOCON1 June 30, 2012 / 1:11 pm

      whaaaat where is that?????? not IN THE democrat RUN STATES!!


  9. J. R. Babcock June 29, 2012 / 9:58 am

    Romney needs to send Chief Justice Roberts a thank-you note

    • doug June 29, 2012 / 12:46 pm

      I’m sure Romney is the one expecting a thank you note from Benedict Roberts. After all it was Romneycare Mandate himself who has brought the liberal lovefest onto Roberts.

      That $4.2 million money bomb is probably just a George Soros thank you present for giving the Dems the opportunity to trash this country more.

      Romneycare, Roberts and Snowe have now given the government the ability to tax us for not purchasing something…….how do you like that effin stamp tax now King George.

      I’m pining for the 1760s….when we were at least free from an oppressive government like ours.

  10. Raging Bull June 29, 2012 / 10:24 am

    zerobama yesterday said, (and i’m paraphrasing here) that the scotus ruled on zerobama care and it’s constitutional so don’t continue fighting it.

    yet he has ignored the immigration outcome and basically told arizona to ‘F’ off, we aren’t helping you.

    so why does he get to pick and chose which decisions by the scotus he gets to enforce?

    • Retired Spook June 29, 2012 / 10:26 am

      so why does he get to pick and chose which decisions by the scotus he gets to enforce?

      Bull, he won’t after 1/20/13

  11. mitchethekid June 29, 2012 / 1:24 pm

    You guys clearly do not understand what happened. The way you describe it, the government is going to force everyone to buy insurance, or else! Click, bang.
    Roberts was brilliant in substituting tax for mandate. (And again, the mandate was originally a conservative idea and the health care bill was fashioned after Romneys. So good luck with getting him elected) My point is, that health insurance will now be more affordable and those who have PEC’s or get sick cannot be denied coverage. Just like Black folks can get served in any restaurant in the nation. The penalty for those who do not get insurance (which will effect less than 5% of the population) will be a fine of ~$90.00. If you think this is such an outrage, and an assault on YOUR freedom NOT to buy insurance, and therefore become a burden to the rest of us who do; and have to subsidize your care, then do what Rush Limbaugh said he would do if this was upheld. Leave the country, since you hate it so much. As I said yesterday; America. Love it or leave it.

    • Cluster June 29, 2012 / 1:48 pm


      I see that you are ignoring my questions I posed earlier to you, so let’s take a stab at this one. The mandate, or tax, is the funding mechanism for the bill. Without that component, the cost of this bill will explode our deficits. In fact even with that mechanism, the deficits were in the trillions for as far as the eye could see. Tell us how this new bill will be financially supported, that is of course if you have even thought that one through which I highly doubt.

    • Cluster June 29, 2012 / 1:50 pm

      Actually Mitch, many liberals said that they were moving out of the country in 2004 if Bush was reelected, which he was, and then of course they did not. What do you suppose happened there?

      You are good for comic relief my friend.

    • Amazona June 29, 2012 / 3:21 pm

      I should be a little ashamed of myself for making fun of poor deluded and obviously mentally impaired mitche, but as he keeps coming back and goading us into noticing his idiocy I guess he is volunteering to be noticed as a moron..

      His latest offering? My point is, that health insurance will now be more affordable and those who have PEC’s or get sick cannot be denied coverage. Just like Black folks can get served in any restaurant in the nation.

      You can’t make stuff like this up. mitche is the mental equivalent of the Walmartians, oblivious to how he comes across to others. So I guess it’s OK to laugh at him, the blog equivalent of a six-inch buttcrack and a feather boa.

    • Amazona June 29, 2012 / 3:23 pm

      Let me float a query…

      If insurance costs $900 a month, as mine does, and not having it costs $90.00 a year, which option do you think I am going to choose?

      Let me phrase that another way—How long will the penalty for being uninsured remain so much lower than the cost of insurance?

      • Cluster June 29, 2012 / 3:30 pm

        Right up to the point when the last person leaves private insurance.

      • Amazona June 29, 2012 / 3:38 pm

        Cluster, I think this innocuous little tax/penalty/fine/bludgeon will remain innocuous for about a month or two and then spike to make it more expensive than insurance—because as long as it is cheaper why have insurance?

        Right now it is just a talking point for the mindless lemmings to regurgitate.

      • Cluster June 29, 2012 / 3:45 pm

        All that was accomplished yesterday was to make health care more bureaucratic, more expensive, less efficient, and with less access.

        Liberal don’t get that because they don’t think. They simply emote.

      • tiredoflibbs June 29, 2012 / 3:48 pm

        “If insurance costs $900 a month, as mine does, and not having it costs $90.00 a year, which option do you think I am going to choose?”

        Why should anyone carry health insurance??? Once they get sick, they can purchase it and be treated as per the geniuses on the left that have forced insurance companies to do so.

        How long will these companies remain in business???

        If they fail, then what??? Oh wait! Single payer health care – fascist health care or is it socialist? WIll the government just CONTROL health care or OWN it?

      • Count d'Haricots June 29, 2012 / 6:46 pm

        All that was accomplished yesterday was to make health care more bureaucratic, more expensive, less efficient, and with less access ObamaCare more likely to be legislated out of existence; drive a stake through its heart and join the Choir Invisible.

        Requiescat in Pace, Franken-Care! Alas, to sleep; to Dream no more!

      • doug June 29, 2012 / 7:55 pm

        That $90 penalty is just for the first year, it then goes up to $400+, then $600+ then more and more in subsequent years.

        However, the rub for you Amazona is that if insurance costs you $900 and you forgoe it for the tax, then you are without insurance. That doesn’t guarantee you health care, you are just without insurance.

        There will be a large group that will qualify for Medicaid that previously didn’t and those people who happen to have insurance now, will get rid of it. The biggest issue is going to be employer paid insurances. Those people will rapidly lose their insurance and be on their own as it will make economic sense for the businesses to drop coverage.

    • tiredoflibbs June 30, 2012 / 10:45 am

      poor little ignorant mitchie: “You guys clearly do not understand what happened. The way you describe it, the government is going to force everyone to buy insurance, or else!”

      Uh, mitchie, “the government is going to force you to buy insurance” is the individual MANDATE.

      “or else!” uhmmmmm…. mitchie…. this is the PENALTY of the obAMACARE.

      Amazona was correct in stating that you are misinformed.

      “And again, the mandate was originally a conservative idea and the health care bill was fashioned after Romneys.”

      Uh, mitchie…. you are aware that this was a STATE program – which CONSTITUTIONALLY is legal and the state had the authority to do so.

      The obamacare plan was conceived at the FEDERAL level, rammed through Congress and the SENATE, through tricks (reconciliation and arm twisting) and signed by obAMATEUR.

      It is hardly a CONSERVATIVE PLAN. But, then, again I blame your ignorance and your weak-minded ability to regurgitate dumbed down talking points specifically designed by the Democrats for people such as you.

  12. freethinker June 29, 2012 / 2:16 pm

    What a bunch of drama queens. The Citizens United case didn’t seem to bother anyone on the conservative side, yet I have never read in the Constitution where a corporation is a “person” and should be allowed to buy the presidency. I have never read in the Constitution where money equals free speech. But I am sure you have that all figured out – how this case is completely constitutionally sound.

    • Cluster June 29, 2012 / 2:19 pm

      You accuse others of being drama queens and then you proceed to show us all a shining example of what a drama queen is.

      Too funny.

      • Amazona June 29, 2012 / 2:46 pm

        Poor sad silly delusional Velma is still spouting that nonsense that the Court declared a corporation to be a person. I guess when the talking heads decided to float that silly lie and some of them disagreed, saying no one was stupid enough to believe it, one of them said “there’s this goofy old lady in Tulsa who will believe ANYTHING we tell her—let’s put it out there and let her wallow in it. It will be good for laughs.”

        As for never reading something into the Constitution, well, it’s clear you have never read the Constitution. Or at least understood any part of it.

      • tiredoflibbs June 29, 2012 / 3:46 pm

        velma, if you look past the dumbed down talking point you are regurgitating then you could understand it!!!!

        Last I checked in the Constitution, a penalty, a mandate to purchase insurance was not a “TAX”.

        I guess you don’t consider UNIONS or a PAC a “person” either? All, including corporations, are GROUPS OF PEOPLE! PEOPLE have the right of free speech, whether they are individuals or groups. They are the same and can generate huge amounts of CASH.

        But I don’t see you mindless drone hacks criticizing the power of the UNION and their ability to buy and influence elections – just look at Nevada and Minnesota.

        Sheesh, but you are dumb.

        Well, have you figured out when obAMATEUR LIED???? When he said it wasn’t a tax or now?????

        I guess you haven’t receive your marching orders on what to regurgitate.

      • Count d'Haricots June 29, 2012 / 6:50 pm


        Birdies eat the breadcrumbs and Velma has to sleep in the forest.

      • Amazona June 29, 2012 / 7:11 pm

        And here I thought she slept under a bridge…..

      • tiredoflibbs June 30, 2012 / 10:46 am

        Where did Velma go????

        Again, she is not going to answer our challenges and ignore our responses. Only to reappear at another time mindlessly regurgitating the same old crap as before.


      • NEOCON1 June 30, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        cluster ROTFLMAO….. LOL

  13. watsonredux June 30, 2012 / 12:14 pm

    Amazona said, “If insurance costs $900 a month, as mine does, and not having it costs $90.00 a year, which option do you think I am going to choose?”

    You are misinformed. The penalty will be the greater of $695 per person (in 2016) or 2.5 percent of your household’s income. Since you are undoubtedly a wealthy person with a high income, you would pay the 2.5 percent.

    But regardless, the answer to your question is that you will continue to buy insurance. You may be a pseudo-intellectual, but you are not stupid, and you surely realize that living without health insurance dramatically increases the likelihood that you will live a shorter life as well as one with significantly more health issues. You won’t want that and you will continue to buy insurance until your health care is paid for by the taxpayer. If you need some examples of what it is like to live without health care, you could start here:

    • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 12:50 pm

      But wattle, you are missing the point: If insurance is available to all, including those who are already sick, all I have to do is wait till I need it and buy it then, and pocket the savings.

      Are you saying that the penalty would be a monthly TAX? Not annual, as has been represented?

      Not that it is any of your business, but my “wealth” has been invested in what it will take for me to live well, in property and my home, so I can live in the future on far less than many people. I’m near a populated area so I will no longer have to drive much, and I will probably get a new “luxury” car in a year or so, a car that will easily last and be a wonderful car for many many years, and get good mileage as well. I have cattle and will be building a greenhouse. I won’t need a lot of cash.

      And, as people do in oppressive societies which confiscate personal wealth, I will find ways around having my income come to me as simple (taxable) income. There is a reason barter and the black market were the primary economic structures of the USSR. I’m already positioning myself to have goods to trade. You people do love your studies—take a look at the ones that show higher compliance with tax collection, and thereby lower costs for tax collection, when people feel the tax rates are fair.

      Your claim that merely having insurance means a longer and healthier life is simply bunk. It might have some relevance if the uninsured leads an unhealthy lifestyle, and does not get regular medical care. But when you can get top-notch care for half to 60% of the going rate there is no reason not to see doctors and write checks for the bills. As I have always done, until recently.

      When I think the system is fair, the government will never pay my medical bills. If the system becomes profoundly corrupted by stupidity, venality and lust for power, as it may very well be if the Left has its way with getting rid of the Constitution, then what the hell—-the nation is doomed anyway so I might as well chip in and nudge it a little closer to the brink.

      Well, not really. But I could.

      Actually, what I WILL do is participate in a medical co-op of like-minded people and doctors, as affluent people will be able to do, leaving the less fortunate to deal with the bureaucracy of government everything. It’s sad but a fact of life, the plans of the Left will drag this nation back into a class system more rigid and confining than we can even imagine, in an economic system that restricts upward mobility.

      As a productive member of society with more than a modicum of self-respect and dignity, I would hate to be considered an “intellectual”, as the sole product of “intellectuals” is ideas, and the title sticks even when those ideas are patently wrong. I am much happier and at home just being a relatively smart person whose main claim to intelligence lies in my ability and willingness to base my ideas on facts instead of Magical Thinking.

    • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 1:03 pm

      As for your link, in the first place it depends on a false premise.

      Secondly, it lists the alleged horrors of being uninsured. Hmmm. I went into an ER last May, was admitted, had surgery, and received excellent care for ten days, and it was not till after the surgery that anyone even asked for my insurance information.

      I know people with large medical bills who negotiated payment plans of monthly payments. This article claims that no hospital would agree to this in advance of life-saving surgery. I do wonder about that.

      Maybe these people should go to Catholic hospitals, which offer more in the way of charitable care. At least till they shut down rather than be forced to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate the Left.

      Thirdly, this hyper-emotional screed seems to imply that gee, once we have GOVERNMENT running health care, these people who are waiting for treatment will be seen and treated quite promptly. Not quite sure what this is based on, probably more of that Magical Thinking, as those under government-controlled single payer “health care” have to wait extremely long times for the same kinds of treatment.

      (And yes, “single payer” IS the goal, as has been repeatedly stated by administration officials. Allowing people to have their own insurance is just a stopgap measure till the insurance companies are run out of business.)

      I heard an interview with a man whose wife had a brain aneurism, had it diagnosed, had surgery, and was fine, all within a couple of days. Her cousin’s wife, I believe it was, in the UK, was finally diagnosed with the same condition after a long wait and was then on a waiting list of several MONTHS for the surgery. The family finally sold stuff, borrowed money from friends and family, and flew her to the United States to get her operated on before this aneurism ruptured.

      When there is no United States medical treatment available, when it is as bad as everyone else’s, then people like her will have no place to go

  14. watsonredux July 1, 2012 / 12:43 am

    Amysneera said, “But wattle, you are missing the point: If insurance is available to all, including those who are already sick, all I have to do is wait till I need it and buy it then, and pocket the savings.”

    You could, but you won’t. You won’t because you will want to know if you have a serious illness like diabetes or cancer before it becomes so bad it sends you to the emergency room. You won’t because if you do get diabetes, you will require on-going treatment and you won’t want to go without that. There are many reasons, and you know it whether you are willing to admit it or not. You can look up the studies about the link between health insurance–or the lack thereof–and overall health, but you won’t. You’ll continue to buy insurance and continue to act ignorant.

    Amysneera also said, “Actually, what I WILL do is participate in a medical co-op of like-minded people and doctors, as affluent people will be able to do, leaving the less fortunate to deal with the bureaucracy of government everything.”

    Bingo. If you have the means to afford better than basic care, you will buy it. Nothing is or will prevent you from doing so. That’s even true of countries like Germany with so-called socialized medicine.

    Amysneera also said, “Are you saying that the penalty would be a monthly TAX? Not annual, as has been represented?”

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. But why don’t you look it up yourself instead of crying “repeal” when you don’t even know what you’re talking about. That is the height of arrogance and ignorance all rolled into one. Congratulations.

    • Cluster July 1, 2012 / 8:36 am

      Bingo. If you have the means to afford better than basic care, you will buy it. Nothing is or will prevent you from doing so. That’s even true of countries like Germany with so-called socialized medicine.

      So you do support s aystem where those with wealth and influence get better treatment than those without. Thanks for admitting the truth. Just so you know, your beloved democrat political leaders are not subject to Obamacare and have a much better plan than you or I do. But you’re ok with that right? You just don’t like it when someone in the private sector makes money, but are perfectly ok when someone in the politburo does.

      By the way, I don’t have insurance, but now thanks to Obama, when I need it, I will get it, and screw people like you who will have to pay for it. So thanks for that. Also, this new tax increase for Obamacare only impacts the lower to middle class. The rich already have insurance so it’s the working class who will absorb the brunt of this, so once again, good job.

      Watson, I don’t believe you really ever think anything All the way through. Your stunted emotions appear to stop all rational thought.

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 10:38 am

        OF COURSE the wattle supports a system which carves individuals into rigid and inescapable economic classes—that’s what Leftist ideology DOES, when given power.

        There are the already-prosperous, those who become prosperous through manipulation of a corrupt system, the Ruling Elite, and then far below them the masses.

        While the masses stand in line to—-finally—-receive government-quality health care, those who can afford it go where it is available for a price, or make arrangements like medical co-ops.

        So the next step would be to make it a crime for a doctor to provide health care outside The System.

        Just curious, though——we know that the bill that was passed, so we could finally see what the Dems voted on for us, says we can keep our existing policies as long as nothing in or about those policies changes, at which time we have to go to the government program. (This is coyly referred to only as the ability to keep our own insurance, without reference to the rest of the rule.)

        Do you know if that has changed, or if it remains as written and passed? Because if it is intact, that makes the whole “you have to buy insurance” thing kind of moot, doesn’t it? In that case, what insurance COULD you buy, once you got kicked off your old policy because the company upped your premium or changed any of the coverage?

        And if you CAN still buy your own insurance, does anything say what KIND of insurance? Couldn’t a company start a plan costing a buck three-eighty a month that covers toenail fungus and psoriasis, meaning that anyone on its plan has insurance? And can then go get other insurance when a real health issue seems to be looming?

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 10:55 am

        What I said, and what the wattle ignored:

        “Your claim that merely having insurance means a longer and healthier life is simply bunk. It might have some relevance if the uninsured leads an unhealthy lifestyle, and does not get regular medical care. But when you can get top-notch care for half to 60% of the going rate there is no reason not to see doctors and write checks for the bills.”

        Interesting, isn’t it, to see how much of the Leftist ranting is based on dishonest misrepresentation of reality?

        Evidently that’s all they’ve got……..

      • tiredoflibbs July 1, 2012 / 1:11 pm

        Let’s see, the proggies favorite talking point (and watty’s, Velma’s, denny’s, etc, etc.) is that the cost ofthe bush tax cut was put on the “backs of the middle class”.

        If that were even true, they have a problem with a temporary tax cut, but have no problem with a permanent government program like obamacare being paid for by the middle lass.

        Typical proggies, ideology before the good of the country. So now instead of just paying for health care, the have to pay the new taxes plus the cost of the health insurance.

        What is wrong with these proggies?

    • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 10:26 am

      wattle, your entire rant depends on your own belief that my determination about when I “need” insurance is only after things have seriously gone wrong.

      As usual, your entire argument depends on some goofball interpretation that exists only in your feverswamp mind. It seems to make sense to you for an uninsured person to allow herself to become so sick that she is in danger before getting insurance. In the scenario I presented to you, anyone smarter than you (that is, ANYONE) in this situation would get the insurance at the first sign of a serious problem, and then be insured from that point forward, once the problem indicated the need for more expensive medical care. But in the meantime, she pays out of pocket for regular exams and minor issues, which is a lot less than the cost of insurance, especially when she can pay about half of the charge if she pays cash.

      You just have to base your sneering on an invented no-medical-care-at-all vs insured-medical-care paradigm, and then barge ahead from there.

      And as I said, your “studies” are about people who forego all health care because they don’t have insurance to pay for it, while many people without insurance still get regular care and just pay for it themselves.

      Boy, when you get stuck on stupid you stay there. Which is not a surprise—-after all, if you are so stupid you get stuck there, you are probably not smart enough to be easily unstuck. But what always surprises me about people like you is your eagerness to just keep shouting out your stupidity, louder and louder, instead of taking another look at what got you there in the first place.

      Anyone who bought into the idea that ALL uninsured people die earlier, for example, could have read the comment that this is true of uninsured people who then forego medical treatment because they don’t want to pay for it themselves, but that many get the same medical treatment as the uninsured and just pay for it—a situation which would wipe out any difference between being insured and not being insured—-and realized that this would make both groups equal regarding the amount of medical care received. That is just logic. Two groups get the same medical care, one group bills insurance companies, one pays out of pocket.

      But you are so stupid, you assign some magic quality to the mere fact of HAVING INSURANCE, like it’s a lucky rabbit’s foot or something, which gives the insured a magical edge, not having the mental capacity to understand that the underlying reason for SOME uninsured to have worse health issues is that they don’t get medical care.

      I think this might be at least partially attributed to a mentality in which, if the all-powerful government doesn’t take care of you, then you have no care. This is the attitude that oozes through the sizable cracks in all your arguments. The very concept of intelligent, rational self-sufficiency is just so alien to you, you simply cannot imagine it, so anything not provided by the government is simply not there.

      Which would be why all you can imagine is a reality in which an uninsured person just gets sicker and sicker and sicker before going in to get government-guaranteed insurance.

    • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 10:41 am

      “…why don’t you look it up yourself..”

      In other words, you don’t know. But didn’t let your ignorance slow you down in your spiteful little rant.

  15. Amazona July 1, 2012 / 10:50 am

    An excerpt from an article in the CFPA, or Child and Family Protection Association:

    The Hidden Dangers of Government Health Care

    By Roy Hanson Jr.
    January 2008

    There is a tremendous lack of understanding concerning the implications of a government-run system. A survey conducted in September 2006 by ABC News, Kaiser Family Foundation, and USA Today found that “About half of Americans think a universal care system would have little effect on their own personal health care in terms of quality, choice, availability, and cost.” This means that half the country is unaware of how detrimental a socialized health care program would be to their freedom of choice and quality of healthcare.

    A fundamental principle of government programs is this: the more the government funds a program, the more of the program the government controls. The more of the program the government controls, the less freedom and choice individual citizens retain.

    We reject the idea that it is the government’s role to care for the basic personal needs of the population. If the government ever runs or micro-manages the health care system, government bureaucrats will decide who will receive what treatment and when. They will make (or even predetermine) these critical decisions regardless of the desire, ability, or opinion of the patient who is seeking care, or of the physician who wants to provide the care.

    Under the various forms that socialized health care programs can take, it can sometimes be illegal to privately purchase insurance or medical services outside of the government-approved system. However, even when a socialized health care program allows you to purchase your own private insurance or health care, it will almost always be mandatory to also pay into the government system regardless of any additional private purchases.

    England for example, does allow its citizens to pay for private services in addition to being required to pay taxes for the national system. In Canada, it has been illegal for years to purchase any services not provided by the government. This has resulted in a black market to provide urgently-needed services that are paid for by those who can afford them but who are unable to get them from the government system. For years, many Canadians have traveled to other countries, especially to the United States, where they can currently purchase treatments and medications denied to them in Canada.

    Sally C. Pipes, of the Pacific Research Institute, lived in Canada for many years. When commenting on Michael Moore’s film Sicko, which attempted to promote a Canadian style of socialized health care over our own country’s free enterprise system, she underscored the failures of the Canadian healthcare system with the following observation.

    “There’s a good reason why my former countrymen with the money to do so either use the services of a booming industry of illegal private clinics, or come to America to take advantage of the health care that Moore denounces.”

Comments are closed.