[Masthead] A Few Clouds ~ 30°F  
High: 47°F ~ Low: 36°F
Thursday, Nov. 27, 2014

People have spoken: What's next?

Posted Wednesday, November 3, 2010, at 11:33 AM

Tuesday definitely wasn't a day for Democrats or incumbents.

Let's hope we see some positive change. But I don't see the sputtering economy being helped by politicians of any party. Other issues? Let's see what happens -- and if talk becomes action.

As several Republicans have said last night and today, the people have spoken.

So, people, speak. Do you feel any better about the future today? Worse? Indifferent?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I can honestly say that I am happy with the election results. When our senators and congressman vote for bills and pass laws against the will of the people, you see what will happen. There were Democrats that had been in their positions for over a decade and were easily defeated because of that very thing. They voted for the Health Care Bill, against the will of the majority, and now they are out of a job. Elected officials are there for "us", to look out for our interest and well-being, not their own.

Also, let the private sector dictate the job market. The best resource that a company has is its employees. The same goes for the USA; there are great minds out there that can do a lot better job at solving problems than some elected official. The government should focus on infrastructure, not creating jobs. Again, the private sector should dictate how the market and jobs flow. If you don't believe in capitalistic economics, then when was the last time a poor person gave you a job?

I hope that they can work together as a bi-partisan group and get our economy thriving again. This is the greatest country on earth. Let's keep it that way.

-- Posted by Harleytodd on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 1:21 PM

Harleytodd,

Why would it be any different working with a bi-partisan group now than 2 years ago, 5 years ago or even 10 years ago?

You stated that the majority of the people didn't want the Healthcare reform, According to whom? Everyone I know wants Healthcare reform. Are you saying there should be no regulation? Then why is there the War on Drugs? And why are churches non-profits? Why are there corporation allowed to campaign for certain candidates with their best interests. Really, This problem does not have some simple solution as "small govt". It just isn't possible.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 2:54 PM

I was pleased because it proved that the people can make a difference in WHO represents us. It sometimes seems as if there is no use.

I was also pleased that those who used negative campaign tactics seemed to come up on the losing end. Not all who lost used negativity, but those campaign managers who thought throwing crap was the way to win, seemed to have been shown otherwise.

Only time will tell if the changes will have a positive impact, but just as we always have hope for the new season, the new recruit, we should now have hope for the new political office holder.

-- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 3:20 PM

I agree Evil Monkey, everyone does want Healthcare REFORM, I for one did not want the healthcare BILL they passed. There is a BIG difference.

Will the GOP do any better? I doubt it. The new blood may make more difference than political affiliation.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 3:50 PM

Actually, EM, you're mistaken about the "Everyone I know wants Healthcare reform". I know for a fact that you and I have discussed this in the past and I'm pretty sure I made my stance perfectly clear. In case I didn't, it was that I did NOT want the Health Care Reform bill to pass. It all depends on the circles with which you associate. Virtually everyone I know was against the passage of that monstrosity.

Tax on tanning beds, 2.9 percent excise tax on the sale of any "medical device", Drug manufacturers a total of $16 billion between 2011 and 2019 in new fees (taxes), Health insurers will pay $47 billion over the same period...who do you think is REALLY going to pay those fees/taxes? If you think it's the corporations, you are sadly mistaken. Those fees/taxes will be paid by the people that need the services or devices.

-- Posted by Thom on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 4:26 PM

Evil Monkey,

According to a Gallop Poll, 45% were in favor and 48% were against the Healthcare Bill. Look on the internet; the majority of Americans are against it no matter what poll you look at.

When Nancy Pelosi states on national television that "We need to pass this bill to see what is in it", that should throw up a red flag immediately. I didn't say we didn't need healthcare reform, I said the majoriy of the people were againt the Health Care Bill. The difference is night and day.I don't won't the government telling me which insurance I have to buy, ect. I like a democracy; I don't want to live in a socialist country. I fought for my country for 22 years and I have seen what it is like to live under those conditions. That type of government suppresses the people and their way of thinking.

No, we don't live in a perfect America but it is a lot better than anywhere else I have been; and I have been around the world a couple of times.

-- Posted by Harleytodd on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 4:27 PM

Whether it is true or not, my insurance went up 25% (that part is true) because of the health care bill. Can not say I like that.

-- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 4:30 PM

Will the GOP do any better? I doubt it. The new blood may make more difference than political affiliation.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 3:50 PM

If you have been listening to many republicans who have won many are not making US a priority they have put making Obama a one term President one. That is pathetic. No the GOP will not do any better, the reason being they can not stand the thought of Obama having any positive actions happen, they want failure for him at any cost. ( not all repub. believe that but sadly too many do,)

I would like to applaud all those who knowingly served US the people over their own intrest, they knew if they backed heath care reform it would cost them their jobs, yet they felt strongly enough, and selflessly enough to fight for peoples rights to have coverage. Time will tell how well the plan approved will work, there is still too much just being speculated about to know factually what the out come will be. It may work out great or fail, only time will tell. However I thank all those willing to sacrifice their careers to make an attempt to help the citizens. I only wish that more would have put their best forward to work on a plan that would have made both parties happy rather than just play the part of a brick wall to stop any and all attempts to find the best options.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 7:01 PM

wonderwhy - Are you serious? The Democrats have been just as partisan as the Republicans. They've held their closed door meetings to draw up that behemoth of a law, wouldn't accept ANY of the Republicans' input, conducted shady deals like the "Cornhusker Kickback" to get enough people IN THEIR OWN PARTY to vote for it. Yeah, they're a real charitable bunch, just had the good of the American people in mind. These people simply want more people suckling on the government teat so that they can ensure their own re-election. Making Obama a one-term President shouldn't be the goal of Congressmen, it should be the goal of every American citizen with at least half a brain, because people who think the Democrats are all saintly have lost at least half of theirs.

-- Posted by Thom on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 8:20 PM

Steve,

You should have watched the election run-up in Illinois and Missouri. It was some of the nastiest negative campaigning I've ever seen, both by the winners and the losers.

I understand that one thing the GOP had against the health care bill was the mandated insurance, which is weird because I heard that the reason they were against the Clinton health care bill was that it didn't mandate insurance. That suggests that the main reason they are against Obama's is because it isn't theirs.

Until I know how their questions were phrased, I suspect all polls.

-- Posted by Tyger on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 8:38 PM

Healthcare coverage is a right?? I thought it was a responsibility.

The kind of reform we needed was TORT reform. Take the jackpot out of lawsuits and add some type of penalty to ones bringing frivulous suits.

Malpractice insurance is a huge part of the costs associated with healthcare. I have experienced this first hand.

Forcing everyone to buy insurance is NOT the answer. Spending trillions that we don't have for another sure-to-be mismanaged Govt. run social program is not the answer.

Reducing healthcare costs is what we need. Does anyone seriously expect a bunch of lawyers, doctors, and insurance people that we call political leaders (both D and R) are going to do that? Again, I doubt it.

They are playing good cop, bad cop. I think the gains by the GOP are nothing more than a ruse to make the people feel better about being one step closer to having their lives dictated to them by the ruling elite. There may be some concessions made, but socialized medicine and the loss of our freedom is here to stay. At least until it all fails, and it will. It's just a matter of time.

The old saying about the problem with socialism being "sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to spend" is true. Watch and see if the trillions of debt don't continue to climb. Don't believe the rhetoric about Clinton having a surplus either. There was never a yr. that the debt went down not matter which party was in charge. You can submit all the "fuzzy math" you want but the national debt continues to climb. Again, I doubt if this congress will be any different.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 9:36 PM

I just have to wonder what the heck was Nevada thinking? Harry Reid?? again? really? Nevada has the highest foreclosure rate in the nation and the highest unemployment in the country

yet you re-elected this idiot? Good thing ya'll have Las Vegas and the casinos to keep you a float or you would be as bankrupt as Cailfornia

-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 9:53 PM

Tyger, good point.Also the plan that has been approved was just fine when Mit Romney wanted it for his state.....Below is an expert from an article that many may find interesting, and well some of you may just decide to pretend never happened.... so why was it all so wonderful when it was of their guys and oh so against it when Democrate? And Thom you say no republican input, heck it's almost the same exact thing your republican buddy Romney went to bat for and actually signed into his state............ Romneycare/Obamacare not much difference other than the name......

_______________________________

""""Cato Policy Report, January/February 2008

Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare

By Michael Tanner

There's good reason for his change of position. The Massachusetts plan was supposed to accomplish two things-achieve universal health insurance coverage while controlling costs. As Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced." In reality, the plan has done neither.

Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually. "I like mandates," Romney said during a debate in New Hampshire. "The mandate works." But did it?

Technically the last day to sign up for insurance in compliance with that mandate was November 15, though as a practical measure Massachusetts residents actually had until January 1, 2008. Those without insurance as of that date will lose their personal exemption for the state income tax when they file this spring. In 2009, the penalty will increase to 50 percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy.

When then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney signed into law the nation's most far-reaching state health care reform proposal, it was widely expected to be a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. In fact Governor Romney bragged that he would "steal" the traditionally Democratic issue of health care. "Issues which have long been the province of the Democratic Party to claim as their own will increasingly move to the Republican side of the aisle," he told Bloomberg News Service shortly after signing the bill. He told other reporters that the biggest difference between his health care plan and Hillary Clinton's was "mine got passed and hers didn't."

Outside observers on both the Right and Left praised the program. Edmund Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation hailed it as "one of the most promising strategies out there." And Hillary Clinton adviser Stuart Altman said, ''The Massachusetts plan could become a catalyst and a galvanizing event at the national level, and a catalyst for other states."

Today, however, Romney seldom mentions his plan on the campaign trail. If pressed he maintains that he is "proud" of what he accomplished, while criticizing how the Democratic administration that succeeded him has implemented the program. Nevertheless, he now focuses on changing federal tax law in order to empower individuals to buy health insurance outside their employer, and on incentives for states to deregulate their insurance industry. He would also use block grants for both Medicaid and federal uncompensated care funds to encourage greater state innovation. He encourages states to experiment, but does not offer his own state as a model.

A Double Failure

There's good reason for his change of position. The Massachusetts plan was supposed to accomplish two things-achieve universal health insurance coverage while controlling costs. As Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced." In reality, the plan has done neither.

Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually. "I like mandates," Romney said during a debate in New Hampshire. "The mandate works." But did it?

Technically the last day to sign up for insurance in compliance with that mandate was November 15, though as a practical measure Massachusetts residents actually had until January 1, 2008. Those without insurance as of that date will lose their personal exemption for the state income tax when they file this spring. In 2009, the penalty will increase to 50 percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy.

Such a mandate was, of course, a significant infringement on individual choice and liberty. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, the mandate was "unprecedented," and represented the first time that a state has required that an individual, simply because they live in a state and for no other reason, must purchase a specific government- designated product.

It was also a failure.

When the bill was signed, Governor Romney, the media, state lawmakers, and health care reform advocates hailed the mandate as achieving universal coverage. "All Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. It's a goal Democrats and Republicans share, and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort," Romney wrote.

Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.

It's important to note that the subsidies in Massachusetts are extensive and reach well into the middle class-available on a sliding scale to those with incomes up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. That means subsidies would be available for those with incomes ranging from $30,480 for a single individual to as much as $130,389 for a married couple with seven children. A typical married couple with two children would qualify for a subsidy if their income were below $63,000.""""

_______________________________________

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v...

_______________________________________

more information detailing ROMNEYCARE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachuset...

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Wed, Nov 3, 2010, at 11:21 PM

Wonderwhy,

The difference is one is a state program and the other is a federal one.

The constitution limits the power of the federal government, and , sorry, providing healthcare isn't constitutionally authorized.

States, however have more leeway in what they can pass. If you don't like it, you are always free to move to another state.

I know you won't like or agree with this, but it's plain fact. It's also a plain fact that nearly half the states have already filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of obamacare, and the federal courts have refused to dismiss the case(s), meaning the courts think there is merit to the argument.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 3:31 AM

Mike I was referring to the details of the plan not the legality of it ( that is still debatable) , and the hypocrisy of the people who slam it when it's called Obamacare but loved it when Romney imposed it. The ones who say the republicans had no input but refuse to see it is fashioned after a republican plan already in play. There is a lot of questionable parts to it, and it needs fine tuning for sure, but we had to start somewhere, and it was the best they could do considering they have to fight tooth and nail against those who are blind sided with hate for Obama and their overwhelming desire to insure his failure no matter who it hurts if they succeed.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 12:15 PM

They didn't fight it because of a hatred for obama. They fought it because they took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

They fought it because it was unconstitutional and because most Americans were opposed to it.

Their hatred of obama was incidental. :-)

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 12:50 PM

They also took an office to represent all the people of this country, yet they have turned their backs on them.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 1:19 PM

quietmike...some people, like Obama, just don't get it.

wonderwhy - "I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I don't see "represent all the people of this country" in there anywhere. By the way, they each represent their respective districts, not ALL the people of this country.

-- Posted by Thom on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 1:32 PM

This country needs to come together. I don't know the right answers. They are out there. Pray to the Lord.

KLH

-- Posted by housch1944@charter.net on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 2:17 PM

If I understand quietmike, does he mean that the people who are in favor of the law are domestic enemies. One thing he has wrong is that it is not unconstitutional because it hasn't been adjudged unconstitutional, regardless what people think. I think that the reason the cases are going forward is that, regardless of who wins, it will wind up at the Supreme Court. Most constitutional lawyers say that it will declared constitutional.

The only thing that is affected at the Federal level is the mandated insurance. I find it strange that the same people that get aroused over this law have never express such outrage over other Federal mandated law.

-- Posted by Tyger on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 4:40 PM

One thing he has wrong is that it is not unconstitutional because it hasn't been adjudged unconstitutional, regardless what people think.

-- Posted by Tyger

Using that logic a thief didn't really steal anything until the judge says he's guilty?

------------------------------------------

I find it strange that the same people that get aroused over this law have never express such outrage over other Federal mandated law.

-- Posted by Tyger

I am opposed to most federal laws.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 5:50 PM

First off, there's no reason for US to raise any issues with Mitt Romney's health care plan since WE DON'T LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS. It doesn't concern the VAST majority of Americans, much less readers of the Shelbyville Times-Gazette. The federal law DOES affect us. The federal mandate to purchase health insurance is the first time (to my knowledge) that the United Stated government has mandated that its citizens purchase a good or service simply because they are alive.

-- Posted by Thom on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 6:18 PM

It is said the republicans had "no say" in the bill, it was fashioned after a Republicans bill, that is where Romney's bill fits in. It's really rather simple if you think about it, It's not like the democrats went and "just by chance" came up with the same thing that had been in effect for a few years already. The republicans did have input into the final bill, one of theirs darn near wrote it.

So Thom, just who are the elected official elected to represent if not the citizens? Isn't the constitution there to protect the people?

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 8:04 PM

So.,, Mitt Romney designed the bill Obama adopted, real original, is that change we can believe in?

Everything I have read says Romneycare is failing. Tenncare failed and somehow we are supposed to believe Obamacare will not?

The costs for healthcare is too high. Throwing more money at it in the form of insurance mandates and trillions of dollars of debt is liking feeding a ten thousand pound gorilla everything we have. It doesn't matter whose name we stick on it, sooner or later it is going to turn around and pound us into pudding.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Nov 4, 2010, at 9:22 PM

wonderwhy - As I've said before, "they each represent their respective districts, not ALL the people of this country."

If that's too difficult for you to understand, then you need to go back to Civics class in middle school.

The Congressmen that voted against that bill didn't "turn their backs" on the citizens of this country, as you said...judging by the polls, they were voting as they should have to represent their constituents' wishes. The ones that turned their backs on the citizens of this country are the Democrats that were trying to ensure they maintain the majority of power in Washington...how did that turn out for them this past Tuesday? Yeah, the "people" were REALLY thankful, weren't they?

You really should try to keep up.

-- Posted by Thom on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 12:44 AM

Isn't the constitution there to protect the people?

-- Posted by wonderwhy

How ironic that you know this, yet you support obamacare, which is absolutely contrary to the constitution.

-- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 3:08 AM

My health insurance also increased by 30% at least.

My fears prior the election of President Obama played out and seemed to be getting worse until the People spoke. At least now the Democrats will have to compromise more and perhaps listen more to their constituents.

Funny how big heads deflate.

-- Posted by stardust on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 4:51 AM

I am actually glad that the Republicans took only one of the chambers since we tend to progress better when Congress is split between the parties. I think it will work out much better this way.

-- Posted by Thom on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 8:58 AM

President Clinton and Reagan both lost control of the House in their mid-term elections, and both still won a second Presidential term. This is nothing new and could actually work out well for the Democrats.

Now that Republicans have a majority in congress, it means that they can't just sit around with their thumbs up their ass and blame President Obama. Their "just say no" strategy, now has to end and they actually have to do something for a change.

And since they have no ideas, it seems the only thing that they can come up with is to repeal the healthcare bill or otherwise just try to "undo" any progress made by Democrats.

If this is their new strategy I believe it will be a disaster for Republicans.

Most people don't even understand everything in the heathcare bill. But the longer that it is in effect, what people will realize is that alot of the fearful claims from Republican politicans were false, or in some cases...flat out lies.

There are no "death panels".

It is not a "government takeover", or "socialism".

It will not "bankrupt America".

Illegal immigrants will not get free health insurance.

What the bill will do is finally end insurance company abuses. They will no longer be able to abruptly drop a person when they get sick, or deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. It would make insurance companies pay for the treatments ordered by doctors.

An additional 32 million Americans will be able to get affordable and safe healthcare.

This will reduce the deficit by an estimated 143 billion dollars.

If this is what Republicans want to stop they will only again prove that although they do know how to campaign well and get elected, once elected...they have no idea how to govern.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 11:16 AM

Democrats "again prove that although they do know how to campaign well and get elected, once elected...they have no idea how to govern." :)

-- Posted by devan on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 12:09 PM

I'll keep it simple. People want, and deserve and are demanding, politicians who solve problems rather that creating problems. Have politicians gotten the message?

-- Posted by bomelson on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 3:24 PM

I hate to disagree but some facts are flawed. Anytime the government makes its people buy a product or service against their will, it is called socialism. Like many of the writings in this forum, the majority of citizens do not want it. We've learned through America's history that the government that governs least governs best.

Secondly, there is no way the deficit will be reduced with this bill. Anytime a program involves 1/6 of the economy, it will be like a 10,000 pound gorilla; it will never be satisfied. The actual cost is 940 billion over the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. There is no telling what the cost will escalate to after that.

In reference to illegal immigrants, they have almost broke public hospitals across the country. Twenty eight hospitals were surveyed and found that health care for illegal aliens cost them at least $80 million last year. I didn't mention the strain they put on the school systems, police departments, ect. The reading says they will not cover illegals but I would bet the same will happen as now. The left won't leave them out; "they are people too" will be there logic. You are right, everybody don't know what is in the healthcare bill; even Nancy Pelosi. She was the one that said "We need to pass this bill to see what is in it". How pathetic!

Again, I don't want the government telling me what to buy, where to buy it, ect. Our forefathers fought for us to have the freedom of choice. Having the government intervene in your life may be the way you choose to live but not me. I don't want the government making a single choice for me. As long as people live under the wing of Uncle Sam, they will never flourish.

-- Posted by Harleytodd on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 3:26 PM

Harley a very moving piece you wrote there, tell me when someone starts to break into your home, or your in an accident, will you call the socialistic - government police department? Do or did your kids attend the schools? Are you proteced by government OSSA regulations that insure you have a safe work place? When you eat out do you feel some what safer knowing the establishment is being held to codes that protect you from nasty condition and dangerous practices in the kitchens? Tell me do you go out and maintain the roads in your area so as not to have GOVERNMENTAL decisions made in how it is done? How about government codes that prevent your neighbor from owning a dump across the street from you? Or ones that prevent having a factory next door spewing poisonous gasses in your windows? Would you prefer to have no governmental speed limits? No laws imposed by government so people can do what when and where they choose? Heck just think that drug dealing, prostitute could set up her game in your drive way - heck no government protection from trespassers..........SO tell me again about how you do not want any government intervention in your life.......... A lot of big talk, but I doubt it will mean a whole hill of beans when you have need of the services.... HEy turn down unemployment, social security, don't use anything supplied by the government, would you want an unlicensed doctor to do surgery on your loved ones? Hum they are regulated by the government to insure the real nut jobs do not fake credentials..... I could go on and on but You get the point.........

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 4:17 PM

Stardust, was this the first time your rates have ever gone up? We lost a great portion of our benefits long before Obama came to office, you know under BUSH. Insurance reates have sky rocketing for many years that is one of the reasons we need the reform - to protect us from that. The companies have just worked harder to raise them recently to manipulate fear into the public by making them think like you do --- Oh no Obama care made my rates go up_ I'm sorry but the only way that could make sense is if they had not been rising so fast over Bush's years, did you blame Bush for the increases during his years? I say the reason they went up 30% was either to scare votes to the republicans or to get as much as they could while the getting was good - before reform was enacted to protect us from that sort of rape from them.

As for compromise tell me is it in the intrest of compromise that the republican are declaring the need to get rid of Obama as their 1st agenda ( many of them not all) Is their past agenda of just say NO compromise?

YES we need compromise but it has to go both ways, and that means the republican party of just say no, will have to change to one will to work together.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 4:27 PM

wonderwhy - So it's either accept that the federal government is requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or anarchy? By the way, the vast majority of things that you brought up don't even involve the FEDERAL government, which is what we're talking about here.

Wow, talk about your nut jobs.

-- Posted by Thom on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 4:30 PM

Oh, and I would hazard to guess that the majority of people against the socialist health care law don't need the police to "protect" them from someone breaking into their houses or from trespassers...just to come fill out the report and remove the body.

-- Posted by Thom on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 4:34 PM

"What the bill will do is finally end insurance company abuses. They will no longer be able to abruptly drop a person when they get sick, or deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. It would make insurance companies pay for the treatments ordered by doctors."

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 11:16 AM

So it took a 2000+ page bill just to do that?!? Couldnt they have just sent out a memo or something if thats all there was to it.

"Illegal immigrants will not get free health insurance."

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 11:16 AM

I am sure they will check to make sure they are here legally before they hand out any benefits, just like they do now. HAHAHA what a joke.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 4:52 PM

They can have the same people check for ID at the hospitals that check them at the polls...oh, that's right, they're not allowed to check your ID at the polls. All you have to do is say you're a citizen and they'll let you register to vote. I would bet (just a figure of speech, officer) that they don't even care if you say it in English.

-- Posted by Thom on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 6:17 PM

And to think they came here since Obama took office, all the debt and problems of America are his fault bla bla bla ,at least that's the way the republicans want us to believe. Shall we bow and kiss the patooties of them, shall we thank them for all the wonderful things they do for big business, heck just look at all the wonderful jobs those tax cuts Bush gave them did, we really need to continue it so they can continue to do more of the same ..........yea right if your blind and can not see where The republicans wonderful years took us...The downward spiral started months before Obama was elected so he most definatly did not cause it, and Bush had the previous years that was on his day one in good shape.......Explain again how those Bush tax breaks they had, how the bail outs they got (not loans like the auto companies) us, some how I just do not see the job growth from their hand outs and tax breaks, I can not find the so called trickle down ( other than the yellow stuff)so please do show us the wonders they did, explain how more of the same will be different...........I know a lot of people who are suffering from the wonderful things those wonderful Bush goodies provided did, they lost retirements and homes BEFORE Obama was around to blame.(Yes it is his responsibilty to fix the toxic mess left him.But you cant fix 8 years in 18 month And you can not do it with a major part of those that should be working to help playing the party of NO) But I guess those hurting since they are not republicans they don't matter do they? They are just some of the expendable flies in the ointment. Some here say the government is not here to represent "all" the citizens, that is sad - because EVERY district is made up of citizens of a variety of needs and beliefs - they ALL should be represented and considered, not just the ones who kiss party butts that are sucking up to their lobbyist. I count as much as my neighbor, you and any other citizen here rich poor or in between. To bad so many can not comprehend that, until they are the ones up for political extermination. The republicans would love nothing more than to see the warts (anyone not worth by their standards) eliminated - poof all gone-

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 6:47 PM

As for the illegals Bush invited them "Come to America get free education"

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 6:48 PM

Bush also took office at the beginning of a recession. The DOT COM bubble burst before he took office. Remember the booming markets of people buying computers during the Clinton years? When that ended the economy tanked. Then, as now, the President took the blame for it.

This time it was the housing bubble that burst and a different strategy was used to recover, tax and spend. Bush cut taxes and sent out numerous stimulus checks to the citizens, not the banks and big union run corporations like Obama. The strategy Bush used saw the market hit 14000 for the first time in history even though we had the disasters of 911 and Hurricane Katrina to contend with.

The Dems have been in control of congress since 2006. The housing buble burst because of a Dem. law in the form of the Community re-investment act that extended huge loans to people who would have otherwise not been able to afford them and would have had to borrowed less to stay within their means. The GOP when they had control did nothing to correct the problem even though they knew it existed.

The bottom line is that the government is only suppose to pass laws with the consent of the governed. If they truly had the peoples consent for what they have been doing, they would have been re-elected.

The people understand that regardless of the best intentions, whether for healthcare, housing, or other social programs, we cannot spend money that we don't have and pass the debt on to our children. To me, it seems very selfish to do that to future generations.

Healthcare costs are too high and insurance is certainly a driving factor.

1.) People that don't need care run to the doctor for the slightest sniffle because they have no out of pocket expense, except maybe a copay.

2.) TV ads push drugs, procedures, and devices while convincing people they have the symptoms and that they can get the costs covered by insurance.

3.) Lawsuits over malpractice, or simply slipping on a wet floor, award millions to people who are out to make a living (and do) from such suits.

4.)Insurance companies are not allowed to cross state lines so that citizens can get the best deal.

5.) Insurance costs can be reduced if is only used for disasterous cases instead of everyday colds, elective surgeries, and lifestyle choice drugs such as Viagra.

These are just a few issues with insurance.

All of these issues can be improved to bring down healthcare costs. None of these issues were corrected by the healthcare bill. I believe wonderwhy point out that Obamacare was modelled after Romneycare, so the GOP does hae ideas, I believe those ideas are wrong in both cases.

The people recognized a march towards socialism to which we have not consented and voted accordingly. We can only hope at this point that the GOP gets the message and will only do what the people consent to.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 7:59 PM

Jesus, talk about taking things out of context! I simply mean I don't want the govt. in my business. Your rant about everything between people dumping trash and doctors has nothing to do with my point. The Federal Gov. doesn't make laws that tell me to buy anything in your rant. Yes, I will say it again. Most level headed people don't want the gov. DICTATING which insurance to buy! Read my second post if you want more reasoning.

I agree with Thom; if someone breaks into my home, he will likely be leaving injured or worse. I served over 20 years so WE can have rights. Owning a gun is still one of them, until the socialist figure in the White House takes that right away.

I just wonder how long all of you libs are going to hang onto the Bush era years. Obama has been in office over 2 years and hasn't attempted to stop the border issue or any other key issues.

He gave approval to lenders to make loans to an abundance of people that had no business getting the loan in the first place. And then turns around and dismisses the excess over the fair market value. If that wasn't bad enough, bailing out the auto industry was insane. Again, it's not the job of the gov to intervene in private industry. That 34 billion could have been used for border issues, ECT.

The Bush tax cuts should be extended permanently. How else are you going to stimulate the economy if you don't allow people to make money? All of the bigger companies have been holding onto their capital because they are afraid Obama will raise their taxes and lose their reserves. You will see more job growth if he doesn't mess it up. Time will tell on this.

I guess at Obama's 4 year mark Bush will still be blamed for everything. You might as well blame Nixon for something that happened in 1974 at that point...

-- Posted by Harleytodd on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 10:34 PM

I think the word " mandate" is somewhat loaded in this context. The Brown Shirts will not be busting down any doors in the middle of the night demanding to see someone's insurance papers. In reality, what is proposed is simply a tax on those who remain uninsured. It is a much fairer tax than most we currently have. The Federal Government actually already does "mandate" that we purchase many things, if only through a different methodology. For example, there are some who pay for roads that they will never use, some who have no children but are nevertheless compelled to fund schools, some people are forced to pay for welfare, warfare, environmental studies, subsidies to agriculture, art, and business, etcetera, etcetra that they may not otherwise choose to support, but are never given the choice through the distribution of tax revenues. There is no difference.

I was not aware that our forefathers had "freedom of choice" in mind when they designed and/or fought for our government. I also must have missed that bit of American history that supports the theory of "America governing best when it governs least."

Moreover, I just do not understand the Constitutional arguments posted here. The Constitution was a founding document, not a finished product. President after president, and court after court, have firmly established the fact that our Constitution has a broad range of interpretation. If the end is suggested, then the means are understood. That historically sound concept, coupled with the Supremacy Clause, renders further speculation pointless.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 2:09 AM

The bottom line with the constitution is the people have the power over the govt. not the other way around.

The laws must be done with the peoples consent. They have my consent to tax me for roads, military, police, school, etc.

They do not have my consent to force me to buy insurance.

Obama started out by saying there would be no tax increase on the poor or middle class. Then he passed Obamacare but said it was not a tax but a mandated law. Then, they changed because they knew it would be found unconstitutional legally and said it is a tax, which is constitutional.

There are powers at work here much bigger than just GOP and DEMs. Look at what the FED is doing and the 14T$ debt. Just follow the money trail to find the culprits.

Our country is designed for individual liberty and responsibility. You can't have one without the other.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 6:08 AM

My opinion is that neither just the democrats or the republicans are responsible for the economy but both. This situation has been happening over the past 20 years or more. Remember when we had Eaton, Stanley, Lockheed, Model Sportswear and many other clothing factories? When we allowed all our industry move out of the country and started getting everything from China, that is what ruined our economy. We need our jobs back. Cheap labor in other countries has undermined this country. Do we have enough intelligent people in Washington, who will work together to reverse this situation?

-- Posted by Poksalad on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:35 AM

David - Regarding your question, "People have spoken: What's next?", I believe the answer is, argue with each other as always.

-- Posted by Thom on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:51 AM

I agree Poksalad, Reagan began it by elliminating the tariff between us and Canada, Bush 1 wanted to extend it to Mexico, Clinton did extend it to Mexico and China.

Tariffs were the primary means of funding for the U.S. government before they started using the income tax and the ponzy scheme we call social security. Of course it was still the citizens that paid the higher price on foreign goods, but at least we had a choice.

Have you ever heard a single politician say during a speech "buy American products instead of foreign imports" ? I haven't! That tells me they don't care if we buy U.S. made goods or foreign and also tells me there are global powers at work that want to merge all of our economies into one.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 10:55 AM

Poksalad,

I agree with your points to an extent. I believe it was indeed beneficail for the majority of us to have SOME manufacturing moved offshore since we do benefit from the lower prices cheaper labor provides. I also know that we have insufficient numbers of individuals willing to work for the lower wages that certain manufacturing positions SHOULD be paid. Some manufacturing HAD to leave are shores.

The flip side is that most everyione knows that a service based or technology based economy is usually much slower to recover from a recession or downturn than a manufacturing. More manufacturing jobs should have been kept here for that reason alone. Those jobs still could NOT pay $20-$35 for line work, mind you, but, at least, domestic production and exports would be contributing to our GDP.

Globalism is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. I maintain that the pendulum had swung too far in the favor of emerging/developing countries and we allow such to continue at our own peril. I just hope politicians recognize that a BALANCE is necessary.

-- Posted by gottago on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 2:04 PM

Were the election results a complete rejection of the Obama administration or was it more the people's rejection of "government as usual"? Only a blind fool would believe that it's this or the former administration's fault. Our country has been headed in this direction for the last 40 years. I certainly don't know all the answers, hell I don't even know if I could ask the right questions, but I do know that if our government continues to reject the values that our country was founded upon, we are still headed for the same train wreck, no matter what car you're riding in.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Sat, Nov 6, 2010, at 2:16 PM

The battle over the healthcare mess is in a way the same as will happen with this trash fee. Most people don't want it, but it will be shoved down our throat. Both issues are the same. we are told one thing and another is happening. The folks in the city will pay and pay and pay again for this fee. because you see, it will never stop once it is put into motion. The only way to stop the unfair pillage of our country, and indeed our city now is to stop the wasteful spending. It is like we in shelbyville have out own Barry, Harry, and Nancy.

-- Posted by megalop on Wed, Nov 10, 2010, at 11:21 AM

Not in America: British Legislator Loses Seat over False Campaign Leaflets

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Not in America: British Legislator Loses Seat over False Campaign Leaflets

Elwyn Watkins and Phil Woolas

Misrepresenting a campaign opponent's position may be standard operating procedure in the United States, but in the United Kingdom it has cost a member of the British parliament his seat. Phil Woolas was removed from office by an election court after it concluded that the Labour Party MP knowingly made false statements about Liberal Democrat Elwyn Watkins. The remarks, which were published in campaign literature, accused Watkins of courting Islamic extremists and planning to not live in the district covering Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Woolas won the election in May by only 103 votes.

The ruling, said to be the first of its kind in 99 years, bars Woolas from running again for the House of Commons for the next three years. He has said he intends to appeal the decision.

In February 1911, High Court judges voided the election of Irish MP Richard Hazleton because his campaign agents had engaged in bribery, intimidation, paying to transport voters to the polls and spreading "false statements of fact with respect to the personal character and conduct" about Hazleton's opponent Timothy Healy.

-Noel Brinkerhoff, David Wallechinsky

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Sun, Nov 14, 2010, at 9:08 AM

"People have spoken: What's next?"

The same ol Sh_ _!

Congress is going to keep on spending putting the poor out on the street and putting the "Middle Class" in the Ghettos, in order to control the American People.

States will continue giving land and jurisdiction over to the National Central Government (usually by demanding Financial HELP) until the U. S. Central Government has complete jurisdiction in all the states and will force the states under Martial Law in violation to the Constitution.

Which, by the way,

the Health care program (Obamacare as you put it) IS very much Constitutional, BECAUSE... the constitution gave Congress the right To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17)

The U.S. can claim this is a law for their Federal Citizens or citizens living in U.S. Federal Territories, making it then constitutional, but not for people of the states who were born in America and don't owe their citizenship to the 14th Amendment and who don't live in a U.S. Federal Territory.

How does this Health Care Program give insurance to the unemployed or street person who has nothing? It doesn't! It is just a ploy to help put people into bankruptcy - Quicker!!!

There is no debtors prison so they can't throw you in jail for not paying.

The IRS can not tax PROPERTY because that is a Direct Tax and must be apportioned throughout the states, which it is NOT.

The IRS is a foreign company demanding Taxes from you. Unless you live in a Federal Territory or a Federal Citizen, the IRS has no authority to tax you for not buying Insurance.

When you look at it, Sales Tax is a tax on "Consumable Items", not everything you buy. A hammer is not consumable but they tax it just like everything else you buy, and in some case over and over again.

Property Tax is a Direct Tax and is not allowed by the Constitution, but the states tax your property just the same.

So... to answer your question... the Governments, both National and state, because they are legislated by Congress (Republicannots and Demoncrats) and State Legislators, your life will continue on in the down slide until Martial Law is put in place because the states gave too much land, power and jurisdiction over to the Federal Government.

I read where all major Metropolitan Cities in America will be under Federal Jurisdiction, so FEMA will have jurisdiction in all states to disarm the American people and relocate them and force inoculations at their will during disasters, both natural and "Man-made" disasters.

Congress knew when they allowed corporations to leave the country for the cheap labor, that it would take jobs out of America and by bringing in 200,000 foreigners (or more) with Visas each year into America to let them decide if they wanted to live in America, that would take jobs away from the Americans as well. And Now Mexicans flooding into America takes even more jobs away. Visas for Mexicans allow them to come in and work but they are not allowed to be self employed or own their own business or have controlling interest in a business. I wonder how many are in violation of that law?

That pretty much says it all. Who is making the Congress Republicannots and Demoncrats make these Anti-Christ decisions for us?

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Sun, Nov 14, 2010, at 1:01 PM

Here is a very Pleasant thought for all you people who refuse to think for yourselves.

The World Bankers instructed Congress to keep spending money we don't have (*one of the conditions of being bankrupt) until it produced an economical chaos.

Not only the poor but the Middle Class have had their homes repossessed by foreclosure.

If you watch the news... the Equity in these Homes and Property has doubled in value, maybe more than doubled.

Millions of people have lost or about to lose their homes and yet the EQUITY has doubled for the rich people who have foreclosed and resold them.

(*)The buyer/owner paid the interest on them and some rich banker gets the Equity after the Republicanots and the Demoncrats cause the Economic Chaos for the people and "Free" Huge Equity for the RICH.

How convenient is that???

Who did you say Congress works for?

The people have Spoken and said nothing.

Republican/Democrat means nothing. That is just a distraction to keep the people from looking at the real problem... usurping power of Congress and state legislators.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Mon, Nov 15, 2010, at 11:18 AM

Doesn't anyone realize that when congress goes to the Federal Reserve and asks for unlimited money they can just piss away on nothing that helps the people... the value of our dollar goes down?

That means every time Congress spends, the value of our money keeps getting less.

Because the value of the dollar isn't as valuable as it was last year... EVERY THING COSTS MORE!

That would include your car insurance, food, utilities, fuel and oh yeah, your healthcare insurance.

Let's just say... I own my own home which is paid for, my cars are paid for and I don't own any credit cards. I am about as sovereign as one can be. I am retired and living on a very small fixed income.

However, I am forced to buy food if I want to continue to eat and must pay the price for Gas if I want to go anywhere. To stay comfortable I must continue to pay Duck River's high prices and winter rates each and ever month. The State forces me to buy a tag each year, car insurance which can only keep going up. The City and County sends an unconstitutional Property tax bill each year to be paid or lose my home, and if that isn't enough, the State and/or National Government, when it needs more money, thinks nothing of reaching into my personal budget and take what they need by increasing taxes or raising the cost of something, if not everything as in the stimulus packages.

That's not enough for the greedy asses! Now they want to force everyone to buy a Healthcare Insurance policy that will most certainly keep going up in price and offer less benefits.

Soc. Sec. won't give any raises because the cost of living isn't up in the white house, I guess.

The Governments have raped my budget for their own use, refused to recognize a cost of living increase (which is stupid because anytime Congress spends money it raises the cost of living by decreasing the value of our dollar) and make me have to tighten my belt instead of theirs.

So...

It all boils down to putting the middle class in the ghettos, so they won't be any trouble to the One World Government.

As I read these posts, I can read how everyone will accept the "Mark of the Beast" as just the thing to do because the government wants them to.

Everyone will look to everyone else to make the "Mark of the Beast" a good thing!

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 11:49 AM

How about those Republicans??

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 12:31 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.