Drama Queens

It’s finally over!  The Drama Queens in DC finally ended the farce called negotiations about the debt ceiling and budget.   While most are fooled by all of this, Obamacare was never in danger, the debt ceiling was always going to get raised and the Govt would be reopened for business.  Sixteen days of utter bullshit.  The few who appeared to stand their ground, now have more derogatory names than they had votes in the last election.  The Loser Lefties think they won, I say bullshit on that too!  Everybody lost in the long run.  My side ( the close the rest of it group) see’s the continued destruction of the overbloated government for years to come.   Enjoy Loser Lefties, you can have the 17+ trillion dollar debt.  As I have said the last few years, voting accomplishes nothing, it’s all still the same, election after election. The Open Mic continues!



  1. Time to speed things up 🙂

  2. Matt Lockwood says:

    There is no more left or right gman, you know that! There is only us vs them, and we always lose. GOP co-opted the tea party and bastardized that; I hope they don’t try to co-opt the Libertarians next!

    • That’s pretty funny. From my perspective, the Tea Party co-opted the GOP and bastardized that.


      Also, hello. Welcome to the asylum!

    • I agree Matt! Flip things around with a R Prez and Senate with a D run House, would the debt ceiling have been raised? Your damn right it would have. I giggle at the ignorance of people who believe this crap is not staged and that one side won, bullcrap. The people lost. The 1% won (and Charlie is jumping for joy 🙄 ).

      The TEA Party citizens are an honest group who are clear about their desires (they are not racists), it’s those that choose to be politicians that get all screwed up.

  3. Just A Citizen says:

    I watched the Prez’s little speech this morning. On and on about how our economy and standing in the world has been damaged by the “brinksmanship” of certain “extremists”.

    Mentioned the documented “opinions” of many people agreeing with him on how BAD this was.

    Then said that “I signed a bill to reopen the Govt and pay our debts, avoiding the potential harm to our economy and standing in the world.” Paraphrasing here, so don’t get all “misquoty” on me.

    Summary. I am the COOLEST and the ONLY REASONABLE person in DC. This is NOT MY FAULT it is THOSE GUYS OVER THEIR IN THE HOUSE. I am willing to negotiate anything we can agree on, …………… which of course leaves everything else 🙄

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Nice post Charlie. Confirming once again the arguments I have made here.

        The left wing media is a propaganda arm of the Progressive DNC, and “liberal Republicans” from the NE, are the same Fascist Progressives as their Dem counterparts. The Fascist Progressives are not unique to any given party.

      • Yes Charlie, the ONLY F—— one there and the media found it! I remember the protests on the Mall when we invaded Iraq. Not that I think that a good idea but on either side of the speakers podium were the Iraq flag and the PLO flag. Nobody in the media seemed to find that. Nobody seems to remember those VC and NVA flags at the anti-war marches and protests in the ’60’s and ’70’s either. Selective, selective, selective.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          In Nevada the Stars and Bars had a very explicit and obnoxious meaning.

          REBELS…….. as in the University of Nevada LAS VEGAS REBELS.

          The perfect symbol or a UNION State that was divided North and South, with the South being the Socialist crap heads from Los Angeles and the Mob from back east.

          Funny how time has a way of changing the meaning of things. At least for those of us who continue to grow and PROGRESS. 😉

          • Just A Citizen says:

            A picture of the REBELS who fought for a National Championship UNDER THE CONFEDERATE FLAG.

            Wonder, wonder, where, ………….. where was the outrage over the flag???

        • The Liberal left has made the Confederate flag a symbol of racism, which is bullshit. They no nothing about the real reason for the Civil War. Then again, they also show their ignorance by claiming the Tea Party folks are racist. Hell SK, we’re racists too just because we’re white! Every good American loving anti Liberal should fly a Confederate Flag below the US flag, the Gasdon flag and the POW/MIA flag. Now that’s a proper flag pole!

          • One correction..fly the US flag UPSIDE DOWN!

            • Just A Citizen says:


              ABSOLUTELY……….well played.

              Although you will find that THIS display is now being condemned by “Vet Groups” as an insult to vets.

              Funny how all these things just “mysteriously” happen.

              • There is a reason to fly the flag upside down, being in serious trouble. While the country may be in trouble, flying the flag upside down just because of political reasons should be avoided. Fly the Gasdon flag, it shows how you feel!

        • Bada-boom, bada-bing, the SUFA natives seem very restless this fine day … could it be the tea baggers were crushed again? come on, fellas, smile … it’s a new day … yous can start screwing up again after lunch! 🙂

      • This flag situation occurred during the “protest the tea party” event. Are we even sure (did the media ask, for instance?) if this is even a legit vet or was he planted to get the reaction it did?

    • I actually caught to while eating lunch, the guy is such an arrogant loser. All the problems are everybody else’s fault. This all happened because….. Blah, blah , blah. Same old Obama, worst president ever!

  4. Just A Citizen says:


    I suggest you spend a little time browsing this site and reading the varied comments.


    • That’s what I have SUFA for.. you lunatics keep me up to date on the lunatic fringe. What do I need another asylum for?

      Besides, the ability of SUFA to (mostly) keep things intelligent and civil is a rarity on the internet.

  5. Well worth a re-post. The “TRUTH” will set you free , if you take the time to read and assimilate it!

    V.H. says:
    October 17, 2013 at 10:35 am

    After our short talk about the 60′s the other day. I thought this popping up was opportune. Opinions anyone?


    • Just A Citizen says:


      The YOUNG and the MEDIA are the ones who need to be reminded of this along with many other examples of history.

      The Young can be excused for their lack of knowledge, but NOT THE MEDIA>

      It is time to RIDICULE the media with the FACTS of history.

      First up………….. Obama’s statement today and one repeated daily by the media.

      We have NEVER defaulted on our obligations in over 200 years.

      Utter Bull Dookey.

      What do you call it when you replace your currency with a new currency and change the rules of payment on debt?

      What do you call it when you arbitrarily change the underlying value of Gold in order to devalue the money to address your debt?

      What do you call it when you INFLATE money, thus devaluing the currency? What is it when you devalue the Treasury Note I have in my pocket?

      • What do you call it when you throw a hissy fit, shut down the government, stage concern for kids with cancer and some war memorial (as opposed to people losing salaries, single mothers losing benefits, etc.) .. you call it a great big VICTORY FOR OBAMA AND HIS MERRY PRANKSTERS! Why, yous ask? Because the tea bagger party is lost in its bunny own sex! 🙂

    • Encouraging..but I’m exhausted..need DIVINE INTERVENTION….PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Amen.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Your request for help reminds me of those jokes about the stranded person asking God to save them from the flood, each time turning down a ride in a boat while waiting for God to intervene. Upon drowning and reaching heaven God asks why he didn’t take the boat that God sent to rescue him.


        These are trying times. They will test our strength in ways most of us have never been tested. You must find an “inner” peace and happiness that will maintain itself WHILE YOU FIGHT ON.

        But FIGHT ON we must.

        Big HUG for you this morning. Now chin up, shoulders back, head held high, smile upon your face.

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Another Republican launches a preemptive attack to save his Prestige and FAT JOB.

    How many Dems do you here complaining about the Soros money that went into getting Pelosi the Speaker job and Obama the Presidency?? Even when it backfired and the lost the House in 2010.

  7. “Of interest are the developments in China and India. China and India will take up all of the Western world’s gold production this year. Now, the Chinese have not been idle while the debt discussions have been unfolding. As an example, the Chinese have recently signed a deal in the UK that allows for the renminbi to be converted into pounds. This is something like 24 countries now which are now on board with China’s currency. The bottom line is the Chinese are slowly and quietly making the renminbi convertible.

    The next major move for the Chinese is they will allow for their big state-owned companies to buy other companies. That’s a good way for them to unload their foreign exchange reserves, particularly dollar reserves. When that happens, Eric, we will see the first competitive currency against the US dollar, which up to now has held the preeminent position as the world’s reserve currency since 1944.

    This process by the Chinese to unseat the US dollar as the supreme currency has recently been accelerated because of concerns about the recent chaos in Washington. You also have Russia now pushing for an alternative reserve currency. So this international movement for an alternative reserve currency is now unfolding in a major way, and it will have incredibly dramatic ramifications for the United States in the future.

    But all of this is positive for gold because we are seeing an enormous pickup not only in Chinese consumption, and in bar premiums, but the same thing is happening in India as we now move into the seasonally high period for Indian consumption.

    I would just add that 15 years ago the Chinese renminbi was not even on the radar screen of foreign currency traders. Today it is one of the top ten currencies traded in the world, and the Chinese are quickly setting the stage for the renminbi to become the United States’ worst nightmare as they aggressively position their currency to eventually unseat the dollar from its position of global supremacy.”

  8. How does this happen, G? Could it be the CO’s were busy playing with themselves:


    • Just A Citizen says:


      Having trouble reading again??

      “Walker and Jenkins — both convicted murderers — separately walked out of the Franklin Correctional Institution located on Florida’s panhandle “in accordance with Department of Corrections policy and procedure,” according to Department of Corrections Secretary Michael Crews.

      “However, both of their releases were based on fraudulent modifications that had been made to court orders,” he said.

    • I have no idea how these things happen. They aren’t that uncommon though. Maybe you should ask one of your buddies, with all your past experience and all 🙂

  9. JAC, guess you’ve never stepped “inside” … what, you think they shake their hands and let them walk out the door?

    Duh … 🙂

  10. Hey!!!

    What happened to the Recent Comments part? I can’t sneak in real quick without the recent comments…takes too long to scroll…


  11. Why do the sheeple keep believing the lying MSM? Because they are hopelessly GULLABLE! http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/bombshell-white-house-planned-shutdown/

  12. @Kathy, Having seen the truth, do you now see how the govt is purposely making voters think their votes mean something, when in reality, it’s all staged and planned in advance? People need to take their blinders off and see the Fed’s for what they are.

  13. Kathy and Anita, what sounds so good about another corrupt political PARTY. The two current ones ARE the problem. Come on girls 😉

    • Oh you silly boy – don’t worry ’bout us!

    • Yeah silly boy. I can just as easily say that you are just lying down and taking it. The way I see it the Tea Party isn’t any person in the house or senate right now. It’s the millions in the background..that includes the libertarians, the Patriot Guard, the Oath Keepers,and so on…, I think that includes you G.,,, or are all of us corrupt too?…What if Kathy and I ended up in Congress, what would you say then….Come on G 😉

      • gmanfortruth says:

        No the Tea Party isn’t, they are NOT a political party either, and not likely to become one. Small organizations are great, but, like most small things (think government) they grow large and become corrupt. Sorry, that is the nature of the political party beast. You and Kathy are too smart to go politician, so I’m not worried about that, LOL 🙂

        • Ok so if you won’t let us go to Congress, who is going to save the day then? Your wish isn’t going to come true either..so let’s stay in reality. Who is it? Serious question. You have admitted to supporting a limited government. So who is it going to be.

  14. @JAC: Glenn Beck? Sarah Palin wasn’t enough for you, JAC? Good Lord, do you have depth of humility. EDITED- NO MORE INSULTS!

    @Stephen: Only SUFA could make me defend Obama, but if you reread a bit more carefully, you’ll notice I really don’t defend Obama, but rather condemn the morons running your party into oblivion … frankly, I’d like to see both parties shipped to wherever Gman lives … to move in with him … to have to have actual conversations with him (so they commit suicide and my guys (commies) aren’t accused of being murderers) … that said, I was promised a Czarship …

  15. Haha! And now imagine if he asked about economics, or history, or just about any topic. The good thing about being part of such a targeted group, is you have to be on your toes. I don’t know it all, but at least I realize that and I keep working on getting better.


  16. For those having problems. This is a problem beyond my control, I have not changed a thing. Are we being hacked by Obamanots? BWAHAHA!

  17. As predictable as pissing into the wind, JAC :)As predictable as pissing into the wind, JAC 🙂

  18. Obama Wins! Big Whoop. Can He Lead?
    With an eye to history, will the president leverage his victory to score a debt-busting deal with the GOP? Doubt it.

    Barack Obama is a winning president. Will he be remembered as a great one?(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
    Ron Fournier
    By Ron Fournier

    Follow on Twitter

    October 16, 2013


    Just as he did to John McCain in 2008 and to Mitt Romney in 2012, President Obama defeated a lame Republican political team. The GOP’s right wing foolishly shuttered the government and threatened default in exchange for an unreasonable and unattainable concession: Scrap Obamacare. He refused. The GOP caved.

    It was all so predictable. Not quite so obvious is Obama’s response. Faced now with the choice between partisan politics and a risky high ground, the president has an opportunity to leverage this “victory” for a long-term budget deal that raises taxes and tames entitlements. Obama won. Now can he lead?

    Does he have the guts to anger liberal backers with a budget deal on Social Security and Medicare?

    Is he willing to engage sincerely with Republicans?

    Does he want a legacy beyond winning two elections and enacting a health care law that, judging by its horrendous launch, may never live up to its promise?

    If the answer to those questions is “yes,” Obama has hidden his intentions well.

    One thing the past two weeks has done is undermine the White House’s two most common excuses for failure.

    “There is nobody in the GOP to negotiate with.”Well, that’s not true. The two-week crisis revealed any number of conservative Republicans with a pragmatic streak, from Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, who risked his seat to deal, to House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, who floated a compromise. You can argue that today’s Republicans are more extreme and divided than any party in decades, but you can’t say that fruitful negotiations are impossible. That is, unless you don’t want a budget deal.

    “There is no magic wand for presidential leadership.”This one is popular with liberal journalists and professors who accuse Obama’s critics of inflating the powers of the presidency. While the executive is only one branch of government, Obama is not as weak as his supporters claim. He just kicked the GOP’s butt. Why do Obama’s apologists deflate the executive branch’s limitations? Maybe they don’t want a budget deal.

    Count on Obama’s liberal chorus to take a victory lap, rubbing Republicans’ noses in defeat. Their next step will be to discourage the president from engaging with the GOP on a big budget deal. In addition to the excuses above, they will make the patently false claim that red ink is no longer a national problem. They will repeat an Obama talking point — “our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years” — that is both technically wrong and selectively misleading. The deficit is indeed shrinking, comparative pace notwithstanding, but the nation’s incredible debt load is not. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office’s 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook shows that the $16 trillion federal debt — already high by historical standards — will continue to grow even under some optimistic assumptions about future spending restraint. Already, the debt is 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, and CBO projects it expanding to an astounding, practically unfathomable 100 percent of GDP by 2038. The longer we wait, the harder it gets.

    Listen and watch the president. If he declares victory over the GOP or plays down the deficit problem, he is not serious about leading the country out of the fiscal and political wilderness.

    There is already a lack of seriousness in the air. On Tuesday, the president declared immigration reform to be his top priority after the fiscal crisis. It’s a curious choice, given the magnitude of the debt and the durability of the size-of-government debate. Does Obama really think immigration is a more serious problem? Or is it merely the best political issue for Democrats?

    It is tempting to assume that Obama has abandoned any hope of governing and is obsessed instead on Democrats seizing control of the House next year, an unlikely occurrence given the GOP’s structural advantages. “We can’t govern,” a senior White House aide told me, “without the House.” Obama’s immigration message is modeled suspiciously on his fiscal-crisis talking points. Blaming House Speaker John Boehner for preventing immigration from coming up for a vote in the past, Obama said Tuesday, “The only thing right now that’s holding it back is, again, Speaker Boehner not willing to call the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives.”

    It looks like Obama plans to walk Republicans into another box canyon, this one of his making.

    A wiser course would be to humbly accept the GOP’s terms of surrender and immediately leverage his advantage to end the budget fight that has polarized Washington. While Republicans are licking their wounds, Obama could announce an intense schedule of high-level budget meetings – daily, ideally. Rather than lecture lawmakers publicly, he could privately put his offer of modest entitlement cuts back on the table and declare his openness to do more. He could listen to Republicans – not for hours, but for days, if necessary.

    If he listens closely, he might hear what GOP House leaders told me last spring. They were open to exchanging entitlement reform for new taxes – $250 billion to $300 billion, or approximately the amount that Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania proposed raising over 10 years under the guise of “tax reform.” That is a small price to pay for a Democratic president to enact entitlement cuts, shielding the GOP from a potent wedge issue. Of course, this would require Obama to actually sign entitlement cuts into law rather than just propose them, a step it’s not clear he’s willing to take.

    The White House likes to conflate the GOP’s public bargaining positions with their privately held ones. The president and his team may not understand the difference, which I doubt, or they’re looking for excuses to avoid a budget deal. Pragmatic, good-governance Democrats harbor such doubts about their president.

    “We can govern by either leadership or crisis,” said Leon Panetta, a former Democratic congressman who served in Washington with nine presidents. “If leadership is not there, then we govern by crisis.”

    Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, who attended a breakfast meeting with Panetta and several other reporters Monday, reported that the former leader of the CIA and Pentagon under Obama was questioning his ex-boss’ leadership. “You have to engage in the process,” Panetta said. “This is a town where it’s not enough to feel you have the right answers. You’ve got to roll up your sleeves and you’ve got to really engage in the process … that’s what governing is all about.”

    A Democrat close to Panetta said the Californian was speaking generally about issues he has had with the president’s lack of leadership inside Washington – most of them not yet aired publicly – rather than merely about this month’s clash, which Panetta mostly lays at the feet of the GOP.

    Another high ranking Democrat with ties to both the White House and Capitol Hill pointed to the first failed days of Obamacare. While Republicans look “insane,” he said, Obama is making Democrats look “incompetent.”

    “It’s all about winning with this White House,” said the Democrat who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from the White House. “It’s not about governing. It’s not about holding people accountable. It’s not about solving big problems.”

    If Obama could finagle a budget deal out of the GOP, voters would almost certainly welcome the break from gridlock. His declining approval ratings might reverse. Higher ratings might help him rescue his stalled agenda (including immigration reform) and a wilting legacy. Obama was right to call the GOP’s bluff: Bowing to their demands would have been poor politics for him and a poor precedent for future politics. But the country gained nothing beyond another short-term deal that punts the long-term problem. Now what?

    Okay, we get it: Obama is a winning politician. What’s in serious doubt is whether he will be remembered as a successful president.


    I find it funny that they all say well this last problem was the republicans fault BUT:

    “It’s all about winning with this White House,” said the Democrat who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from the White House. “It’s not about governing. It’s not about holding people accountable. It’s not about solving big problems.”

    “We can govern by either leadership or crisis,” said Leon Panetta, a former Democratic congressman who served in Washington with nine presidents. “If leadership is not there, then we govern by crisis.”

  19. Judy Sabatini says:
  20. Is this what society is teaching our children?- You just had a fetus, don’t worry about it, just throw it in your bag and continue you’re “shopping”. Wonder if this “fetus” was alive when it was just dumped with all her other junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Dead Newborn Baby Found in Bag After Girl Caught Shoplifting at Manhattan Victoria’s Secret

    by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/17/13 6:22 PM

    After staff at Manhattan’s Victoria’s Secret thought two teenage girls were shoplifting, authorities inspected their bags and found the body of a dead newborn baby in one of their bags. The security guard inspecting the bags reported it to the NYPD.

    From a story with more details:

    The girls, both 17, were stopped by the store’s loss prevention officer. It was then that one of the girls admitted she had “a baby in the bag,” CBS 2 reported.

    The guard called police. The girl later told police that she had given birth on Wednesday and did not know what to do with the fetus.

    It was not immediately clear where she gave birth.

    One girl was taken to Bellevue Hospital, and the other was being questioned at the Midtown South Precinct, CBS 2 reported. The Medical Examiner’s Office was performing an autopsy on the human remains found inside the bag.

    Nearby residents told CBS 2′s Hazel Sanchez they were stunned by the news.

    “It’s sad and it hurts because it’s still a life that was born and now it’s gone,” said Esther Gross of the Upper West Side.

    “I have two daughters. The youngest one is 18 and she would probably be terrified. But there’s so many things you could do. Leave it in a church. Go to the hospital and just say I don’t want it, which is not a good thing at all, but it’s better than doing this,” added Ivetzy Sosa of Washington Heights.

    New York is one of many states with a safe haven law for people like the teenage to drop off a baby instead of leaving the child to die. Women can leave their baby, up to 30 days old, with any responsible person at a suitable location in New York. A hospital, staffed police or fire station are examples of safe and suitable choices.

    New York State’s Abandoned Infant Protection Act allows a parent to abandon a newborn baby up to 30 days of age anonymously and without fear of prosecution — if the baby is abandoned in a safe manner.

    A parent is not guilty of a crime if the infant is left with an appropriate person or in a suitable location and the parent promptly notifies an appropriate person of the infant’s location. A hospital, staffed police or fire station are examples of safe and suitable choices.

    A person leaving an infant under this law is not required to give his or her name.


  21. DO you guys remember all the details on exactly how Obamacare was passed?

  22. Okay people-a lot of you are good with computers-what could be causing some of us to not have the recent comment list? This is gonna get old really fast. Help Please! 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I just checked the screen options and “recent comments” is ON.

      Did you try logging on to SUFA from scratch?

      The site was acting up on me yesterday, jumping all around but today is fine.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    V.H. Re the passage of the ACA

    Here is a summary from Wikipedia that seems understandable, at least in part. It includes all the wrangling and “promises” made about allowing States to exclude abortion from the State exchanges.

    As I said last week, the Senate created the ACA and used an existing and unrelated bill for veterans as the cover. IE,. they amended the other bill by removing its entire content and replacing it with the ACA. This by the way, is one of the remaining court cases. The House eventually passed the Senate’s bill thus the bill did not ORIGINATE in the House. A very long shot but still alive.

    Anyhow, have fun remembering all this:

    “To maintain the progress of the legislative process, when Congress returned from recess, in September 2009 President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress supporting the ongoing Congressional negotiations, to re-emphasize his commitment to reform and again outline his proposals.[86] In it he acknowledged the polarization of the debate, and quoted a letter from the late Senator Ted Kennedy urging on reform: “what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”[87] On November 7, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act on a 220–215 vote and forwarded it to the Senate for passage.[70]


    The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working on the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Instead, the Senate took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[88] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[89] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate’s vehicle for their healthcare reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[90] The bill as amended would ultimately incorporate elements of proposals that were reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.

    With the Republican minority in the Senate vowing to filibuster any bill that they did not support, requiring a cloture vote to end debate, 60 votes would be necessary to get passage in the Senate.[91] At the start of the 111th Congress, Democrats had only 58 votes; the Senate seat in Minnesota that would be won by Al Franken was still undergoing a recount, and Arlen Specter was still a Republican.

    To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring aboard several Republican senators; particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe. Negotiations continued even after July 7—when Franken was sworn into office, and by which time Specter had switched parties—because of disagreements over the substance of the bill, which was still being drafted in committee, and because moderate Democrats hoped to win bipartisan support. However, on August 25, before the bill could come up for a vote, Ted Kennedy—a long-time advocate for healthcare reform—died, depriving Democrats of their 60th vote. Before the seat was filled, attention was drawn to Senator Snowe because of her vote in favor of the draft bill in the Finance Committee on October 15, however she explicitly stated that this did not mean she would support the final bill.[75] Paul Kirk was appointed as Senator Kennedy’s temporary replacement on September 24.

    Following the Finance Committee vote, negotiations turned to the demands of moderate Democrats to finalize their support, whose votes would be necessary to break the Republican filibuster. Majority leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying the centrist members of the Democratic caucus until the holdouts narrowed down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Lieberman, despite intense negotiations in search of a compromise by Reid, refused to support a public option; a concession granted only after Lieberman agreed to commit to voting for the bill if the provision was not included,[75][92] even though it had majority support in Congress.[93] There was debate among supporters of the bill about the importance of the public option,[94] although the vast majority of supporters concluded that it was a minor part of the reform overall,[92] and that congressional Democrats’ fight for it won various concessions, including conditional waivers allowing states to set up state-based public options such as Vermont’s Green Mountain Care.[93][95]

    Senate vote by state.
    Democratic yea (58)

    Independent yea (2)

    Republican nay (39)

    Republican not voting (1)

    With every other Democrat now in favor and every other Republican now overtly opposed, the White House and Reid moved on to addressing Senator Nelson’s concerns in order to win filibuster-proof support for the bill;[96] they had by this point concluded that “it was a waste of time dealing with [Snowe]”[97] because, after her vote for the draft bill in the Finance Committee, Snowe had come under intense pressure from the Republican Senate leadership who opposed reform.[98] After a final 13-hour negotiation, Nelson’s support for the bill was won after two concessions: a compromise on abortion, modifying the language of the bill “to give states the right to prohibit coverage of abortion within their own insurance exchanges,” which would require consumers to pay for the procedure out-of-pocket if the state so decided; and an amendment to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska.[70][99] The latter half of the compromise was derisively referred to as the “Cornhusker Kickback”[100] and was later repealed by the subsequent reconciliation amendment bill.

    On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[101] The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.[102]

    Several weeks after the vote, on January 19, 2010, Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate in a special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, having campaigned on giving the Republican minority the 41st vote needed to sustain filibusters, even signing autographs as “Scott 41.”[70][103][104] The special election had become significant to the reform debate because of its effects on the legislative process. The first was a psychological one: the symbolic importance of losing the traditionally Democratic Massachusetts seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, a staunch support of reform, made many congressional Democrats concerned about the political cost of passing a bill.[105][106] The second effect was more practical: the loss of the Democratic supermajority complicated the legislative strategy of reform proponents.[106]


    House vote by congressional district.
    Democratic yea (219)

    Democratic nay (34)

    Republican nay (178)

    No representative seated (4)

    President Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 23, 2010.
    The election of Scott Brown meant Democrats could no longer break a filibuster in the Senate. In response, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel argued the Democrats should scale back for a less ambitious bill; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed back, dismissing Emanuel’s scaled-down approach as “Kiddie Care.”[107][108] Obama also remained insistent on comprehensive reform, and the news that Anthem Blue Cross in California intended to raise premium rates for its patients by as much as 39% gave him a new line of argument to reassure nervous Democrats after Scott Brown’s win.[107][108] On February 22 Obama laid out a “Senate-leaning” proposal to consolidate the bills.[109] He also held a meeting, on February 25, with leaders of both parties urging passage of a reform bill.[70] The summit proved successful in shifting the political narrative away from the Massachusetts loss back to healthcare policy.[108]

    With Democrats having lost a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate but having already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes on December 24, the most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and pass the Senate’s bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, instead. Various health policy experts encouraged the House to pass the Senate version of the bill.[110] However, House Democrats were not happy with the content of the Senate bill and had expected to be able to negotiate changes in a House-Senate conference before passing a final bill.[106] With that option off the table, as any bill that emerged from conference that differed from the Senate bill would have to be passed in the Senate over another Republican filibuster, most House Democrats agreed to pass the Senate bill on condition that it be amended by a subsequent bill.[106] They drafted the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which could be passed via the reconciliation process.[107][111][112] Unlike rules under regular order, as per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. However, the process is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill like the ACA in the first place; such a bill would have inherently non-budgetary regulations.[113][114] Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats’ demands were budgetary: “these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they’re exactly the kinds of policies that are well-suited for reconciliation.”[111]

    The remaining obstacle was a pivotal group of pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak who were initially reluctant to support the bill. The group found the possibility of federal funding for abortion substantive enough to warrant opposition. The Senate bill had not included language that satisfied their abortion concerns, but they could not include additional such language in the reconciliation bill as it would be outside the scope of the process with its budgetary limits. Instead, President Obama issued Executive Order 13535, reaffirming the principles in the Hyde Amendment.[115] This concession won the support of Stupak and members of his group and assured passage of the bill.[112][116] The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.[117] The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.[118] Obama signed the ACA into law on March 23, 2010.[119] The amendment bill, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, was also passed by the House on March 21, by the Senate via reconciliation on March 25, and was signed by President Obama on March 30.

  24. Stephen,

    “We lost the republic yesterday… I mean it was mostly gone already, but the GOP final cavein is complete. I don’t know if you’ve sifted through the coverage, but they have made it so the president can essentially raise the statutory debt limit at will. Sure, they can symbolically vote to oppose it, but it’s meaningless since they need 2/3 the house to override the inevitable veto.

    Can you explain this part?

    I think your son has it backwards. The president can’t raise the statutory debt limit at will and then the congress has to override that with a 2/3’s vote. Congress has to pass a bill first, before the president can veto it and then congress override the veto…


    John Stewart said it best after the 2008 election: “You are confusing losing an election (in this case a battle over legislation) with tyranny (dictatorship)”.

    This “New Yorker” satire (unlabeled as such) is what passes for “Truth” these days.

    No it’s not what passes for “truth” these days. Andy Borowitz is a well-known comedian.

    What I would like to see is the Buck’s Charlie’s, Todd’s and Matt’s of the world rise up and say “shame” to crap like this.

    It’s comedy – don’t get your undies all bunched up. It’s a joke on Ted Cruz’s attitude. Have you seen the latest Borowitz Report? It’s equally funny:


    Gosh, maybe I should say “shame” to crap like this…

    • Never heard of Andy Borowitz before in my entire life. Andy Kaufman I knew, he was funny except at the end. Yea, you should be ashamed. Every bit of unattributable trash out there is damaging. It is especially damaging when people who circulate it do so because they read the “headline” and think it proves/ says something real. In the last week I have received two pieces of this trash masquerading as news. The person who sent them, is so far off the edge on the left, a former classmate of mine, that he never went beyond the headline. I’m a big fact checker when at all possible so I read through the article, saw no mention of “Satire” but looked at some of the other headlines which were bogus.

      I keep pointing out that if you got together 100 Obama voters and asked them Yea or Nay if Palin said she could see Russia from her porch, 95% would vote in the affirmative. That sir, is the power of propaganda masquerading as humor. People have been lynched because of rumors, this is no different.

      Regarding my son, I’ll forward your comment. In the interim, I put nothing past this president who has decided that once a law is passed he can tweak it. I also was listening today to a lecture on how continuing to run the government with CR’s short circuits the entire normal budget process, taking the power to introduce spending legislation out of the hands of the House. Have no idea of the degree of truth but makes sense to me.

      • Stephen,

        Yea, you should be ashamed.

        Are you “ashamed” of the right-wing stuff on the web? How about on SUFA?

        Every bit of unattributable trash out there is damaging.

        Yes, but that’s always been true – on the web and in print before the web. The advantage of the web is you can easily search and find other sources to confirm or deny things.

        It is especially damaging when people who circulate it do so because they read the “headline” and think it proves/ says something real.

        This has also always been true. Some people just jump on stuff and accept it as true. But real knowledge requires some effort and critical thinking. Some people just don’t want to do that.

        I keep pointing out that if you got together 100 Obama voters and asked them Yea or Nay if Palin said she could see Russia from her porch, 95% would vote in the affirmative.

        Right. And 95% of Romney supporters think Obama was born in Kenya, is a Muslim, and he’s trying to create a dictatorship. That’s the power of propaganda masquerading as fact.

        In the interim, I put nothing past this president…

        Then you’re just spreading more propaganda.

        And I’ll bet Palin really can see Russia from her porch…

        I also was listening today to a lecture on how continuing to run the government with CR’s short circuits the entire normal budget process, taking the power to introduce spending legislation out of the hands of the House. Have no idea of the degree of truth but makes sense to me.

        I do agree with this. But the fix is for the House and Senate to work together to create a budget that can pass both chambers. The Ryan budget the House GOP keeps pushing is a none-starter in the Senate. Both sides have to compromise to reach an agreement.

        In several posts you have talked about the “House of Representatives was elected by democratic means”. So was the Senate and the President. All three have to agree on a budget. Just because the House is under GOP control doesn’t give them special power or more consideration.

        • “I keep pointing out that if you got together 100 Obama voters and asked them Yea or Nay if Palin said she could see Russia from her porch, 95% would vote in the affirmative.”

          Actually, what she said was even more embarrassing … that attempt to masquerade her absolute ignorance about the question she was asked remains one of the most uncomfortable moments in political history … the idea that this was the 2nd in command choice by a major party says volumes about its desperation … the idea that she’s still viable (standing there with Ted Cruz) makes downright pathetic.

          Here the dimwit is explaining why she made a dimwit answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

          Yous should be happy they consolidated it to “I can see Russia from my house!”

          She’s an imbecile … and she was your party’s choice for 2nd in command.

          • Read her book..I know you won’t and you’ll have a smart alec answer to why you won’t read it. Chuck Todd, poster boy for the left of Sodom party, right at the end of this clip even understands…McCain and his henchmen had her muzzled from the start. I’ll take her and the people she could gather any day than the commies gathered in the White House today.

          • But a plagiarist was actually elected Vice President!

        • Just A Citizen says:


          This is false: Right. And 95% of Romney supporters think Obama was born in Kenya, is a Muslim, and he’s trying to create a dictatorship. That’s the power of propaganda masquerading as fact.

          Based on actual surveys the answer should be around 30%

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Based on actual surveys the answer should be around 30%

            Not according to Rachel Maddow 🙂

          • JAC,
            So…you thought I was serious about the 95%?? Good catch!! But I wouldn’t be too proud – 30% is still pretty pathetic…

            Just curious – did you “fact check” Stephen’s 95% claim? Or do we all just ASSUME it’s correct, because – you know – we’re pretty sure it is, right?

            It’s funny, Stephen says “I keep pointing out…” an obviously bullshit “fact,” while he’s complaining about his friends…who spew obviously bullshit “facts”…

            So who spewing the propaganda here?

            And who are you calling it on? Or not calling it on?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              You really need to grow a sense of humor.

              I know you think your role here is to attack those of us who post most of the information. That is fine and sometimes you catch some irrational arguments or mistakes.

              But it sure seems at time your on a crusade against individuals rather than just looking for factual discussion.

              Here is a good example. You use my comment as another opportunity to push your belief that I am not criticizing equally, without recognizing the implication of my comment.

              Do you realize I am admitting that 30% of Romey’s supporters believe the Bull Shit about Obama being born in Kenya?? Do you realize this is a sarcasm aimed at those 30%??

              • JAC,
                I need a sense of humor? Did you read the first sentence of my comment:

                So…you thought I was serious about the 95%??

                I guess I need to add more smiley faces into my posts? 😉

                Am I not being POLITICALLY CORRECT enough for you?? 😉

                But apparently Stephen is serious about this – cause he’s looking for 100 Obama voters to prove his point! I don’t know – maybe it’s just me – but I have a bad feeling about how this survey question will be frased… “hay dumbass, you voted for Obama. Do you think Palin can see Russia from her porch?”

                Maybe you should talk to Stephen about growing a sense of humor… 🙂

                I find most of the stuff posted here quite amusing. And I do enjoy taking some of the crazier ones down point by point – something you seem to enjoy doing quite often too…

                But it sure seems at time your on a crusade against individuals rather than just looking for factual discussion.

                No, not on a crusade against individuals. I’m trying to infuse FACTS into the DISCUSSIONS. But I rarely get facts in reply…or discussions…

                I get stuff like this:

                His line in the sand was symptomatic of his entire presidency. You have no clue what I am talking about when I refer to propaganda and you dodge the “satire” issue. Fast and Furious, The NSA, Bengazi says everything anyone needs to know about this guy.?

                I believe I did address the propaganda and “satire” issues, but let’s just skip too “Fast and Furious, The NSA, Bengazi”…cause no conversation here would be complete without them!! I’m not sure of the relationship, but of course I’m part of the “gallactically stupid”… and by the way – ANOTHER great nickname for me!! 😉 I don’t see you getting any great nicknames here! 😥

                Here is a good example. You use my comment as another opportunity to push your belief that I am not criticizing equally…

                Well yeah – cause it’s fun to yank your chain! And it true! 😉

                …without recognizing the implication of my comment.

                Now we have to review the third sentence of my comment:

                But I wouldn’t be too proud – 30% is still pretty pathetic…

                Whoa, it seems I did recognize the implication of your comment… 😉

                Do you realize I am admitting that 30% of Romey’s supporters believe the Bull Shit about Obama being born in Kenya??

                Yeah – and it’s probably the Tea Party 30%!

                Do you realize this is a sarcasm aimed at those 30%??

                It didn’t come off as sarcasm to me. You seemed pretty proud of yourself to be taking me down by pointing out the 95% wasn’t correct. See Also ” taking some of the crazier ones down point by point” above… 😉

                Maybe you need to work on YOUR sense of humor…and learn how to TYPE sarcasm…and learn how to STRATEGICALLY place smiley faces in your posts…cause hap-hazard doesn’t cut it…and realize this entire reply is SARCASM back at you… 😉

        • His line in the sand was symptomatic of his entire presidency. You have no clue what I am talking about when I refer to propaganda and you dodge the “satire” issue. Fast and Furious, The NSA, Bengazi says everything anyone needs to know about this guy.?

          Next time I get a chance, I will find 100 Obama voters and see if they think Palin said the line or know that Tina Fey did? OK? Make you happy?

          Haven’t done any scientific polling, but have asked a bunch of folks about it over the past 5 years and they all think, no, I take it back, they all know Palin said it.

  25. T-Ray,

    They added a diamond lane to a freeway here. 3.5 mi of road each way for a total of 7 miles. Three bridges had to be widened. It took 3 years! How did we ever build thousands of miles of interstate in 3 decades?

    It’s called proper funding. If you want things done faster, increase the funding.

    • When I see heavy equipment sitting idle on the job day after day, it’s not lack of money but lack of management. These projects have more than enough money.

      • Maybe the heavy equipment is sitting idle because there’s no money to pay someone to operate it?

        • BS, heavy equipment is not making money for the owner when not operating. If they are not needed for several days, it is worth the cost of hauling it to another site where can be actively used. Projects get dragged out because the original contracts are poorly written and do not have aggressive completion dates with penalties for late completion and bonuses for early completion. Delays occur because state inspectors do not show up on time to approve the progress; state engineers do a poor job of specifying the work so contractors must get corrected engineering specs or rip up the work done and redo it. There are a host of reasons and causes but lack of funds is not one of them. The project is funded from the start. There is no concern for the time value of money on the part of the government nor for the inconvenience to the public. Mostly it is poor project management either by the contractor or the state engineers.

          At the beginning of this project, they stripped of the top layer of asphalt off the old pavement and left the grooved and rough surface there until near the end when they finally repaved it. The asphalt they stripped off was 2 years old. The rough road was a significant hazard as caused steering problems and drift. The lanes were narrow with Jersey walls. Accidents and traffic jams were frequent. There was no concern for the safety, cost or inconvenience to the public.

          With all the rules and regulations we have now, it would take use a century to build the interstate highway system.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Some of it WOULD NOT be built at all.

            This is especially true for the non interstate US Highway system.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I am calling bs on that one.

      It seems to me that projects started taking longer once we went to multi year funding. Now municipalities and contractors can delay work to fill calendars.

      We have a local project, federally funded in part, that is not two years old. Should have taken no more than 7 months.

      • And I’ll call BS back at you.

        It seems to me that projects…are under-funded…

        • Just A Citizen says:


          What proof do you have that projects are underfunded??

          You can certainly argue over PROGRAM funding, but projects are pretty much funded at the requested level.

          Construction projects are funded with multi-year appropriation usually. There is no reason this money cannot be spent up front to shorten the contract period. Some projects,, that I personally bid on, take multiple years because of the contract terms. NOT because there is a lack of funding.

          • JAC, this may be part of the issue if the contracts are spread out over multiple years. It is still mismanagement of funds since the government entity is taking on too many jobs at once instead of reducing the number each year but keeping the total the same. It costs contractors money to move heavy equipment on and off jobs. So spreading the contract out can only increase the final costs not to mention the inconvenience to the public

            An example of this is if you had the money to reside your house and remodel a bathroom. Using the government’s method, you would during the first year strip the siding off the house and gut the bathroom. Then during the second year finish both. Properly planned one would do siding one year and the bathroom the next. Instead you lost the use of the bathroom for a year and your house sat through a winter with no siding.

            W have a company here in CA called CC Myers. When the state has an emergency, they call CC Myers. They plan the project with military precision including scheduling state inspectors and demanding they be there on time. They come in ahead of schedule and under budget with a minimum of disruption to the public.

  26. Yeee-hawwwwwwwwwwww!
    66% … The Fixer … An Inconvenient Truth, Part Deux … James … We were No. 1? … A Stella Short Story … Buffalo Stadium (pic/cousin Jason) … This Week in the NFL …

  27. Gman

    Since I still have to scroll around looking for comments…you going to have to explain this comment to me:

    No the Tea Party isn’t, they are NOT a political party either, and not likely to become one.

    I said the Tea Party is a collection of the millions in the background,,not any of the pols. Then you hit me with the comment above. Can you explain who the Tea Party is then? And why do you oppose them?

    • EDITED for the normal reasons. 🙄

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The TEA party is a grass roots effort organized by conservatives. It is not, as of yet, a legitimate political party, but part of the GOP. I do hope that changes some day, the GOP sucks. I don’t oppose them, I actually like them for what they stand for. I think that they would have a chance if they became a 3rd party, but not seeing the establishment allowing it. All the “blame the TEA party” stuff the last few weeks was hogwash, there is clear evidence the shutdown was planned well in advance. Is it possible the RINO’s wanted to make the TEA party folks look bad? I say yes, the GOP don’t want to lose money to them. As always, follow the money!

      I went out hunting this morning before the wind kicked up, saw 11 wild turkeys, 2 black squirrels, a grey squirrel and an 8 point buck, who never came in range. All before 8am! Then the wind came and screwed it all up. The leaves are beautiful, not quite at peak yet!

  28. Ha! The Gman for “truth” lies again!

  29. Watch the Tea Party closely. The tactics will change. The only good that came from Ted Cruz was the exposure of the fallacy of the ACA. His diatribe has been very effective from only one standpoint…the ACA. What he exposed is truth. Only the gallactically stupid will deny this.,,,,,but the proof is in the ACA. What the Tea Party needs to do is now shut up and let the Rinos (progressives in drag) and the Dems do their thing. When it falls apart as the ACA will undoubtedly do, then they can sit back and say “see….I told you so.” This progressive party is going to have to go into defensive mode because the economic impact of the ACA will be staggering and no amount of tax increase can save it.

    There needs to be no links to prove my point……I will suggest that each of you who think this ACA is great….ask somebody who is on it. Do your own REAL research and quit spouting off talking points of biased links.

    Better yet ask a veteran ( what their expense is going to be ) and better than that, ask someone who is 65 or older what they think of it and what they are finding. Even better than that….if you can get on a site somewhere (it is not impossible) run yourself through the exchange…..see if you can keep your doctor, lower your cost, and pick the insurer that you want. Just try it. Do not believe me……..just try it and then blog the TRUTH. Look at what just happened in Connecticut with United Health Care and the firing of over one thousand doctors in the Medicare program. So much for keeping your doctor. My father, age 95, lost all but one of his doctors…but we do not mind…we can afford private care. ( By the way, United Health Care is one of the GOVERNMENT Providers ). This is just the tip of the iceberg to coin a well used phrase.

    All I can say……just watch what happens and do not….DO NOT….rely on the government. Take care of yourself.

    So, Tea Party….keep doing what you are doing, but do it quietly now. You have managed, in one election, to get 10 % of the electorate…..keep going and try for another 5% this next time but do it quietly without fanfare. You have disrupted, rightly so, the status quo in the Republican party, and I, for one, am glad to see it.

    Side note: The progressives have always yelled about “impact” of the dollar to the poor, if you take the time, look at the Bronze, Silver, Gold plans. Check the impact. To do this, look past the premium and look at the services available for the price…..then look at your deductible……then look at your shared costs on top of that. ( HInt: THEY ARE DIFFERENT). Then look and really study the subsidies, subtract that and look at the premium. The progressives will not be surprised because they have known all along that the costs are going to be astronomical. BUT IT IS ALL THERE IN PRINT. Do it yourself.

    The Debt…..well,,,,that is another issue altogether. The US is very lucky right now because the dollar is still the best currency in the world. Those of you, like Mathius, better watch who is buying the treasuries now….the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world is…..the left hand printing money and the right hand selling the bonds back to themselves. Look closely at China and Japan (largest debt holders) and see what they are beginning to do…..but this is another argument later.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Sir.

      You missed perhaps the most important thing accomplished these past 12 months, culminating in the shutdown etc.

      The tactics and methods of the other side are clearly exposed. There is not reason to suffer from them ever again. Anticipate and counter.

      Of course this requires some smart leadership.

      • Leadership is something that has been lost since the 70’s. Reagan had it…..even Clinton had it his second term despite not being able to keep his unmentionable in his britches…..there are no statesmen left. Only politicians with a European fix…..sad.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Colonel, until we get rid of the two party system and a vast majority of the money involved in politics, nothing will ever change, no matter how many elections pass.

          • I 100% agree-the problem is that people have stopped believing in representative representation -they now believe in Party representation. That’s why people keep saying the party leaders shouldn’t of allowed this or allowed that.

    • Oh boy, this looks like FUN! So where do I start….

      What he exposed is truth. Only the gallactically stupid will deny this…

      I must be part of the “gallactically stupid”. First cause I don’t know what that means…and second because…what did Teddy “expose” about the ACA?

      What the Tea Party needs to do is now shut up and…

      Whoa, I’ll just stop right there and agree with that! The glitches in the exchanges will be fixed. It’s a complicated system and they should have tested it better, but the issues are fixable.

      The ACA will also need some fixes – it’s not perfect. And if the Tea Party will shut up (probably not, but I can DREAM!) , the RINOs and Dems will be able to improve it.

      When it falls apart as the ACA will undoubtedly do, then they can sit back and say “see….I told you so.”

      Are you making another prediction? I’ll add it to my list… 😉

      Sounds like your investment advice. Stay out of the markets – while they’re climbing to record highs…

      There needs to be no links to prove my point…

      Yes, I’m used to that…usually means there are no links to prove your point. 😉

      I will suggest that each of you who think this ACA is great….ask somebody who is on it.

      I have. I’ve also seen numerous stories in our local paper about people – some experienced problems on the exchange but eventually got thru – who are very pleased with the policies they bought.

      ask someone who is 65 or older what they think of it and what they are finding.

      I believe they would be on Medicare and don’t need to purchase policies thru the ACA…

      Look at what just happened in Connecticut with United Health Care and the firing of over one thousand doctors in the Medicare program.

      The doctors weren’t FIRED, they were dropped from UHC’s Medicare Advantage Network.

      Many speculate they were dropped for “profit” reasons…geez – almost sounds like capitalism…

      UHC’s response: United is “building a network of health care providers that we can collaborate with more closely to have the most positive impact on the quality of care for our members.”

      Doesn’t that sound like a good thing? Providing better care for their members?

      By the way, United Health Care is one of the GOVERNMENT Providers

      They’re NOT a GOVERNMENT Provider. They’re a private company that entered an agreement with AARP to market the AARP-branded Medicare Advantage Healthcare Insurance plan…

      And what does this have to do with the ACA?

      Side note: The progressives have always yelled about “impact” of the dollar to the poor, if you take the time, look at the Bronze, Silver, Gold plans. Check the impact. To do this, look past the premium and look at the services available for the price…..then look at your deductible……then look at your shared costs on top of that. ( HInt: THEY ARE DIFFERENT). Then look and really study the subsidies, subtract that and look at the premium. The progressives will not be surprised because they have known all along that the costs are going to be astronomical. BUT IT IS ALL THERE IN PRINT. Do it yourself.

      I just love it when you post stuff like this (not only this paragraph, but this entire comment). It sounds just factual enough to be true, but it’s just vague enough that no one knows what you’re talking about. No one on SUFA is going to try to follow this (or could follow it), they’ll all just “take your word for it” that ObamaCare is the big bad boggie-man that you make it out to be.

      If you’ve done all this research, why don’t you post the results? It shouldn’t be that difficult for a smart guy like you.

      Plan – Insurer – Premium – Deductible – Co-Pays – Max Out of Pocket – Network – Subsidies

      • Todd……Cruz exposed the problems and he has been very successful in getting people to ask more questions…..that was his true intent. He went into this battle for two reasons…..to expose the Rinos and to make people more aware….he knew he would not win.

        Please do not confuse me with glitches…..i could care less, however, glitches is a catch all term to use when people get caught.

        Now Todd, I did not give investment advice….I stated what we, as a family, are doing. The Dow Industrials are not a snap shot of the economy. Most economists know this….we decided that cash is King and got liquid and we have divested ourselves of stock and bond holdings….except for four or five blue chips that we got into back in the 50’s while I was still playing Cowboys and Indians. We have increased our dollar value threefold under Obama than we did under Bush. I do not give investment advice. The return we have had last year and this year outpaced the stock and bond market 16% net. I would say that is pretty good….and we are liquid.

        As to the exchanges…congrats. You are the ONLY one that I know, who knows someone that is pleased. As to age 65…. Sir, I am 65 and the ACA is very much alive for us and that includes increased deductibles that are not supposed to be there. But….ask around. Forget links on the internet……they are not entirely truthful.

        Ok, semantics, on being fired. I guess if your contract is not renewed, what would you call it.

        And United Health Care is a provider and so listed on the governments website. You are correct in that they are a private company, but being listed on a government site…..makes them complicit. They will reap a windfall. This has everything to do with the ACA.

        • Colonel,

          Please do not confuse me with glitches…

          I don’t get you confused with a glitch. I’m pretty sure you’re one-in-the-same! 😉 (see, that’s a FUNNY play on SEMANTICS!!)

          …i could care less, however, glitches is a catch all term to use when people get caught.

          I was referring to “glitches” in the HealthCare Exchange. Those things happen in large, complex systems. As I said, it should have been tested better, but they were under a hard deadline. The deadline on most major projects tends to “slide” to work out the “glitches”. And they only had 3.5 years, which might sound like a long time, but my current project started in 2008, and we’ve just released the first part (an option the HealthCare Exchange didn’t have – opening the exchanges in small parts to test it out in the “real world”).

          For the ACA in general – that’s still up in the air. The major parts are just starting.

          We have increased our dollar value threefold under Obama than we did under Bush.

          Yeah, me too – not quite three fold – but close. Sounds like Obama is doing capitalism better than Bush…what is it with Texans and all the problems they cause??? 😉

          As to the exchanges…congrats. You are the ONLY one that I know, who knows someone that is pleased.

          Are you looking for people who are pleased, or just those who are not? In the circles you run in, I wouldn’t think there are a lot of people affected by the ACA?

          As to age 65…. Sir, I am 65 and the ACA is very much alive for us and that includes increased deductibles that are not supposed to be there. But….ask around.

          The ACA does not affect people on Medicare. The premium and deductible changes happen every year and are not a result of the ACA.

          Forget links on the internet……they are not entirely truthful.

          So where do you get your information? The coffee shop? The gun shop?

          Ok, semantics, on being fired. I guess if your contract is not renewed, what would you call it.

          You’re the one playing with semantics. These are doctors who have their own private practice. They entered a contract with UHC to be part of UHC’s Medicare Advantage Network. UHC decided not to renew the contact with these doctors. The doctors still have their practice and can treat patients like always. Just not as a part of UHC’s Medicare Advantage Network.

          Isn’t that UHC’s right? Don’t you believe in free enterprise?

          And United Health Care is a provider and so listed on the governments website. You are correct in that they are a private company, but being listed on a government site…..makes them complicit. They will reap a windfall. This has everything to do with the ACA.

          You were part of the GOVERNMENT MILITARY, so that makes you complicit in all GOVERNMENT Military actions?

          So I guess Benghazi is your fault? (my day isn’t complete without a cheap-shot Benghazi reference!! 😉 But usually they’re directed at me, not from me!! 😉 )

          UHC’s Medicare Advantage Plan is part of Medicare, not the ACA. The changes to their network in Connecticut are not part of ACA.

          This has nothing to do with the ACA.

    • Dale Albrecht says:

      Dear Sir…I always enjoy reading your well thought out comments. I just received my annual retiree medical enrollment from the company I used to work for. I am not yet medicare age, but in my 60’s. Divorced these past 20 years, no dependents, no substance abuse issues etc. However, the bill to me totals $10680.00 per annum before any insurance kicks in. Required to buy maternity care and womens health, I am a male. This used to be optional. Also required to purchase, substance abuse plan. The 4 plan choices from a procedure point are identical. The only option is the deductibles and co-payments. As our illustrious HHS cabinet secretary says, “the ACA is just a car payment”, nice car. Imagine a family’s cost.

  30. This may be a stupid question but it’s been bugging me, so I’m gonna ask. Once Obamacare is implemented and it’s the law of the land that you have to have insurance. What happens if someone shows up at the emergency room without insurance-does the hospital still have to treat them?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      As far as I know YES.

      The LAW that requires treatment was not repealed to my knowledge.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I don’t believe the ACA changed that law. But the way the ACA fines hospitals with “too much” free care, it may become an issue.

  31. I’m being censored again! Yeah, liberty lovers!

    Here’s Sarah doing her thing again … poor Megan Kelly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/megyn-kelly-sarah-palin_n_4121732.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

  32. Nothing like sore losers …

    Nice to see the intellectuals in the GOP in full glorious bloom as they “discuss” the latest vote on Boehner’s FB page:

    “You get no support from me you GUTLESS PUSSY”

    “Big pile of poop”

    “You are a bitch punk RINO”

    Ah, the sweet taste of wingnut tears of impotent rage. Like fine wine….

  33. The gift that keeps on giving … “You can actually see Russia, from here, on land in Alaska.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    An insider view of how the shut down came to be and the games played behind closed doors.

    WARNING: You will need a shower after reading because you will feel sooo dirty.


  35. So, as it turns out, she said “You can actually see Russian, from land, here in Alaska.” … bada-boom, bada-bing, she’s a foreign policy expert. it was in response to Stephen’s assertion up above somewhere … go find it, JAC! Go got’em 🙂

  36. 30% … about the size of the teabagger party! 🙂

  37. From the original post up above … “As I have said the last few years…”
    Yes, G, and the world awaits you’re every utterance. Brilliant, Lad … just brilliant.

  38. What problem, G? Or are only you allowed to insult loser lefties, et al?

    I have to keep posting down here because I don’t have the option to reply anymore … hmmmm

    • gmanfortruth says:

      My reply ability is screwed up too. This has happened to me before and I’m not sure why this happens, but it’s not anything that I or anyone has done. The Recent Comments area is screwed up for some as well.

      Charlie, I don’t care if you rag on the Tea party or the GOP, I have simply stated your personal insults will not be permitted. If you can’t handle that, feel free to leave!

  39. @jac; And that expressed her breadth of foreign policy … RIGHT!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Sadly, it’s more than Obama has today, BWAHAHA

    • Just A Citizen says:


      If you want to discuss her foreign policy experience in the context of her Russian comment then put the ENTIRE thing in context. WHAT was Obama’s foreign policy expertise at the time??

      So compare Palin to Obama at the time. She was Governor of a State with Russian heritage and some Russian culture and where you can actually see Russia. Obama ????

      Palin is not stupid. Not the most articulate but not stupid. I also think that she now speaks often without preparation. Far to much “talking points” type responses, which further degrades her image.

      Her time has past. The only thing keeping her relevant is people like you.

  40. But G, this is supposed to be a Liberty Site … Stand up for the great Amer-i-cha … and you’re treating me like the so-called communist countries you claim you hate! How is that possible? Are you saying that you get to insult lefties and me, etc., but that we can return the favor? That’s so unfair … I don’t know if I can handle that … and besides, I enjoy it so much more when you ban me from commenting … it’s a defacto proof that your idea of liberty isn’t so different than the Nazi Party … which I kind of wonder about you and them anyway … 🙂

  41. Quite possibly true, I’m no fan of his … but he’s still whipping on the tea baggers … 2 elections plus …

  42. G wrote: “Charlie, let me see if I can make it just a little more simple, personal insults are not allowed. Get it?”

    Well, I’m not sure, I do, G. Does that include you? Does that mean you won’t personally insult people anymore?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Just curb your behior and don’t be concerned about anybody else’s business. If I screw up, I’ll be called out by Anita, FOR SURE!

      • Damn straight! Charlie…meet me behind the woodshed! I told you yesterday you were getting on my last nerve 😉

        I have the Recent Comments back ! Woot!

        Son’s Bday today..15 down..3 to go..making 33 total years being mom..no wonder I’m stressed out! Off to Sky Zone with 5 teens…

        Gman & Charlie….behave!

        • wait…I’m not that old yet… 28 years being mom by the time I’m done being responsible!:)

  43. I wonder how much of this is truth and how much is propaganda?
    10 Ways the Obamacare Train Wreck is Screwing the American People

    Soaring costs, assaults on privacy, and a nanny state gone wild

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    October 18, 2013

    10 Ways the Obamacare Train Wreck is Screwing the American People

    Obamacare is a big government boondoggle that will empower the nanny state to extort, intimidate, harass and surveil Americans like never before. Here are ten ways in which the Obamacare train wreck is screwing the American people.

    1) Research by the Manhattan Institute documents how average insurance rate premiums will rise 99 per cent for men and 62 per cent for women under Obamacare. In states like North Carolina, men face a whopping 305 per cent average rate hike, whereas women in Nebraska will be paying on average 237 per cent more. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office found that some Americans will face premium increases of 203% under Obamacare. The new law will increase health care spending by over $7000 for a typical family of four. When we asked Americans on Facebook and Twitter if their costs would be higher or lower under Obamacare, virtually all said they would be paying significantly more.

    2) The Obama administration claims that federal subsidies will counteract these rate hikes, but according to health care expert Avik Roy that’s simply not true. “You hear all these excuses from the [Obama] administration — that people are exaggerating the effect of the law,” Roy told CBS News. “But real people are getting notices from their insurers now. My blog is flooded with comments from people saying that they just got a huge premium hike,”

    3) The Obama administration lied to the American people when it claimed that existing health insurance plans could be kept. Obama’s promise that, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what,” was complete baloney. Americans across the country are being informedthat their existing health care plans are being canceled because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).” “The promise that you could keep your old policy, if you liked it, has proved illusory, writes Kathy Kristof. “My insurer, Kaiser Permanente, informed me in a glossy booklet that “At midnight on December 31, we will discontinue your current plan because it will not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.” My premium, the letter added, would go from $209 a month to $348, a 66.5 percent increase that will cost $1,668 annually.”

    4) Numerous analysts have concluded that the complete train wreck that was the launch of Healthcare.gov was in fact designed to fail in order to avoid a sudden backlash from Americans irate at the massive premium increases. Online database experts say the system wasn’t even tested before it was launched. “So far, the Affordable Care Act’s launch has been a failure. Not “troubled.” Not “glitchy.” A failure,” wrote the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein. Even CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said it should be delayed for a year. Only about 1 out of every 100 people who have attempted to enroll for a health care plan (if they could even access the website in the first place) have been successful.

    5) For those Americans who are able to enroll in Obamacare, they are putting their private information at the mercy of hackers and NSA spies. IP addresses, social security numbers, private bank account details, employer details, email addresses and passwords are all being uploaded to a shoddily designed database that is wide open to penetration, and the record can never be deleted. “Obamacare is the meta-level con of tricking Americans into thinking they’re signing up for free health insurance when, in reality, the website primarily exists to scrape personal financial details, passwords, emails and social security numbers from Americans who will later be targeted by the government itself,” writes Mike Adams.

    6) As a result of Obamacare, the general precedent has now been set, thanks to last year’s Supreme Court ruling, that the federal government has the power to force Americans to purchase private goods and services. What’s next? Will the government force Americans to buy a certain brand of “eco-friendly” vehicle only? Will the feds force Americans to buy “licenses” to watch television, as happens in the UK? The door has now been opened with potentially disastrous consequences for financial freedom and the cancerous growth of big government.

    7) Obamacare provides the IRS with a new justification to hunt down Americans deemed to be evading the new system. While claiming that the IRS will not target Americans who don’t sign up, the administration last year directed $500 million to the IRS “to help implement the president’s healthcare law.” With the IRS already claiming the power to prevent Americans who are merely under investigation from leaving the country, a House Ways and Means Committee study last year concluded that 16,500 new IRS agents would be hired to oversee the nearly two dozen tax levies imposed by Obamacare.

    8) Many small businesses are firing workers and scaling back working hours in a desperate effort to avoid exorbitant Obamacare costs. Whereas giant companies like McDonalds have received waivers, almost half of small businesses said they froze hiring as a result of the Affordable Care Act and one fifth said they had been forced to fire workers. Numerous companies announced last year that they would be laying off hundreds of employees. Many businesses are also reducing the number of hours their employees work in order to avoid Obamacare mandates. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Obamacare will be a disaster for the US economy, expanding the deficit by billions of dollars every year and “further spiraling America into an uncontrollable debt.”

    9) Other small businesses have chosen to close down entirely. A chiropractic clinic in Pennsylvania was forced to close down as a result of receiving reduced payments from insurance companies thanks to Obamacare. CiCi’s Pizza franchise owner Bob Westford pointed out that the additional $221,000 in taxes as a result of Obamacare was $78,000 more than the combined profit of his three restaurants, making the decision to shut up shop a no brainer.

    10) The only entities that seem to be benefiting from Obamacare are giant insurance companies, who have all seen their stock prices soarover the last three years. That’s unsurprising given that it was the insurance companies who wrote the foundational document for Obamacare in the first place.

  44. There are a lot of folks with some pretty crazy imaginations. This guy here has way too much time on his hands, but it’s entertaining anyway! http://endtimesforecaster.blogspot.com/2013/10/beware-11113-next-friday-crescent-moon.html

  45. Why I feel as if I’m being taken out to the woodshed, G … remember, it’s all about “liberty!”

    Anita (my love) has my back … right on!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      NOBODY should have to tolerate your personal insults, so it is Liberty, for the Greater Good of the site’s readers and posters 🙂

  46. @Kathy … I respond … what’s your excuse?

  47. Well, what is going to happen is that it will not work. It will have to be tweaked then tweaked again. it will cost a fortune and never work as intended. The law is not supposed to cover Illegals and yet the requirement is still that anyone showing up in an emergency has to be treated. So, it does not cover illegals but how does the hospital get re-imbursement? From us! So, in practice Obamacare covers illegals.

    Medicare for all its faults and Social Security eventually worked out most of the bugs. Problem was the programs were stretched, expanded, exploded to cover things and people they were never intended to do. that is why, without massive infusions of cash they will eventually go boom. Of course, Todd just says print more money.

    That’s the answer, print more money. Hillary-Booker in ’16, Yea!

  48. Nope, wrong again, G … I was thinking about Kathy.

  49. Well, how about single payer, Stephen? O’s big mistake (one of the many) was not pushing for single payer … but since pretty much any progressive act makes everyone here assume the end of the world is around the corner (how long has SUFA been in existence? Something tells me someone from the very first posts was probably predicting the end of America back then) … let it happen, tweak it (as you said) … do whatever needs to be done to get it to single payer … and in 20 years, nobody will know the difference.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Great idea! The Govt can’t even run itself right, can’t mange a website to sign people up for healthcare insurance and YOU want them in control of your healthcare! WOW! Just WOW!

    • I will make a deal with you Charlie….I offered this before but no one answers…. Maybe you will. Remember, you heard it here….D13 will support a single payer system, if…and ONLY if, everyone is on it…..EVERYONE…..including the POTUS, Congress…..everyone.

      I do not want special subsidies…..nothing at all……..the SAME system…..not this Obama crap where there are exemptions, special compensation, etc.

      Fair deal? I will step aside and support Pelosi, Reid, Obama if they drink the same water…..live under the same rules. Only as it applies to Health Services. Fair?

      • Colonel,

        I offered this before but no one answers.

        Yes, I did. A week ago, you said:

        In answer to your question, I would support, in full a single payer system, if everyone had exactly the same thing….everyone with no exceptions, no exemptions for anyone. That will never happen because the lawmakers and believers that push it……don’t want it for themselves.

        And I responded:

        Nothing in this world works out “exactly the same thing….everyone with no exceptions”, so you’ve created an “out” for yourself right from the start…

        Any questions?

  50. WOWEEEEE … It works everywhere else … and since all of you are so sure of our “exceptionalism” … I don’t see why it wouldn’t work here … glitches, G, can be fixed … it’s the brain cell depravity of the tea party (trying to repeal ACA 42 x’s) that is terminal 🙂

    • Glitches?……….double registrations, voter sign up, income requirements……..glitches?

    • Fraud, waste and abuse. We are not Europeans. We do not stand in line well. We have no patience. We cheat, we are the descendents of the scum of the earth, thrown out by every decent country.

      That’s why it won’t work.

      Clinton-Booker in ‘!6!

  51. This example is laughable, but often the ravings are more difficult to take down. Be on the lookout for this psychosis. Ask for evidence, and Liberals will cite feelings. Ask for facts, and they will change the subject. It’s all a game. Liberals think they can say anything, and Conservatives will run away like little girls. Watch what happens when you challenge a Liberal like Matthews. They’ll have a breakdown.
    Read more at http://lastresistance.com/3415/chris-matthews-mind-freak/#gOrTBjVIzFaP6RY8.99

    • Sound familiar?

    • One of my favorite songs to mock.

    • Happened to catch Hannity’s show last night. Haven’t watched him in ages. He had a mixed panel on and the show was actually very good. Without fail, when asked any questions, (like are you concerned about the out of control debt) the liberals would start out with “we need to have a conversation about it” “obama has tried but he’s always been obstructed” “think of the conditions he came into”. Then moving onto ocare, “it’s too early to tell”, “it isn’t o’s fault or Sebelius’ ’cause someone else messed it up”. Excuse, deflect, place blame elsewhere. That’s it. It’s all they got.

      And why or why, is everyone on one hand concerned about the racist, jihadist tea party and on the other hand claim there is nothing left to it? Huh?

      • Because they are afraid of it. It represents a large part of the Nixon’s silent majority. They have to demonize it to prevent more people from joining the movement. Just like they had to demonize Palin because she made too much common sense.

        But look at who the left reveres: Gaff Biden, Nationalize It Waters, Call Me Senator Boxer, Pass it to Read It Pelosi, Dick Wiener, …

        Obama promises to now move to fiscal discussion. But not that the preexisting condition is that it must be fair and balanced, his code words for more taxes and no cuts. So in the end we will not evaluate the efficacy of head start, EPA, DOE, etc.

  52. Today a man who has lived in 18 countries around the world, and witnessed collapses in many of these countries firsthand, spoke with King World News about the frightening reality of what is really happening in the United States. Keith Barron, who consults with major companies around the world and is responsible for one of the largest gold discoveries in the last quarter century, also spoke with KWN about what people should expect to see in the United States going forward, and it wasn’t pretty. Below is what Barron had to say.

    Barron: “Gold is soaring today as a result of the chaos which has been taking place in Washington, but mostly because of the Chinese downgrading the United States. The Chinese know that all the US did was defer this crisis and not solve anything.

    So, this morning one of the Chinese rating agencies downgraded the US. This may not be seen as significant as one of the major rating agencies downgrading US debt, such as Fitch or Moody’s, but it lit the gold market on fire and tanked the US dollar….

    “Remember, the Chinese have been quite vocal recently regarding the US debt crisis, and this is yet another way for them to use their immense and growing international influence to pressure the United States. The international community is definitely taking note of what is transpiring here.

    The Chinese know the US will be facing this crisis deadline no later than the 15th of January because that’s when the federal government runs out of money again. By the 7th of February, the debt ceiling also gets hit again. The reality is that the Chinese wants to make damn sure that the US does not damage their enormous foreign exchange holdings in the dollar. That would literally be the type of thing that can lead to war.

    America is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world, and what we are witnessing right now is absolutely pathetic. People in Washington saying things like, ‘We can’t run the government — we’ve run out of money.’ It’s unfathomable for the US, as the one country that prints the world’s reserve currency, to be having statements like that emanating out of Washington. This is truly unbelievable.

    But the real problem the US faces is that the $85 billion a month in stimulus is no longer making a dent in the economy. So the situation in the US is now becoming very dire, and foreign nations are not going to buy US debt with this type of continued chaos and uncertainty. These countries will want higher interest rates, but if the US pushes interest rates higher they are going to crash the economy.

    So this is truly a disaster that is now unfolding. And without all of the massive amounts of QE which have already been injected into the system, we would have already seen a depression like the US experienced in the 1930s. But the frightening reality is that the fundamental problems in America, and in American society, are simply too deep to fix.

    There is just too much personal, corporate, and government debt which has to be purged from the system somehow. But, unfortunately, before this process is completed it will be far more devastating and punishing to Americans. I hope the people and the nation itself will be able to survive and climb back from the depths of what will be increasing misery.”

  53. I wonder if anyone knows exactly who or what gets paid in the event of a govt shut down? I don’t think so…..if you don’t know, and you decide to google, do not go to Wiki, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Huffpo, or any of the news channels……they use buzz words like “default”…… Which, by the way, is crap. It is the same if the debt ceiling is capped or not increased…you will hear things like default and downgrading of credit…..etc. you hear things like it would throw the world into a massive shut down or depression……so, I wonder….those of you that subscribe to this alarmist theory….explain what you think might happen.

    JAC…….shhhhhh. Let them figure it out. Mathius may get it…..maybe. He will before any other lefties. I know Charlie doesn’t know, given his posits, unless he was just shit stirring.

    • I have a liberal friend that is an expert at reading headlines and thus knows all. Love to ask her deeper questions and watch her squirm. Koch comes out of her mouth often. Asked her how she feels about Soros once – she didn’t even know who he was. The MSM does a good job of keeping the willfully ignorant in that state.

  54. Just a thought — the ACA website is a software disaster. I remember great things being said about Obama’s database system for his election campaign. So if he can create a great system to get elected, why can’t he create a similarly great system for the ACA? Is it live or is it Memorex?

  55. Just A Citizen says:

    The difference between Good Islam and Bad Islam increasingly appears to be the difference between what the Western Converts say it is vs what the Original Muslims say it is.


  56. Here ya go Charlie….this what you want?

    England’s National Health Services Offers Future Vision of ObamaCare

    May 8, 2013

    For those curious what the future of the American health care system will look like after the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”), the British National Health Service (NHS) provides a good reference point. The NHS provides free or heavily subsidized care to all registered residents. The number of emerging problems with the British health care system suggests that the Affordable Care Act may fall short of its goal of reducing the cost of health care, says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute.

    From 2005 to 2012, British hospital emergency room visits rose from 18 million to 22 million — a 22 percent increase in only 7 years, a period during which the population grew by only 4 percent.
    This should concern supporters of ObamaCare who claim the health care mandate will reduce the number of hospital emergency room visits and lower the national cost of health care.
    The increased visits in Britain are due to fewer physicians, an aging population and increased patient demand, all problems America is currently facing.
    Like complaints about the Canadian system, patients in the NHS can expect long waits for non-emergency appointments and surgeries, which are sometimes rescheduled abruptly because of a lack of the correct medical equipment. Family doctors, known as general practitioners, are typically booked up weeks in advance and reserve only a few slots every day for emergencies.

    General practitioners also ration specialist services so that without a referral, no specialist appointment can be obtained, a practice that has led to wrongful death.
    ObamaCare will not lower emergency room visits because many people will choose to stay uninsured, thereby incurring a tax and saving the costs of ObamaCare-mandated insurance.
    Others who can’t afford insurance will receive federal subsidies but anyone who has a family member who accepts single coverage from his or her employer will no longer be eligible for the subsidies, which decreases the use of preventive care and increases emergency room visits.
    In Britain, insurance companies and private hospitals have become a popular alternative for many patients seeking to avoid the long lines of the NHS. Concierge medical services and walk-in clinics are already popular in the United States and likely to expand as lengthy waits develop for doctors and specialists as ObamaCare crowds the health care system.

    Source: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, “For an ObamaCare Preview, Look to England,” Real Clear Markets, April 30, 2013.

  57. Independent providers are benefitting from the growing number of patients who are choosing to pay for their own care after having treatment delayed or denied altogether by an NHS primary care trust (PCT).

    In a survey of 101 influential industry figures – including chief executives, investors and advisers – 34% said budgetary pressure in the NHS had led to increased demand for private healthcare.

    While the reasons were not given, experts said the NHS’s need to cut costs was prompting patients to fund their own hip or knee replacement, hernia repair or cataract removal. “We are certainly picking up that some patients are being asked to wait longer than they would have expected and are therefore deciding to pay for themselves rather than wait,” said David Worskett, chief executive of the NHS Partners Network, which represents more than 30 firms – both for-profit and not-for-profit – that work with the NHS.

    Worskett said “misguided” decisions of many PCTs to force patients to wait many months for treatment, often until the next financial year, lay behind the growing trend. Many PCTs are rationing access to care as the NHS struggles to adjust to a 0.1% annual increase in its budget, after years of big rises, and the need to make £20bn of efficiency savings by 2015.

    The trend is a boost for a UK private health market which that was hit hard by the downturn in 2008 and for which recovery since has lagged behind that seen elsewhere in Europe, according to Credit Suisse. It is contained in HealthInvestor magazine’s annual study of the industry’s fortunes in conjunction with law firm Nabarro, called The Healthcare Industry Barometer 2011, which is published today.

    Mark Varian, of Ramsay Healthcare, which has more than 3,500 staff and runs 34 hospitals and treatment centres, said business was growing because of tighter NHS budgets. Hospital trusts unable to treat patients within the 18-week deadline set by the government have been paying Ramsay to treat NHS backlogs. “They are using us as an overflow. [NHS] Waiting lists are extending and of course some hospital trusts are talking to us about helping them achieve their 18-week target,” Varian said. All 34 of their facilities in England have signed contracts since June with hospital trusts, and growing numbers of trusts are doing the same in order to get people treated on time, he said.

    The expansion of patients’ right to choose where they are treated, between NHS and private centres, was another reason for Ramsay seeing more state-funded patients. Private firms receive only the same amount as an NHS hospital, called the “tariff”, when they reach such agreements, whereas usually prices in the commercial sector are higher.

    Private acute healthcare in the UK is worth an estimated £7.2bn, with independent hospitals contributing £5.1bn of that, said HealthInvestor’s editor-in-chief Vernon Baxter.

    But the survey also reveals that 76% of those questioned agreed or strongly agreed that “continued political uncertainty around the fate of [health secretary] Andrew Lansley’s reforms is now harming companies active in this sector. Over 80% believe the public and medical backlash against Lansley’s NHS shake-up has prompted many investors to leave the sector because of the risks involved.

    There is deep disappointment that the coalition’s NHS policies have not produced more opportunities for the sector. Only 22% of industry figures agree that “the coalition has supported the recovery of the UK independent healthcare market”, while 39% disagree. However, while 42% are not optimistic that the coalition will accelerate the private sector’s role in the NHS, 55% are quite or very optimistic.

    But 55% think that handing control of £60bn of the NHS budget to GP-led clinical commissioning groups in 2013 will ultimately produce a more plural and competitive market in healthcare.

    “The current lack of optimism in the healthcare industry is seen by some as a natural consequence of high expectations for rapid reform a year ago being dashed by current political uncertainty,” said Warren Taylor, head of healthcare at Nabarro.

    “However, for those taking a longer term view, there’s much to merit cautious optimism. The direction of NHS reforms under the coalition remains positive for the sector.”

    • If the system has to continue for political reasons and they are there, then private care must be outlawed. There is no other way. I wonder what the Soviet system looked like and the current Russian system. Actually, here is a snippet.


      Always keep in mind that the Russians are not Western Europe and are a special case. They have no experience with political freedom and their economy as well as their retirement system totally collapsed in 1991. Their elderly could not even afford dog food. So, in many ways, they are starting from scratch. Does seem Putin is looking out for his folks though.

  58. Woke up this morning with an interesting thought for those who think that spending can just continue. It starts with a question really. “Were the dot com, tech and housing bubbles real?”

    If they were, if you acknowledge that they were real, we are now in a government bubble.

    The train of thought went back to the early ’00’s I was sitting around with my real estate buddies watching something in the purchase/mortgage market akin to the Freddie/Fannie collapse of “89. All of us agreed we were watching a replay and thought Armageddon was right around the corner. Well, six more years passed before it happened. Many, even myself thought that despite the logic of our position, perhaps we were wrong somehow. Our model was broken.

    One day the world woke up. The “top” was reached. people looked at what was offered and the prices being asked and the veil, as they say, was lifted from their eyes. Suddenly, offers were far below asking price. Suddenly mortgages could not be re-fied because there was no value to sustain them. With the cash cut off, the bottom fell out.

    Certainly, at the time, Wall Street and the banks were big players. The derivative bs was built on smoke and mirrors and flew in the face of reality and history. The Government was complicit in not reigning in excesses, the D’s just as guilty, if not more so than the R’s. The R’s interested in perhaps making bankers happy. the D’s in making the same bankers happy (Plus Goldman Sacks who own the world and make the Koch brothers look like pikers) as well as making their base happy by suddenly creating home ownership for people who never should have been allowed within fifty feet of a credit card.

    Lastly, the guilty party? The press and main stream media who abysmally failed in their public duty to ask questions and just went along for the ride.

    Anybody besides me see any parallels these days? Also, to defend those like Black Flag who predicted the meltdown would start on a certain day at a certain time. Nope, you are still right but I too, in my own field predicted the RE meltdown in ’01 and it happened six years later! Don’t predict, remember there are too many variables. The emperor had clothes, startlingly beautiful, exquisitely tailored clothes until one little boy yelled, “He’s naked”. Once that happens, the goose is cooked.

    Clinton-Booker in ’16! Let them own it.

  59. I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is unless you have a single payer system in which everyone is covered, you’re probably not going to reach every single person. (Barack Obama, July 22, 2009.)

    Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs. In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services.

    D13 asks Todd. Do you agree with this definition? Yes/No

    All Americans would receive comprehensive medical benefits under single payer. Coverage would include all medically necessary services, including rehabilitative, long-term, and home care; mental health care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies; and preventive and public health measures. Care would be based on need, not on ability to pay.

    D13 asks Todd: do you agree with this statement? Yes/No

    Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.

    Doctors would have three options for payment: fee-for-service, salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group practices or HMOs. Fees would be negotiated between a representative of the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society) and a state payment board. In most cases, government would serve as administrator, not employer.

    D13 asks Todd: do you agree with this statement? Yes/No

    The program would be federally financed and administered by a single public insurer at the state or regional level.

    D13 asks Todd: Do you agree with this statement? Yes/No

    Each person, regardless of ability to pay would receive high-quality, comprehensive medical care, and the free choice of doctors and hospitals. Individuals would receive no bills, and copayment and deductibles would be eliminated. Most people would pay less overall for health care than they pay now.

    D13 asks Todd: Do you agree with this statement? Yes/ No

    The massive numbers of administrative personnel needed to handle itemized billing to thousands of private insurance plans would no longer be needed. A negotiated “global budget” would cover operating expenses. Budgets for capital would be allocated separately based on health care priorities. Hospitals would no longer close because of unpaid bills.

    D13 asks Todd: do you agree with this statement? Yes/No

    The need for private insurance would be eliminated.

    D13 asks Todd: do you agree with this statement? Yes/No

    Single payer would be the simplest and most efficient health care plan that Congress could implement.

    D13 asks Todd: Do you agree with this statement? Yes/No

    Now, all of the questions asked are very simple yes or no questions. The statements I asked you to respond to are not mine but a definition of what a single payer system is as defined by several bills sitting up in Washington as we speak. HR 676 and HR 1200, to be specific, on two bills that relate to the financing of a single payer system.

    A couple of more questions. If the single payer system is so great and was Obama’s great dream……..where is it? He had a veto proof House and Congress for two years and got the ACA passed with no problems…….why not the single payer issue?

    D13’s reasoning is….1) the big boys don’t want it or it would be there, 2) the insurance companies who are tremendous donors to Obama did not want it because they stand to reap billions from the ACA, 3) the unions did not want it because they lose their Cadillac plans, that will end up exempt”……… So where is the single payer system?

    If you answered yes to all of the questions above, then you are a single payer supporter. Any other answer……renders all you say as moot.

    I will answer yes to all of the above…..no exceptions. You’re argument that I leave an opening is quite correct…..unless everybody is on it……then do away with it. If it is good enough for joe Shmuck….it is good enough for everyone.

    • @ the Colonel….now THAT’S what I call an answer!

      How about it, Todd?


      • @ the Colonel….now THAT’S what I call an answer!

        How about it, Todd?

        First of all Smurf, I didn’t ask any questions, so this is not an “answer”. It’s a statement by the Colonel.

        Second, I gave my answers.

        So what are your answers? Are you going to contribute? Or are you just a PATSY CHEERLEADER for the right?

        • Don’t mind him Murf, he forgot to take his PMS pill. 🙄

          • Anita,
            PMS pill?? ME?? I think you have me confused with G(wo)man… 😉

            Here’s some “feel good” stuff for you – and all of SUFA. Everyone always seem so negative and down on things – and quite the Drama Queens lately! (I’ve been saving that one!!)

            Come on – Think Positive and things will work out just fine!!

            Thinking Positively Can Greatly Impact Your Success

            Here’s a question: If everything worked out perfectly in your life, what would you be doing in ten years? That query invites us to dream a little, to consider what really matters to us and how that might guide our lives. Pursuing this simple exercise encourages openness to new possibilities.

            “Talking about your positive goals and dreams activates brain centers that open you up to new possibilities. But if you change the conversation to what you should do to fix yourself, it closes you down,” says Richard Boyatzis, a psychologist at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve (and a friend and colleague since we met in graduate school).

            His research has explored these contrasting effects in coaching.

            Boyatzis and colleagues scanned the brains of college students being interviewed. For some, the interview focused on positives like that question about what they’d love to be doing in ten years, and what they hoped to gain from their college years. The brain scans revealed that during the positively focused interviews there was greater activity in the brain’s reward circuitry and areas for good feeling and happy memories. Think of this as a neural signature of the openness we feel when we are inspired by a vision.

            For others the focus was more negative: how demanding they found their schedule and their assignments, difficulties making friends and fears about their performance. As the students wrestled with the more negative questions their brain activated areas generated anxiety, mental conflict, sadness.

            A focus on our strengths, Boyatzis argues, urges us toward a desired future, and stimulates openness to new ideas, people, and plans. In contrast, spotlighting our weaknesses elicits a defensive sense of obligation and guilt, closing us down to.

            The positive lens keeps the joy in practice and learning – the reason even the most seasoned athletes and performers still enjoy rehearsing their moves. “You need the negative focus to survive, but a positive one to thrive,” says Boyatzis. “You need both, but in the right ratio.”

            Boyatzis makes the case that this positivity bias applies as well to coaching – whether by a teacher, parent, boss, or an executive coach. A conversation that starts with a person’s dreams and hopes can lead to a learning “path” – a joyful series of activities leading to that vision. This conversation might extract some concrete goals from the general vision, then look at what it would take to accomplish those goals – and what capacities we might want to work on improving to get there.

            That contrasts with a more common approach that focuses on a person’s weaknesses – whether bad grades or missing quarterly targets – and what to do to remedy them. The conversation focuses us on what’s wrong with us – our failings and what we have to do to “fix” ourselves – and all the feelings of guilt, fear and the like that go along. One of the worst versions of this approach: when parents punish a child for bad grades until he improves – the anxiety of being punished actually hampers the child’s prefrontal cortex while trying to concentrate and learn, creating further impediment to improvement.

            In the courses he teaches at Case for MBA students and mid-career executives, Boyatzis has been applying dreams-first coaching for many years. To be sure, dreams alone are not enough: you have to practice the new behavior at every naturally occurring opportunity. In a given day that might mean anything from zero to a dozen chances to give the routine you’re trying to master a trial. Those moments add up.

            One manager, an executive MBA student, wanted to build better relationships. “He had an engineering background,” Boyatzis told me. “Give him a task and all he saw was the task, not the people he worked with to get it done.”
            So his learning plan became “spend time thinking about how the other person feels.” To get regular, low-risk opportunities for this practice outside his work and the habits he had there, he helped coach his son’s soccer team and tried to focus on the player’s feelings while he coached.

            To get data on how well this works, Boyatzis does systematic ratings of those going through the course. Co-workers or others who know them well anonymously rate the students on dozen of specific behaviors that display one or another of the intelligence competencies typical of high-performers (for example: “Understands others by listening attentively.”). Then he tracks the students down years later, and has them rated again by those who now work with them.

            “By now we’ve done 26 separate longitudinal studies, tracking people down wherever they work now,” Boyatzis tells me. “We’ve found that the improvements students make in their first round hold up as long as seven years later.”

            • Couldn’t care less about these kind of psych( iatric, ological ) studies. Too much studying people’s minds anymore. Just deal with people’s actions. All these psych type people are laughing all the way to the bank.

              I’ll agree that you’re not the only one around here who forgot their meds. 😉

    • Colonel,


      A couple of more questions. If the single payer system is so great and was Obama’s great dream…where is it?

      Congress didn’t pass it, so it doesn’t exist…

      He had a veto proof House and Congress for two years…

      He NEVER had veto proof House and Senate. You’ve said this many times – and it’s not true.

      …and got the ACA passed with no problems…

      No problems? Where were you in 2009 and 2010? Several people here in SUFA would disagree with your “no problems” characterization…

      …why not the single payer issue?

      Again – because Congress didn’t pass it.

      D13′s reasoning is….1) the big boys don’t want it or it would be there, 2) the insurance companies who are tremendous donors to Obama did not want it because they stand to reap billions from the ACA, 3) the unions did not want it because they lose their Cadillac plans, that will end up exempt”……… So where is the single payer system?

      For a third time – because Congress didn’t pass it.

      If you answered yes to all of the questions above, then you are a single payer supporter. Any other answer……renders all you say as moot.

      No it doesn’t. Things are only that BLACK & WHITE to you (and a “few” others here at SUFA). Just But not for everyone else…

      I will answer yes to all of the above…..no exceptions. You’re argument that I leave an opening is quite correct…..unless everybody is on it……then do away with it. If it is good enough for joe Shmuck….it is good enough for everyone.

      So, a couple questions for you Colonel:

      Does the EVERYONE you refer to, include the WEALTHY? YES/NO?

      No one can go outside the system and pay for their own special healthcare, right? YES/NO?

      NO EXCEPTIONS – right? YES/NO?

  60. An interesting take from South of the border.


    I’ll trade two Charlies and one Todd for this guy!

    • The American dream alive and well in Brazil! Being smothered out of existence here.

      Course you know Stephan per many dems. this is anecdotal evidence, thus it should be ignored. Well unless the anecdotal evidence happens to be sitting next to the President or his lovely wife.

      • Screw the ancedotals! I knows it when I sees it.

        Looking at the screwy stock market last week and have decided Oh, oh. Every two bit genius is in because there is no money in anything else. This will be one hell of an adjustment if interest rates rise.

        Am I the only person who sees this?

    • Ha! Well imagine that. Didn’t realize Brazil was such a leftist cesspool.

  61. WOW, I mean really this is unbelievable. How does one make these two very different ideas exist in one mind without you’re head exploding from extreme contradiction?

    Two Redfords in One
    “I guess movements have to be extreme to some degree.”

    Ed Driscoll

    October 18, 2013 – 5:00 pm
    Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size

    Past performance is no guarantee of future results:

    “I think that no matter what you would propose they would go against it because their determination was to destroy this person,” Redford said of the “minority faction” in Washington versus President Obama.

    “Well, I think whatever idea I would have had to make things work just wouldn’t have been accepted by this minority faction,” Redford responded when asked by CNN’s Nischelle Turner for his “advice” for Democrats and Republicans to work together. “They wanted, if it meant destroying the government, anything to keep him [Obama] from succeeding.”

    — Robert Redford today on CNN.

    George Stephanopoulos was so enthusiastic towards Robert Redford and his sympathetic new film about an ex-1960s radical that the actor enthused, “You ought to get on the marketing team!” The aging actor/director appeared on Tuesday’s Good Morning America and endorsed the violent actions of protest groups. Reminiscing on his own past, the liberal Hollywood star recounted, “When I was younger, I was very much aware of the movement. I was more than sympathetic, I was probably empathetic because I believed it was time for a change.”R

    After Stephanopoulos wondered, “Even when you read about bombings,” Redford responded, “All of it. I knew that it was extreme and I guess movements have to be extreme to some degree.

    — Robert Redford in April, promoting his recent pro-terrorism film The Company You Keep, with ex-Bill Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America.

    Robert Redford was in Havana last month, not to score cigars but to screen his The Motorcycle Diaries for Cuban President Fidel Castro. The Motorcycle Diaries, which Redford produced, is based on the diaries Guevara wrote on a nine-month motorcycle trip through South America in 1952. Directed by Brazilian Walter Salles, it stars Gael Garcia Bernal (who moviegoers will remember from Y Tu Mama Tambien).

    Guevara’s widow, Aleida March, attended the screening along with Guevara’s son and two daughters. The movie had its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in January, where it received a standing ovation.


    • They don’t even see the conflict and hypocrisy. BTW – did you see how scary Redford looked? Might be the vision of walking dead.

  62. Todd, I will have to disagree with you vehemently on veto proof congress. He had it…lock, stock, and crook. Why do you suppose he did not have it?

    However, your answers, while true, still sidestepped the point I am trying to make. Where is the vaunted single payer system? The ACA is a sham…..it benefits the rich, which you seem to sidestep, it benefits the elite, which you seem to sidestep……it slams the healthy down to earth…..the financing is rabid. You and several others want a single payer system but you want exceptions to it. And it is BLACK and WHITE. It is actually pretty simple. To answer because Congress did not pass it is folly. WHY did they not pass it. I say it is for the very reasons I listed. What are your suggestions? Why are you drum beating the ACA? To claim it is a good starting point does not wash because it sets up the elite, yet again. And, if the reports I am hearing and reading from your own sources, show there will still be 30 million without coverage. If this is true, where did we gain anything?

    Why can’t it be the same…..there is still no answer. And there never will be an answer because there will be no single payer system. Those statements and cuts were directly from the proposals and bills in Congress this very day.

    • Todd, I will have to disagree with you vehemently on veto proof congress. He had it…lock, stock, and crook. Why do you suppose he did not have it?

      Over-riding a veto would require 67 Senators and 292 House Representatives. The Dems never had either.

      But why would that matter? Why would Obama veto something the Dems passed in Congress?

      I don’t understand how “veto proof” even matters in this?

      • It only matters, that if there were a true single payer system that was supported by the Dems….they had the votes to pass a single payer system but chose not to…..Veto proof was my way of saying…..that there would have been no veto by the POTUS. It would have not been necessary. That is what I meant, if the Dems passed a single payer system.

        The fact that they did not is proof to me that they do not actually want universal nor single payer healthcare. I ask…..why not? They ran on it.

        • Colonel,

          It only matters, that if there were a true single payer system that was supported by the Dems….they had the votes to pass a single payer system but chose not to

          No. The Clinton’s tried to pass single-payer in the 1990’s and got SLAMMED for it. The Dems were not interested in repeated that.

          Veto proof was my way of saying…..that there would have been no veto by the POTUS. It would have not been necessary. That is what I meant, if the Dems passed a single payer system.

          I still don’t understand the veto-proof part?

          Are you saying that if Congress had passed single-payer healthcare, Obama would have vetoed it? And the Dems had the votes in Congress to over-ride that veto?

          1. If Congress had passed single-payer healthcare, Obama would have vetoed SIGNED IT so fast the pen would have exploded!

          2. If Congress had passed single-payer healthcare and Obama did vetoed it, the Dems DID NOT have the votes to over-ride that veto.

          Over-riding a veto requires 67 Senators and 292 House Representatives. The Dems never had either.

          The fact that they did not is proof to me that they do not actually want universal nor single payer healthcare. I ask…..why not? They ran on it.

          No – the Dems did not run on single-payer. The ran on healthcare reform. Someone is goading you into making a bigger boogie-man out of Obama that actually exists…

          And remember – think HAPPY THOUGHTS!

          • Maybe the best way to ask the question -Is why didn’t they have the votes to pass single payer ?

            • VH,
              Because there wasn’t support for it? It was too big of a change all at once? I don’t know exactly.

              So they choose a Conservative idea of the individual mandate, thinking at least some Conservatives would support it…

              But the Conservatives decided not too – for some reason…why do you think that is?

              • Vibes Todd.You will get a thousand different answers to your question. In the end the politicians felt heat from everywhere. Don’t forget about the town halls that broke out into fights. They were giving billions away daily before ACA was even passed. Then they want to shove another couple trillion down our throats..in a big hurry..in the dead of night..thousands of pages that nobody read…and you wonder why conservatives wanted to oppose it? It smelled rotten from the start.

              • I don’t know why they stopped supporting it-I don’t know that they all did support it-As far as I know, they never wrote it up in a bill and tried to force it down the Countries throat. I do know that I don’t support it and I doubt very many conservatives would-now politicians-who the hell knows.

                I believe that the reason they didn’t go after a single payer system or nationalized healthcare is that they didn’t have 100% support from democrats.

              • http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

                Todd, I found this to be interesting, but boy is it long.

                I did forget that Obama was against the mandate during the primaries. Kept telling Hillary it was wrong to force people to buy something they couldn’t afford.

              • And I want you to know, when that alarm clock goes off in the morning and I want to break it-I’m blaming you 🙂

          • Todd….Obama would have had that exploding pen….no question. He would have signed it…hence no veto..hence veto proof……I did not mean that they did not have the votes to override, I was trying to be glib in that a veto vote would NOT have been necessary. However, what you are also confirming is that the Dems did not have the votes for even an up and down vote on single payer….and with that I agree. They were tied to the status quo too much.

            • Geez – that’s makes no sense at all…


              Todd, I will have to disagree with you vehemently on veto proof congress. He had it…lock, stock, and crook. Why do you suppose he did not have it?

              Doesn’t sound to “glib” to me…


              I did not mean that they did not have the votes to override

              When you encounter a double negative, you remove both to clarify. So you’re saying:

              I did not mean that they did not have the votes to override

              Is this what you meant? Or can you clarify again? How about in English this time?

              Thanks for wasting so much time…

              They were tied to the status quo too much.

              Or maybe the GOP, who fought healthcare reform tooth-n-nail, was tied to the status quo?

              • Now Todd really-this is wanting to bring some truth into the site-this isn’t even tit for tat-it’s just being hard to get along with. Now I’m going to bed.

    • To answer the rest of your comments:

      However, your answers, while true, still sidestepped the point I am trying to make. Where is the vaunted single payer system?

      There wasn’t support in Congress to pass it. It really wasn’t on the table from the start. I don’t remember why. Could you explain why you’re so obsessed with this?

      …it benefits the rich, which you seem to sidestep, it benefits the elite, which you seem to sidestep…

      When have I sidestepped this? It really hasn’t come up until now? Everything benefits the rich/elite. You know that – you’re part of the rich/elite. What’s your problem with that?

      …it slams the healthy down to earth…

      I don’t understand. Can you explain this?

      You and several others want a single payer system but you want exceptions to it.

      I’ve never said I want exceptions. I’ve said it will be difficult – if not impossible – to implement a system that is exactly the same for everyone.

      To answer because Congress did not pass it is folly. WHY did they not pass it. I say it is for the very reasons I listed.

      Ok. So the “big boys”, insurance companies, and unions didn’t want it. Like usual, the rich/elite/powerful get what they want. Again – what about that surprises you?

      You’re really on your “War Horse” with this today. 🙂

      You should read this article I posted to Anita this morning:


      You need to think and interact more positively and you’ll get better results. Otherwise, all this stress and anger are going to kill you.

      • I am obsessed with this because, you and others, constantly harp on or ask about a single payer system. You, Buck, Mathius, Charlie….all want one. So, my question is, if a single payer system is so great and that is what the progressives want…..where is it. They could have instituted one instead of the ACA.

        I bring up the wealthy because the progressives always bring up the wealthy saying how corrupt the system is and how it favors the wealthy and that health care is for the rich and the poor get hammered. But the ACA, benefits the wealthy and does not really help the poor. With the ACA, you have huge profits that are going to be realized by the largest corporations. Insurance companies, politicians….etc are going to gain huge profits and benefits. The poor? They have not seen what the exchanges are going to do to them.

        You asked me to explain what I meant by slammed to the earth. The ACA is smoke and mirrors and here is why. I know this first hand because I just turned 65 and have to address medicare/medicaid parts A and B as it pertains to me. My current private insurance changes at age 65…so does Tricare…..and so does the VA. In exploring the options, I found that the Bronze, Silver, and Gold plans that are offered in the exchanges have not been fully explained to the general population. For example, in business, we operate on a cash flow net/net basis. The less wealthy (poor) also operate on a cash basis. What the plans do not tell you is that the net/net to the poor, their cash outlay, increases significantly. For example, the subsidies that are available to everyone, depending upon income may lower the premium for health insurance, but the deductibles increase with everyone and so does the co pay. Everyone has a co pay where in the past some did not. In addition, if you have to pay for something that your policy does not cover, it will not go to your deductible. My own daughter, age 36, family of four, with a $85,000 per year income, in the exchanges, will have their health insurance premium fall from $640 per month to $420 per month. Their total out of pocket, however, will increase from $1500 to $8,000 and their co pay will be 80% on ALL doctors and hospital visits…and that is in the Bronze plan. It gets higher in the Silver and Gold plans. A family of four at the poverty level, will have premium reduction, as promised, but their co pay increases as well as their total deductible. On a net/net…..they lose. Everybody loses…..even those with no insurance because I guarantee you that the county hospitals will do away with their plans for the poor and say….go to the exchanges.

        Those that are healthy and do not want insurance are being forced into the exchanges and really high rates according to income. It appears that the ACA is dependent upon these types of people. This is what I meant by being slammed as well.It is not fair to them.

        You said you never asked for exceptions, and to that, let me state that no, YOU have never asked but the very nature of the ACA creates exceptions for the few, as I have enumerated already.

        Todd, it has long been the mantra of the progressive party to want universal health care. Everyone of you has asked the question about single payer system but when I looked at the definition of single payer, it is defined as I already told you and you answered. Those are actual definitions from the bills already submitted and I even referenced some of the companion bills that went with it. Those were not MY statements, that you answered. They were quoted verbatim from the definition of the single payer system.

        I will be for a single payer system if it means that everyone….and I mean EVERYONE plays by the same rules exactly the same. I ask, why cannot that be accomplished? You say it is not black and white and I disagree. Why cannot….we all play by the same rules?

        **** WE means, no exceptions. You, me, the POTUS, the filthy rich, the poorest of the poor…..everyone.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I am saddened to see you fall for the trap of supporting “single payer” because the ACA is a bunch of crap.

          The Govt MONOPOLY over healthcare can NOT improve health care outcomes for all. Jut like all redistribution, it makes some better at the EXPENSE of others.

          • Read very carefully JAC……read very carefully.

          • He’s not for single-payer JAC. This is his little semantics game to dodge it: If it were all equal I’d support it, but since it’s not…aaah – too bad…

            Did you really fall for it? Or are you just being funny SNARKY?? 😉

            • Crap – SNARKY wasn’t supposed to be crossed out!!!! 😉

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I don’t think he is playing a semantic game. I believe he would be willing to accept it.

              Now, he almost certainly believes if it did apply to everyone it wouldn’t last long. But that is a different issue than being willing to make it the law at all.

              I am not willing to even TRY the option.

              Govt provided health care is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL. And most of all it is UNCONSITUTIONAL.

              That is enough for me.

              Now we have both expressed our assumptions about the Colonel’s motives.

              We’ll see which of us he agrees with. I am guessing both. He is from Texas after all.

              • How, specifically, is it immoral?

                How, specifically, is it unethical?

                By the way, I’m not going to ask you ‘how, specifically, is it unconstitutional’…

              • Mathius™ says:

                Govt provided health care is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL.

                How so?

                And most of all it is UNCONSITUTIONAL.

                Says you. Not the Supreme Court.

                I forget.. whose job is it to decide whether something is Constitutional? If only that were written down somewhere..

                And most of all it is UNCONSITUTIONAL.

                Just to be clear, in JAC-land, it’s worse to be unconstitutional than it is to be immoral/unethical?

        • “They could have instituted one instead of the ACA.”

          Sorry Colonel, but I gotta agree with Todd here — no, they couldn’t have. The votes just weren’t there.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I agree they were not there.

            So WHY did they construct the ACA nightmare in its place?

            WHY did they not try to win the ARGUMENT and instead forged ahead with an Abomination of a legislative solution?

            WHY did they have to do this IMMEDIATELY when there were so many other IMMEDIATE and far MORE PRESSING issues in the country at the time?

            • Health Care is and has been a pressing issue for the country that needed (and still needs) something to be done about.

              The ACA is nowhere near perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. Obviously I would much prefer to have had the Dems push for single payer, but that was an impossibility at the time.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Howdy Buck! Hope today finds you and yours happy and “HEALTHY”! I’m sure that young’un is keeping you on your toes.
                What I’m reading is that the ACA has mostly added a lot of costs that most people didn’t have prior to the ACA. How many people have lost jobs or had hours cut because of the ACA? How many companies just dropped insurance altogether and will pay the fine? How many young people will flip off the ACA and just pay the tax? IMHO, nothing at all got fixed, but just the opposite happened, govt got involved and screwed it all up for everybody. Those that don’t have an employer subsidy to help offset the premiums are mostly screwed. What are you hearing lately?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Health Care is not a pressing issue in the USA. At least it wasn’t until the ACA came along.

                Well actually not until the Progressive Agenda of Universal Healthcare came along. Ever since then it has been a “crises” each time they get close to a majority in Congress. Going back to the 60’s for crying out loud.

                There is not a single measure in the ACA that was just touted by Obama as a measure of “success” that could not have been accomplished by the States. FEDERAL law was NOT NEEDED.

                So again, WHY did they have to pass this when they did? Why not have the argument with America and try to gain the CONSENT of the Governed BEFORE passing the legislation?

              • JAC, if you’re looking for me to argue how wonderful the ACA is, you’re barking up the wrong tree. As I’ve stated before I do believe it to be a step in the right direction and there are many good things the ACA deals with.

                What I’ve always argued for though is for a single-payer type system. I completely AGREE that the Dems should have done a much better job at making an argument for single payer and working towards that goal.

          • The votes just weren’t there for ACA either, but they found a way to push it through. .Cornhusker Kickback. and other free cookies. They had to bribe it through..they could have pushed single payer through but they were afraid of their own futures! If we had honest people in Congress we wouldn’t have ACA..which is why all of us “baggers” are so pissed..what’s worse is that you guys here at SUFA know what I’m saying is true but you still advocate for ACA.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Anita, do you know what “teabaggers” referred too prior to the tea party?

              • yes..i’m just sticking it back out there for the likes of Charlie.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I see. Hope today finds you and yours happy and HEALTHY too! Saw 11 wild turkeys and a small 5 point this morning. So far I’ve seen 7 different bucks in this one area! One will be hanging soon!

        • single payer system. You, Buck, Mathius, Charlie

          I do?

          I’d be grateful if you could point me to where I said that..

          I’m pretty sure I’m still on the fence about single payer.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I recall you stated that was your preference way back when this first came to discussion here. But that is over three years ago, so I am not going on an egg hunt to just prove you did.

            So lets deal with NOW.

            What is it your on the fence about?

            • I may have said it – I’m not going to egg hunt either.

              However, it is not my position that single payer is or is not the “best approach.”

              What is it your on the fence about?

              I think the pro’s are obvious – at least from the left’s perspective. Everyone gets heath care, wahoo! Cost controls, et cetera. Right now we pay massively more for the same (or less!) care / results as other countries. That’s absurd. There are millions of uninsured. That’s absurd. Right now, people wait until it’s an emergency, then go to the emergency room, and cost 100x. That’s absurd – we should be giving them preventative medicine.

              I understand the right’s concerns about the costs scaling out of control, rationing, et cetera, but I don’t really see that happening. I see that this has worked (quite successfully, I might add) in the UK and Canada, so maybe there would be some growing pains, but I think these are probably ill-founded. Maybe it wouldn’t be optimal, but it’d be a hell of a lot better than the status quo.

              My big hesitation actually lies with the political aspect. You see, this may surprise you, but Congress is full of ignorant asshats catering to their various bases. Now, when we’re talking about the left’s base, I’m not so worried – we tend to be godless heathens and very much pro-science (until you get to the extremes where the anti-vaxxers and anti-floride nuts dwell, but they’re a small minority). No, what worries me is that, if all medical is centralized, then the bible-thumpers are going to start digging in their hooks for political ends.

              The first thing will be abortion where they open up yet another front to control women’s bodies. And what happens when the right decide that AIDS is god’s judgement for tolerating The Gays™ and we shouldn’t be treating it. Or they want to ban the use of prophylactics for homosexuals, or any kind of sexual counceling. Or they think preventative mastectomies are a sin against the body. Or they determine that video games are (rather than our ridiculous gun culture) responsible for violence and use medicine as an end-run to ban them. Or they try to kill all mental health support because, you know, they hate that stuff. What happens when we start developing real genetic science (say, the ability to remove cancer genes) and the conservatives (as they always do) have a knee-jerk reaction against it? What happens when they try to make viagra only available if you’re in a monogamous heterosexual relationship? What about the right’s war on euthanasia? Pot? Birth Control?

              Some of that is overblown hyperbole, of course. But not all of it.

              No, my big problem is that there is a LOT of power here and the right is so dangerously anti-science and so beholden to the religious right that I don’t trust them anywhere near the controls. If you don’t think that they’ll go nuts trying to make their mark on such a system and use it as another tool in their endless culture war, you’re out of your mind. I know that it’s supposed to never happen in such a system, but I don’t trust that. If congress can make such protections, they can break them.

              That’s what’s keeping me on the fence.

          • Sure, you may well still be on the fence. But we all know you have one foot over and are only a few short seconds from falling over…

        • Oh Geez, I just found THIS…

          I’ve never “harped” on single-payer. The only time I’ve ever discussed it is when you bring it up…

          If you don’t like that the RICH and the corporations benefit from everything, lets join together and tax the snot out of them. Are you in? I’ll take that 3 seconds of silence as agreement (you didn’t respond fast enough per Dmurf so I get to assume your answers). Great – let’s get on that!

          If you just turned 65 and have signed up for Medicare, the exchanges do not apply to you. No matter how times you say that, it will always be false.

          Your private insurance changes at 65 because Medicare becomes your primary insurance and your private insurance becomes secondary. It’s been that way for years. This has nothing to do with the ACA.

          I don’t believe the numbers about your daughter. Completely unrealistic. You need to provide some REAL, detailed examples before I’ll believe anything you post about the exchanges.

          This is just another one of your posts that…

          sounds just factual enough to be true, but it’s just vague enough that no one knows what you’re talking about. No one on SUFA is going to try to follow this (or could follow it), they’ll all just “take your word for it” that ObamaCare is the big bad boggie-man that you make it out to be.

          And they’ll keep believing everything you say…because “They Want To Believe”…

          The ACA creates exception – YES. So does life. Nothing is exactly the same. This is all just a big semantics game you’re playing, trying to show how democrats are so hypocritical. And congratulations – I’m sure most of the people on SUFA have fallen for it…because “They Want To Believe”… They believe every false statement you make, because “it’s ObamaCare – it must be that bad.” And me countering your points just reinforces it, because none of them will look it up for themselves…because “They Want To Believe”…

          It’s not our mantra. It’s your imagined mantra. Every one of us has not asked the “question” about single-payer. You keep bringing it up.

          You found A definition of single-payer in a couple of bills in Congress. That doesn’t mean they are the right definitions or the only definitions. Just someone’s definition. And yet you declare that if I don’t agree with them, my opinion is moot…

          So I guess dissent is not allowed in your little world?

  63. Todd….got to thinking….why do you disagree with question 3 and 5?

    • Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a “global budget.”

      If the government just reimburses whatever is spent, there’s no cost controls.

      Each person, regardless of ability to pay would receive high-quality, comprehensive medical care, and the free choice of doctors and hospitals. Individuals would receive no bills, and copayment and deductibles would be eliminated. Most people would pay less overall for health care than they pay now.

      I see some value in small copays and/or deductibles. Stops people from going to the doctor every time they sneeze. Could be “waived” or “refunded” for those who truly can’t afford it, but that has its own issues.

      I might say “YES” to these two (and maybe “NO” to others) if I saw more of the details.

      One issue with switching to “Single-Payer”: right now, my employer pays a big chunk of my health insurance and I pay the rest. If we switched to single-payer, both those costs go away. But I would be taxed by the (EVIL) government to pay for the single-payer system. Do I get a raise that is equivalent to the amount my employer is currently contributing to my health insurance to offset the new tax? Or does my company just get a windfall cost savings? Or are employers also taxed “per employee”?

      • Yes, you would be taxed for your benefit.
        No, you are not entitled to any reimbursement unless said reimbursement is in the tax code.
        Yes, your company gets the windfall, plus the taxes that goes with it.
        No, your employer would not be taxed per employee and should not be. It is single payer.

        ( Now, there are bills in committee as we speak addressing some of this, but as you can imagine, they are still sitting there ).

        I might also add, that employers are bailing out of their insurance programs now and willing to pay the penalty. They stand to save huge chunks of money.

        Now, you would have an argument, I suppose, since Congress and its staffers have been given extra tax payer compensation ( a form of exemption ) for their ACA. But, if your increased costs can be added to your deductions………then you have your compensation.

  64. Obama Would Be a Fool to Pursue Immigration Next
    by David Frum Oct 19, 2013 5:45 AM EDT
    Rumor has it the president will pivot to immigration reform next. That’s a bad idea, writes David Frum—it’s a path littered with the same obstacles that nearly brought down Obamacare.

    Overreach: nobody’s immune to it. Republicans overreached in the debt ceiling fight. Now, by some reports, President Obama is tempted to do the same.

    Thousands of immigrants marched on the US capital Washington to demand immigration reform on October 8, 2013. (Anadolu Agency/Getty)

    Those reports state that Obama intends to proceed from the debt battle to the immigration issue, taking up again his plan to regularize the status of millions of people illegally present in the United States. Let’s leave aside for the moment the policy merits of the president’s immigration proposals. (I think they’re dreadful, but your mileage may vary.) Consider instead the politics of advancing this measure in a polarized Congress and a recession-battered country.

    Why is the debate over the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—so bitter? Yes, it’s a big and expensive new entitlement. But so was Medicare Part D back in 2004, and that program provoked nothing like the controversy of the ACA.

    Liberals and Democrats often suggest that racial politics inform the ACA debate. ACA is not only a big and expensive new entitlement. It’s an entitlement that disproportionately benefits immigrants and people of color: 27 percent of the uninsured are foreign-born. Meanwhile, ACA is financed in ways that disproportionately burden the wealthier and the native-born: through taxes on high earners and through cutbacks in Medicare, a program whose beneficiaries are more than 80 percent native-born white.

    That suggestion by liberals and Democrats is hurled polemically. They ought to consider it analytically.

    The two most popular programs in the United States are Medicare and Social Security. Look at what they have in common:

    1) They do not look redistributionist. All contribute something; all receive something.

    2) They were launched in years of rapid economic growth: 1965 for Medicare and 1935 for Social Security. (By later estimates, the U.S. economy grew at a Chinese-like 9 percent in 1935. The unemployment rate dropped 8 points in that single year.)

    3) They were launched at times when the U.S. population was evolving toward greater homogeneity. Large-scale immigration had been halted a decade before Social Security; in 1965, the foreign-born portion of the population was dwindling to the lowest point ever recorded in U.S. history.

    ACA did not meet those conditions. It may be highly exaggerated for Tea Party types to think, “Obama is taxing me to give health care to immigrants I didn’t want in this country in the first place.” It’s not, however, entirely inaccurate.

    That’s the kind of folly that rends nations and weakens governments.

    It was already true even before the financial crisis of 2008 that the pace of demographic change in the United States was outpacing many conservative voters’ tolerance. Since then, two things have happened. First, Americans have come to feel much less economically secure. Second, the baby boomers have begun to retire, intensifying already intense anxieties about the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare. To add on top of that a costly new program that appears to compete with those older programs for the benefit of a different population…that’s asking for trouble.

    The deed is now done, and—as House Republicans just painfully rediscovered—done beyond undoing. The political task ahead is to minimize the deed’s negative consequences: economic, fiscal, political, and social. Instead, the Obama administration seems intent on maximizing such negative consequences. “You know that demographic change that’s making you so hostile to new social welfare programs? Let’s have a lot more of it! And faster!”

    That’s folly—the kind of folly that rends nations and weakens governments. Back in 2008, Barack Obama promised “change.” He delivered. If he wants to protect and preserve his accomplishment, he’ll understand that even change has its limits, and that change becomes most secure when administered in tolerable doses. Obama’s immigration reform atop health-care reform is one change too many. Leave the next chapter to the next president.


  65. Here are all of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments w/o editorial comment.

    Liberty Amendment #1

    SECTION 1: No person may serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.
    SECTION #2: Upon ratification of this Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.

    Liberty Amendment #2

    SECTION 1: The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I.
    SECTION 2: This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
    SECTION 3: When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.
    SECTION 4: A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.

    Liberty Amendment #3
    SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.
    SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the first Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eight Year, and the Third Class at the end of the Twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth year.
    SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be denominated to a full term.
    SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
    SECTION 5: The Congressional override under SECTION 4 is not subject to Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.
    SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
    SECTION 7: The States’ override under SECTION 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.
    SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under SECTIONs 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

    Liberty Amendment #4

    SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.
    SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of the fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.
    SECTION 3: Total outlays of the federal government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.
    SECTION 4: Total outlays of the federal government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year.
    SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.
    SECTION 6 : Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding SECTIONs in this Article by three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.
    SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such increase by roll call vote.
    SECTION 8: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

    Liberty Amendment #5

    SECTION 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons.
    SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.
    SECTION 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.
    SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.
    SECTION 5: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

    Liberty Amendment #6

    SECTION 1: All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone- reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
    SECTION 2: All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.
    SECTION 3: The Committee shall consist of seven members of the House of Representatives, four chosen by the Speaker and three chosen by the Minority Leader; and seven members of the Senate, four chosen by the Majority Leader and three chosen by the Minority Leader. No member shall serve on the Committee beyond a single three-year term.
    SECTION 4: The Committee shall vote no later than six months from the date of the submission of the regulation to the Committee. The Committee shall make no change to the regulation, either approving or disapproving the regulation by majority vote as submitted.
    SECTION 5: If the Committee does not act within six months from the date of submission of the regulation to the Committee, the regulation shall be considered disapproved and must not be implemented by the Executive Branch.

    Liberty Amendment #7

    SECTION 1: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant of power to the federal government to regulate and control economic activity but a special grant of power limited to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several states.
    SECTION 2: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce does not extend to the activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.

    Liberty Amendment #8

    SECTION 1: When any government entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.

    Liberty Amendment #9

    SECTION 1: The State Legislatures, whenever two-thirds shall deem it necessary, may adopt Amendments to the Constitution.
    SECTION 2: Each State Legislature adopting said Amendments must adopt Amendments identical in subject and wording to the other Legislatures.
    SECTION 3: A six-year time limit is placed on the adoption of an Amendment, starting from the date said Amendment is adopted by the first State Legislature. Each State Legislature adopting said Amendment shall provide an exact copy of the adopted Amendment, along with an affidavit signed and dated by the Speaker of the State Legislature, to the Archivist of the United States within fifteen calendar days of its adoption.
    SECTION 4: Upon adoption of an Amendment, a State Legislature may not rescind the Amendment or modify it during the six-year period in which the Amendment is under consideration by the several States’ Legislatures.

    Liberty Amendment #10

    SECTION 1: There shall be a minimum of thirty days between the engrossing of a bill or resolution, including amendments, and its final passage by both Houses of Congress. During the engrossment period, the bill or resolution shall be placed on the public record, and there shall be no changes to the final bill or resolution.
    SECTION 2: SECTION 1 may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of the members of each House of Congress.
    SECTION 3: Upon three-fifths vote of the state legislatures, the States may override a federal statute.
    SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the state legislatures, the States may override Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million after said regulations have been finally approved by the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee [see An Amendment Establishing How the States May Amend the Constitution.]
    SECTION 5: The States’ override shall not be subject to litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.
    SECTION 6: The State’s override authority must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date the President has signed the statute into law, or the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee has approved a final regulation, after which the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

    Liberty Amendment #11

    SECTION 1: Citizens in every state, territory and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documentations demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a prerequisite for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.
    SECTION 2: Provisions shall be made by the state legislatures to provide such citizenship-designated photographic identification documents at no cost to individuals unable to afford fees associated with acquiring such documents.
    SECTION 3: Early voting in any general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall not be held more than thirty calendar days prior to the national day of election except for active-duty military personnel, for whom early voting shall not commence more than forty-five calendar days prior to the national day of election.
    SECTION 4: Where registration and/or voting is not in person but by mail, citizens must submit an approved citizens-designated photo identification and other reliable information to state election officials to register to vote and request ballots for voting, no later than forty-five calendar days before the primary or general elections for President, Vice President, or members of Congress. Registration forms and ballots must be returned and signed by the voter and must either be mailed or hand-delivered by the voter to state election officials. If delivered by a third party, the voter must provide written authorization for the person making the delivery and the third party must sign a statement certifying that he did not unduly influence the voter’s decisions.
    SECTION 5: Electronic or other technology-based voting systems, for purposes of registering and voting in national elections, are proscribed unless a reliable identification and secure voting regimen is established by the state legislature.

  66. gmanfortruth says:

    Todd says:
    October 20, 2013 at 10:08 am • Edit
    PMS pill?? ME?? I think you have me confused with G(wo)man… 😉

    Todd, following in Charlie’s footsteps will only get you put in the same situation. I’m sure that you don’t need to following behind him like a puppydog on his leash, so let’s stay on the right course and keep things mature 😉

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Lets not carry the sensitivity over board, OK.

      The vulgar personal attacks are one thing. We don’t need to react to any criticism or snarkiness in the same way.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Actually, as hard as it is sometimes figure out how to take Todd’s comments, he is mostly a decent person. I also believe a lot of what has occurred with Charlie happened because it wasn’t stopped early on. Todd doesn’t bother me, nor did his comment, but if it’s going to be contained to “just some minor joking around” then that’s where it needs to stay. Charlie’s attacks are finished, hopefully, that well be the end of that kind of behavior. I would rather send a kind reminder then to let it get out of control again. Todd’s is far smarter than to go down that road, wonder if “SMURF” agrees?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Besides JAC, I would like to comment and enjoy the discussion rather than babysit. Is it not time to demand maturity when we all talk to each other?

        • Just like everyone else here, as I read this blog I can’t help but notice those who are thoughtful in their posts and can poke a little fun while being respectful….I love reading the Colonel’s banter with Mathius and Buck and how they can disagree with each other without resorting to personal attacks…..they make me laugh out loud sometimes with their wit. In my opinion, they set the bar pretty high for this blog and come across as being the most intelligent.

          There are others here who fit that description as well, and some who do not….but I won’t name any names! 🙂

          aka Smurf…the patsy conservative 😉

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Murf, The personal attack on you was not necessary. These are the types of actions I’m trying to end, they are unneeded and take away from the good discussions going on. Todd is rough around the edges and tends to be straight forward. It’s not a common thing for him to just call someone names. But, sadly, past actions tend to lead to the “monkey see, monkey do” syndrome 🙂 I’m hoping to limit or stop these kinds of posts. Keep posting 🙂


          • Let’s all take a moment and appreciate Murphy’s statement:

            the Colonel’s banter with Mathius and Buck and how they can disagree with each other without resorting to personal attacks…..they make me laugh out loud sometimes with their wit. In my opinion, they set the bar pretty high for this blog and come across as being the most intelligent.

            .. or, again:

            [the Colonel and] Mathius and Buck […] come across as being the most intelligent.

            That’s right!

            ::does a little dance::

            ::makes a little love::

            ::get’s down tonight::

            and… obligatory

            • It is nice to see that we are……………….appreciated? Even DPM.I a sure glad to see that Mathius and Buck got a little smarter though…thanks, I will take the credit.

              • Pops Red Bull ::passes to Mathius::

              • Mathius™ says:


                ::Crushes against head::

                ::pained expression while valiantly pretending that didn’t hurt::

                ::pops a Grog::

                ::Passes to D13::

              • LOL! Gotta love you guys!


              • : takes grog:
                ::makes expression similar to Mescal Tequila shot with lime and worm::
                :: does a great impression of Michael Jackson “moon walk” while twirling a 360::
                ::::drops onto back in perfect break dance circles::::
                :::stands up and grabs back asking self why he put his 65 year old body through that:::
                :::passes DECAF yuppie coffee to buck:::

                ***** Mathius and D13 quietly laugh******

              • mmm…coffee….

                WAIT!? DECAF!???? And here I thought we were friends….

          • So Dmurf,
            My comments upset you? I thought Smurf was pretty clever!

            Well, let’s review your comments:

            @ the Colonel….now THAT’S what I call an answer! How about it, Todd?

            You call that an answer? It’s nothing more than a deflection of the question.

            Harmless enough I suppose…

            But then there’s this one:

            Oops, Colonel…..my post is in response to Todd, not you.

            Obviously you were concerned you might have insulted the Colonel?
            But not so concerned you might have insulted me? Because that was your intention?

            You seem pretty concerned about “answering questions”, and yet YOU didn’t answer the questions I asked? Why is that?

            You started a little tit-for-tat. I responded in a similar fashion. That’s the way it goes around here.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        My apologies, I haven’t asked how the family is doing in quite some time. I hope all is well out there in your neck of the woods!

    • I’m always “amazed” Gman how anything directed at you (or anyone on the right) is such a personal attack, but comments directed at those on the left are Ok.

      My comment was a joke back at Anita who “jumped on me” 🙂 for my stupid joke.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Todd, if you are named directly in an attack (by using your name in a malicious manner) then you can call that person out, or I can do it for you 🙂 General terms like Right wing lunatics or lefty losers are not intended as personal attacks upon you or me directly. That’s just part of the political speak that is used today. I fall in many general terms because of my leanings. I’m white and a right winger so Liberals automatically call me racist. I don’t care because like most general terms nobody could ever know if I’m a racist or not just because of my leanings and skin color, without knowing me very well. Just like you leaning left doesn’t mean your a low info voter (or whatever that term is).

        So how would you like to see this issue dealt with? I just want to end “direct personal attacks and name calling”. What say you?

        • G, I’m with JAC, you may be the one being too sensitive. The guys don’t cross the line too often and we can just call them out as we see them. I think Charlie pours it on because you were name calling right back for a while. Even the ever polite JAC has been know to throw the ‘idiot” word around. Let’s just call em out when it happens. You know, Alinsky them, ridicule is a handy weapon..or however it goes…..

          ( i also know that Weapon had been know to send personal emails to deal with certain situations)

          • How do you know that? Have one in your inbox once? 😉

            • No but I know someone who did 😉

              I did get an email once asking me to keep my mouth shut on a particular troll that came through. I responded and so did somebody else, cant remember who, but I was asked to just drop it right there and Wep deleted the troll. 🙂

        • Gman,

          if you are named directly in an attack (by using your name in a malicious manner) then you can call that person out

          So I can be as rude as I want, and make it plainly clear who I’m talking about, but as long as I don’t use their name, it’s Ok? I don’t think that’s a very good standard.

          And sorry, but you have the “low info voter” designation backwards! 😉

          So how would you like to see this issue dealt with? I just want to end “direct personal attacks and name calling”. What say you?

          I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Those of us on the left take a lot more than those on the right. I think it’s funny and let most of it roll off, and I respond to a few when I feel like it. But you only see the comments from those on the left as a problem. You don’t mind the comments from those on the right.

          Dmurf’s comments are a perfect example. His comments were obviously a cheap shot at me. He named me in one, and had to point out that one comment was directed at me, not the Colonel. What does that tell you?

          He wasn’t offering anything to the conversation (and still hasn’t), he was just “cheerleading” for the Colonel.

          You post a lot of comments that are cheap shots at the left, and you seem to think that’s Ok. If you want the conversation to improve and stay at a high level, I suggest you lead by example. You are the defacto leader of SUFA.

  67. @ Buck……you cannot point to the Canadian nor English system. Neither of those are single payer. Single payer, by definition that I have seen, is that there is NO private insurance nor private hospitals…..privatization exists in both countries. The Parliament in England does not use their own system, and neither does the Parliament in Canada, hence there is no true single payer.

    The same is happening right here in the US and that is with the ACA.

    I will recognize that there are good parts to the ACA..I can point to two…but since I turned 65 and really have dug into it….it is not a good system….not even a good starting point.

    • You know full well that I am a proponent of providing universal coverage. How that is to be accomplished, I don’t know – there are a number of different systems, of which your definition of ‘single payer’ is but one.

    • Out of curiousity — what two points are you referring to?

      • What I like and why:

        1) Medicare beneficiaries saved on average of $600 each as part of the phasing out of the donut hole. ( This is partly true but the donut hole needed phasing out. However, the savings were no where near the reported $600….it was around $300 but at least it is being phased out.)

        2) Beginning in 2014, plans will no longer be allowed to turn away people with pre-existing conditions. ( There is nothing in the provision that keeps the insurers, including the exchanges, from charging for this service, but it at least gives people a chance to pay for something ).

        What I dislike and why:

        1)The law allows many Americans under age 26 to stay on their parents’ health plans. (While this particular thing sounds good, it is bad for the group as a whole. The exchange partners, as the government likes to call them, simply increased the premium to cover this, raised the deductible, and it falls under the 80/20 rule).

        2) Tens of millions of people now getting preventive care at no extra cost, including cancer screenings and vaccinations. ( Yes, they are getting preventative care at no premium increase. But, the exchanges have included this in the higher deductibles and the 80/20 rule. in other words, they are paying their 20 percent co pay and the deductible ceiling is raised. )

        3) 3.2 million small businesses — employing 19.3 million workers nationwide — were eligible last year for tax credits worth $15.4 billion or $800 per employee. ( This is true but ONLY if they offered health insurance approved by the government. Small business’ were already getting 100% health credits as a cost of doing business ).

        4) Insurance companies can no longer cap the dollar amount of care you can receive in a lifetime. ( So what do they, the insurance companies do in response….raise the deductible and make it a 80/20 split. I guess you could say that this is better than nothing but the fact is….it decreases the cash flow to a majority of people, including those on the poverty levels.)

        5) Marketplaces will be established in every state for people and small businesses that buy their own health insurance. Pregnancy, contraception and newborn care, along with vision and dental coverage for children, will be covered in all exchange plans and new plans sold to individuals and small businesses. ( All of this is perfectly true. Everything is rosy……except…..the deductibles are being raised…is some cases as much as $14,000 and the deductible is not wage related it is specific to the type o f plan you purchase. Bronze, Silver, or gold. There is also an 80/20 split and I might mention, I was informed by BCBS and Aetna Healthcare providers…that the 80/20 split on anything does NOT go towards the deductible.

        6) If your income is less than about $88,000 for a family of four and your job doesn’t offer coverage, you may get tax credits to pay for insurance. ( Key word here is MAY. I offered the example of my daughter yesterday )

        7) Up to 30 million Americans who are currently not insured will be covered, saving thousands of American lives. ( This is laughable to an extent…hooray for saving lives, but what about the 30 million that this plan reportedly will cost them insurance. Admittedly, I am not totally convinced of this either…I think the uninsured will rise but only time will tell )

        8) How is this all paid for? By slight tax increases on the investments of Americans earning over $250,000 a year, “Cadillac” insurance plans, medical device companies, penalties for businesses and individuals who can afford insurance but choose not to get it and tanning. ( You really think, for a single New York moment, that the cadillac plans are not going to be exempt? I will make you a steak dinner bet on this….a slight increase on investments of Americans making over 250k…..Buck, you are a tax planner and estate advisor….you should know better than I how many investments have been changed to not represent capital gains and how many deferred incomes there are out there. We do it….everybody does it…..if they are not, they do not have wise investement counselors. You are going to penalize the healthy for not having insurance that they do not want….( I think Gestapo here)….medical device companies that are going to pass through the costs to the elderly….and TANNING salons…really?

        I could go on,,,,but these are a few…..oh, and let me add one other thing that I do like….

        3) Insurers cannot drop your coverage due to a mistake on your application when you get sick. ( I always thought this was inexcusable ).

        Have a good day……if possible in New York. Perhaps we need to ask the mayor if it is ok.

        • The last time I had to chose a health plan, I had a choice of deductible and co-pay levels. After doing the math I concluded it made very little difference which plan I chose as the penciled out to be about the same since my wife is a high level user. I chose the higher deductible plan since it pays 100% after the high deductible. For healthy individuals, a high deductible plan with an HSA is the best option but the ACA reduced the viability of HSA’s.

  68. Too funny! Our president, the shamwow guy! And you truly gotta love the 800#! But hey, government is great! All hail to thee o.b.a.m.a.!


  69. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck and Mathius

    A few arguments debunking the benefits of Single Payer.


    Now as to the morality and/or ethics of Govt provided health care.

    We do not have a moral obligation to others. That is a religious driven value system, not one based on science, reason or logic.

    Providing health care via Govt requires TAKING the money from people who may not wish to “Give” that money. It is making the most personal decisions for individuals, WITHOUT their permission.

    So you steal from one person to provide health care for another. Theft is IMMORAL.

    Govt health care has to deal with the reality of shortages. So instead of people getting health care they can afford or acquire via their own efforts, they get what Uncle Sam ALLOWS them to have. It is UNETHICAL to degrade a persons LIFE just to improve yours. It is especially UNETHICAL to do so by using Govt FORCE to accomplish your goal.

    Thus the system is improved for those who have not earned health care and diminishes it for those who have earned their health care. It is UNETHICAL to degrade a persons LIFE just to improve yours. It is especially UNETHICAL to do so by using Govt FORCE to accomplish your goal.

    • Why am I not surprised to see the whole ‘taxation is theft’ maxim rear its ugly head once again…

      Will try to get back to this later. For now, I’m heading home to play with my daughter. 🙂

    • JAC,
      Replace “Govt provided health care” with “Govt provided fire department”.

      Any difference?

      • Yes, a huge one if you know any history.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Fire Depts, as we have discussed before, were once funded voluntarily.

        It is a local matter, so if the local folks decide to fund a fire dept then there is no theft.

        Providing fire suppression for the community does not interfere with private choices regarding fire suppression. It does not override the Private options for fire suppression. It does not dictate any prices or control who may or may not have fire suppression.

        It does not require Govt to IMPOSE its will upon anyone. You are free to let your place burn if it does not pose an immediate threat to your neighbor. Or you are free to find your own fire suppression methods or supplement the Govts.

        The only moral/ethical issue is the FUNDING of the Fire Dept. Which could easily be handled by making taxes and fees voluntary. Even a suppression fee for putting the fire out. The Insurance Companies should be encouraged to pay part of this cost, since it is supposedly cheaper than replacing an entire house.

        • “It is a local matter, so if the local folks decide to fund a fire dept then there is no theft.”

          And it is a national matter, so if the people of the nation decide to fund [X] then there is no theft. By the way, what about the person in the community that decides he doesn’t want to fund a fire department? His house burns down?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            You jumped to far.

            Please note the words: “The only moral/ethical issue is the FUNDING of the Fire Dept. Which could easily be handled by making taxes and fees voluntary.”

            So now apply that standard to your Health Care idea.

            And by the way, Health Care is a PERSONAL matter and has nothing to do with the Nation.

            The health care where I live is not the same as the health care where you live.

            Your needs and wants are NOT THE SAME as mine.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Buck,, we have all volunteer fire companies where I live. Their funding comes from fund raisers. Farmers put in “dry Hydrants” and things are just fine around here.

            • Volunteer fire departments are also funded with tax dollars.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                They might be in some places, I would imagine, just not in this part of the country. We have a very small govt, locally. If it weren’t for elections, most people wouldn’t even know they exist. They also work for a very small stipend, as they all maintain regular full time jobs.

  70. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck and Mathius

    Constitutionality of Govt health care.

    Let us review what SCOTUS said about the AFA MANDATE. They ruled it UNCONSITUTIONAL.

    Roberts along with the left wingers ruled that the “TAX” was Constitutional. Now even if we ignore that the Govt did not make the TAX argument, that Roberts had to construct it, James Madison addressed this issue during the ratification debates.

    Let me paraphrase his answer to anti-Federalists who claimed the Tax clause could be used to justify any authority or power beyond those others in Sect 8. His answer was BULL SHIT.

    His point was that the power to TAX was integrally and necessarily linked to the other POWERS vested in Congress as delimited in the Constitution.

    Now lets deal with the underlying principle in the argument “Because the SCOTUS said so”.

    If the SCOTUS ruled that the sky was green and not blue, would you continue to claim that “The SCOTUS ruled that the sky is green” so henceforth it is green.?

    Mathus: In JAC land the Constitution would be constructed to be consistent with solid, rationally constructed standards of morality and ethical behavior.

    So in this sense, an immoral and unethical law would certainly be Unconstitutional.

    However, an Unconstitutional law may be moral but would be unethical. Violations of the Constitution are violations of power granted from the people to Govt. Thus the violation of this delegation is usually an issue of ethics and thus unethical. That violation may not rise to the level of immoral, however.

    • Mathius™ says:

      If the SCOTUS ruled that the sky was green and not blue, would you continue to claim that “The SCOTUS ruled that the sky is green” so henceforth it is green.?

      Not quite.

      But I would claim that for legal (ie, questions of constitutionality), the sky is, in fact, green.

      Law is a construct. It is a tower built of bricks.

      The term “Constitutional” has a meaning, and it is self-contained within the legal system of the government of the United States of America.

      Something can be objectively wrong, evil, abhorrent, immoral, or anything else, and still be “Constitutional.”

      When slavery was legal in the United States, it was nonetheless abhorrent for it. But, having been upheld by the SCOTUS, it was, factually, irrefutably, “Constitutional.” Why? Because the question of what is and is not Constitutional is the sole jurisdiction of the legal system – the pinnacle of which is the Supreme Court. It doesn’t matter that slavery is and was evil, that’s not the question.

      So, taken to today’s conversation, you claim that the ACA is Unconstitutional and I tell you that it is not until so ruled by the Supreme Court. That, sir, is how the legal system is set up. Your OPINION that it is unconstitutional does not amount to a hill of beans unless you sit in the big chair and wear a robe.

      The ACA is Constitutional because it was upheld by the court. If it is overturned by a later court, then it will become unconstitutional. Until then, your OPINION is wrong.

      If the court rules the sky is green, then for all legal purposes, objective reality be damned, the sky is green and there is jack-squat you can say otherwise. Because, again, the question isn’t “what is true,” but rather “what does the court say.”

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Mathius, technically, the ACA was NOT declared Constitutional. Only the individual mandate, which was declared a tax by the SCOTUS, despite the FACT that the Govt said it was not a tax. Today we have 9 people in black robes who make these decisions. These decisions are mostly based on political leanings these days. This is what I find as a problem with the SCOTUS.

        Now, I do not know anyone who signed up for Obamacare in any exchange, do you? Does anybody actually know a person who is signed up and can post the costs?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Mathus: In JAC land the Constitution would be constructed to be consistent with solid, rationally constructed standards of morality and ethical behavior.

      Good luck with that.

      And, just out of curiosity, who do you appoint to determine conflicts or interpret what is and is not consistent with your Constitution? When a point is argued or needs clarification or arbitration.

      When you disagree with their ruling, do you give yourself unilateral power as you seem to have done with the US Constitution to overturn the judicial rulings by fiat?

      • You have to admit that ruling it a tax which is what made it legal is a bit of a stretch when it was “sold” as not a tax. That alone should give absolutely anyone with an iota of intelligence pause to reflect on the court’s decision (s)

        • What does the Constitution say about taxes:
          Article I
          Section 2
          3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2
          Section 8
          1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
          Section 9
          1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
          4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.7
          5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
          6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
          Article XVI
          The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
          Amendment XXIV
          SECTION. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

          As far as I can tell, reading the plain English, is that Congress has the right to levy import duties (=imposts), excise taxes, and per capita taxes which must be levied against the states. These taxes must be uniform across the land. With the XVI Amendment, a non-uniform income tax is permitted.

          The ACA “penalty” tax is not an import duty since nothing is crossing an international boundary. It is not an excise tax since no good or service is being exchanged. Quite the contrary it is being levied for lack of commercial activity. It is not an income tax since no income is being taxed. It is not being uniformly levied in that all individuals do not have to pay it or pay different amounts. So how in the world is it considered a constitutionally qualified tax?

          Now if it is a penalty, then due process comes into play. Penalties are accessed by judges not bureaucrats, at least they are not supposed to be.

          As for the Supremes being supreme, see Levin’s amendments on term limits and judicial override. I can remember being taught in school (and I am older than the now confessed Col. but not yet retired) that we have a living constitution. If so it is made out of rubber. It can be interpreted any way the 9 supremes want to interpret it for political, academic or what ever reason. They do and have done this frequently. We can all name the Dred Scott, Plessey, Wickard vs. Filburn (wheat farmer case) as gross errors. Unfortunately these errors were and have been allowed to stand because the court is sacrosanct. How many lives, how much freedom and how much fortune were lost as a result of these bad decisions? Justices need to be called on the carpet for bad decisions just like everyone else.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            First time I realized you were older than me.

            One small error in your tax commentary.

            The ACA Penalty is based on a flat tax fee OR a percentage of INCOME. So it would almost certainly be construed as an “Income” Tax.

            I know this defies all logic when comparing to ALL Historical “Income Taxes” but that is how the mind of the left wing works.

            Which of course takes us back to the issue of the SCOTUS itself.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I would keep the Supreme Court.

        However, there needs to be a means to review and overturn them when they become part of the problem.

        There are several ideas out there, including limiting their appointments or requiring re-appointment after a period to time. I like the latter idea as they would have to get Congress to agree to continue their job.

        But also recognize that if our Const. is consistent with our moral and ethical principles, then it will be less likely a Justice will stray far from the “clear understanding”.

        As you noted, the Courts upheld the legality of Slavery, actually they ruled that rights of property included slaves, despite a major opposition to slavery. Notice how the older courts stuck to the true nature of the Constitution.

        However, the Constitution also clearly allowed Congress to declare slavery illegal WITHOUT amending the Constitution. That is CONGRESS had that authority, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

        • Mathius™ says:

          However, there needs to be a means to review and overturn them when they become part of the problem.

          The Supremer Court? The Even-More-Supreme Court?

          Sorry, there is a way to overturn them when they become part of the system. It’s called a Constitutional Amendment. As you know, it’s very hard to pass one of those.

          Are you suggesting that it should just be much easier to override the Court?

          Perhaps a simple majority should do it?

          Then what’s the point of having a Court?

  71. This might help you guys who are talking about the costs with ACA:

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Good satire but as usual it starts with a false premise. Which wouldn’t be important except for the number of people who start believing it.

      The reason we have NOT had a Nationalized health care is because Americans were NOT WAITING FOR IT. In fact most of them were opposed to it.

      Hence we got the ACA because the Dems couldn’t even get their own party to support what the Progressive leadership wanted.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Satire for sure. In the need for instant gratification, the Gov site is way off the mark. But , many folks have waited for this day, now they can enjoy the moment, I think 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I loved the ” I don’t even need a password”.

  72. Something my wife just pointed out. We get health insurance thru my employer. They’ve been doing this “forever” – and online for the last 10 years or so. My wife does our enrollment, and she considers it one of the most frustrating things she does each year (and she works for a health insurance company!).

    Last year, our enrollment period started …one week late…two weeks late… actually three weeks late because…drum roll please…the website wasn’t working right! And this is a website for just one company with limited options (whatever my company chooses) and a limited audience (our employees). They have all our employment records and eligibility in-house, so it should be a much simpler process…

    As Andy Borowitz pointed out, this is a little bump in a long road…

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Did you consider that all Insurance enrollment was messed up last year because of uncertainty over the ACA??

      Drawing comparison between your issues and the flop that was the National website is a LONG REACH.

      However, I do agree this is nothing but a bump. More importantly it is NOT A REAL ISSUE and should NOT BE THE FOCUS of those who OPPOSE THE ACA.

      More stupid tactics by stupid elephants.

      • But it is a real issue-I get that computer problems can be fixed. But the major problems point to a lot of issues. Like why did they screw it up so badly-some have said it was because the admin. didn’t want the republicans to know what they were doing-I assume this means they didn’t want anyone to know the specifics of Obamacare-why did they care?

        And if they knew the system wasn’t ready for prime time why did they fight delaying it- to the point of letting the government shut down?

        And per others they are really worried that these problems will cause only the really sick and poor to work hard enough to enroll-when it’s the younger and the healthy that they really need to enroll to pay for it. But then maybe they don’t care whether it really works as long as they can get some people angry if the republican party takes it away from them.

        They almost seem to want it to fail.

        But the “elephants” aren’t just focusing on the computer problems they are looking at why it’s so screwed up.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Why is not important, except for the likes of those Congress people who get to put their face on Fox news or some other outlet.

          It is the LAW itself that is bad. Once we start arguing over the details, glitches, and the why things don’t work we are debating how to arrange the chairs. We are arguing with them over the efficiency of their idea. We CAN NOT WIN any such argument.

          Because in the end, the LAW will still be in place and the problems will continue and the fixes will continue.

          I have no doubt that somebody didn’t want to delay the launch date for ANY REASON.

          Remember the Progressive method. The END justifies any means necessary. Having it open on Oct 1 was the End in this case.

      • JAC,

        Did you consider that all Insurance enrollment was messed up last year because of uncertainty over the ACA??

        No. It had nothing to do with the ACA. This is the LONG REACH.

        Drawing comparison between your issues and the flop that was the National website is a LONG REACH.

        No, it’s not a LONG REACH. Both are websites to choose health insurance.

        My company’s website is very limited in scope and participants and has been in existence for many years, and it still had problems.

        The exchanges have a huge scope, wide participants, and are brand new – both in concept and design. Much more complicated.

        My point is “the private sector”, that you guys always claim to be so much better and more efficient, has many of the same issues.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Our re-enrollment was delayed last year due to some questions about the ACA. That is why I mentioned it.

          The Obama care site was apparently NOT tested. Yes it is a National and large scale effort. One you would think deserved greater EFFORT and less likely OUTRIGHT FAILURE.

          I agree that even the private sector makes mistakes. The term Glitches would fit many of them. This was NO GLITCH.

          Seems to me you are having a hard time admitting just how bad this was.

  73. Haven’t seen this particular article yet on SUFA….Even the MSM is bashing it……

    From NBC News Health:

    “President Barack Obama steered Americans away from his administration’s malfunctioning health insurance website Monday, at least for now, suggesting they use call lines and in-person navigators to sign up instead. And he admitted it’s a mess.”

    Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/better-use-phone-why-obamacare-website-such-fail-8C11433702?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

    In my opinion, “government” and ‘healthcare” should be mutually exclusive terms….why would anyone want the same folks who brought us the VA system to take over more healthcare? Anyone who has dealt with the VA knows that it is a bureaucratic nightmare (and I am not speaking of the doctors and nurses there- most of them are truly wonderful).

    The website is just the beginning of the nightmares to come. It doesn’t appear to me that enough people will actually sign up for Ocare to make it even close to affordable. I don’t need a crystal ball to see that, just like the website, the whole system will be a pain-in-the-a$$ exercise in frustration.

    Obama has made promises to us….he will have to find someone to blame besides himself. As usual.


    • I think you have a good point. There going to have to really shake the tree to bring out all the people they need and there will have to be “examples” made.

      This was such a botch job from the beginning. I know it is a question that no one asks but exactly who was it that was not treated in the US because they did not have insurance?

      We now have a 50 megaton weapon (and growing) to fight a skirmish.

      One thing that you can be assured about though. The famous 1% of Charlies will make a bunch of new money and, I guess it is good. There are a whole bunch of new folks with proper political placement who will now get to join that 1 %. Wonder how Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi’s husbands are placed in this. That is not to mention Barney Frank’s, Chris Dodd’s and Theresa Heinz Kerry’s investment portfolios.

      • I keep wondering who was denied treatment too. But I’m sure they will trot out that ‘anecdotal’ person to say see? it happens. That’s an awful expensive couple of anecdotes..

    • Murf,

      In my opinion, “government” and ‘healthcare” should be mutually exclusive terms…

      But in this very post, you were cheerleading the Colonel for his support of Single-Payer:


      Which one is it?

      • Hoooold up partner, you are (deliberately) confusing things. Perhaps you missed the fact that the Colonels post is basically BAIT..which Murf is probably hip to..so she is cheering on the Colonel’s tactic!.

        (hope I’m right, or look pretty stupid right now)

  74. Now, on the lighter side……………..picture this:

    (Eerie sounding music in background, and a Jack Nicholson voice, in his best ” Shining ” narration)

    “There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the SUFA Zone” .

    Opening scene: Mathius playing the air guitar to Stairway FROM Heaven…..yes, I said From and not TO….sporting long DPM dreadlocks and a nifty Jack Sparrow hat, trying to fashion the words “YO HO” to his guitar…..a half empty gallon of Red Bull sitting beside him complete with long straw……

    Buck, sitting on stool, staring absent minded at the bottom of a coffee cup wondering what in the hell Mathius and D13 just gave him trying to understand the constitutionality in a cup O’ Decaf…….

    Gman, staring into a full length mirror trying to decide which conspiracy theory he is going to come up with next, while trying to remember his venison recipe and wondering why the deer he claimed tastes like turkey…

    JAC, standing on the porch, staring intently at the Western sky and the mountains in the background, shaking his head wondering what D13 was up to in his postings about health care…..and then trying to decipher exactly what he meant when he said…read it carefully.

    VH, suddenly butt stroking the TV with her shotgun, mumbling something about the damn MSM.

    Stephen, sitting on couch, trying to figure out the 60’s and what happened. Woodstock still reeling in his mind asking where the “burn the bra” campaigns disappeared to….

    T Ray, very quietly rewriting the Constitution, putting his new cabinet together, trying to figure out how to tax the lawyers to pay for everything.

    Anita, looking hot, in her new miniskirt, looking at VH……silently thinking..take THAT !

    Todd, in the corner, banging his head over and over again against a plaster wall……mumbling…”What am I doing here”…….

    Dmurf, murph, or smurf…….mixing blue paint, looking for her air brush…laughing out loud at everybody at how outlandish they are…..really?

    And D13….in face paint, camos, black head bandana, trying to look unobtrusive, sharpening his K Bar, cleaning is CAR15 w detachable M4 barrels w/silencer, Walther PPK .380 in his boot and a 45 ACP on his hip, night vision goggles strapped to his forehead…eye-ing the entire room…………………

    And you thought SNL had something on us……

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Oh dear Sir.

      You forgot KATHY staring at her closet full of shoes cursing beneath her breath because she can’t afford to increase her closet size. Obama care has eaten up her budget that had been set aside for the remodel.

    • Mathius™ says:

      I would pay good money to see this episode.


      I can’t wait for scene 2!

%d bloggers like this: