Supreme Court Readies for Healthcare Debate

By Connie Cass | March 19, 2012

  • March 19, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    Larry says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 5

    Wow, Connie. Good job, if your aim is to present only one side of this issue. No mention, for example, that Obamacare exempts entire states, some unions and other large blocks of people from the mandate.

  • March 19, 2012 at 1:42 pm
    Nolibsallowed says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 26
    Thumb down 8

    …”Can the government really tell us what to buy?” A Democratic Government of the People cannot tell us what to buy. A Socialist-Progressive government can. Wake up, people..

  • March 19, 2012 at 2:14 pm
    bob says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 28
    Thumb down 12

    Connie Cass, how do you get away with assuming there is a “problem of the nation’s more than 50 million uninsured”. There is no problem. Low income Americans get Medicaid, or they spend down until they get to the Medicaid requirements. Free (to non-taxpayers) medical is given to all children up to an even higher income threshold for their parents. Hospitals will put those with no medical insurance on payment plans. The problem is the inflated cost of medical care because government gets more involved every year. And while I am at it doesn’t the government have more important things to do then decide if sex is covered by insurance?

    • March 19, 2012 at 2:33 pm
      The Other Point of View says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 16
      Thumb down 28

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • March 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm
        Unknown says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 35
        Thumb down 3

        Nobody seems to address the real cost the lawsuits. Sweden does not allow lawsuits. Until America can control the cost of the lawsuit lottery – we can not afford to have National Health Care.

      • March 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm
        Agent says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 29
        Thumb down 8

        Gee TOPOV, I thought you wrote this article for IJ. What is your answer to the re-scoring of this bill from $990 Billion to $1.762 Trillion which is effectively doubling in cost? Since this bill was passed, the cost of health insurance has almost doubled as well. Most companies out there know they are going to have to accept anyone no matter what their condition so they are going to continually raise rates. You cited Sweden as a wonderful example of the single payor healthcare system. Sweden has one tenth the population of the US and they pay among the highest taxes on earth. Forgive me if I don’t want 80% of my income going to the government so a bunch of bureaucrats can run it and tell me what treatment I can have for a condition.

        • March 19, 2012 at 3:11 pm
          The Other Point of View says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 27

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • March 19, 2012 at 3:26 pm
            The Other Point of View says:
            Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 20

            Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • March 19, 2012 at 4:08 pm
            Agent says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 20
            Thumb down 8

            Obviously TOPOV, you are not an agent with Health Insurance clients who have received unending rate increases on their plans. Try telling any of them they have only received a 7.3% rate increase in the past 3 years. Many of them have had to severely alter their plans for higher deductibles, higher co-pays or just have a plain vanilla catastrophic plan in order to afford it. I have to deal with facts, not Progressive ideology like you do.

      • March 19, 2012 at 3:13 pm
        bob says:
        Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 16
        Thumb down 6

        OPV.
        Number 1. Government mandated tests has a lot to do with increased cost to pay for that equipment you love. Haven’t you kept pace with the news, MRIs, cancer screens etc are way over prescribed. The countries with the lowest health care costs are the ones with healthier people, they eat right have higer exercise rates etc. Look at Okinawa where many of the residents are over 80 – explained by diet and exercise not socialized medicine. If you have experience in enrolling people in Part D you’d realize many of the drugs our seniors are on are treating the symptoms because they are unwilling to make the effort (diet and exercise) to cure themselves. How many fat Swedes do you see not counting the ones that have immigrated to the US? I’ve spent time in Sweeden and they are not ethinically diverse there (as well as in many other parts of Europe). They have more of a overall exceptance of wellness concepts as they are essentially one race of people – something that we do not experience in the US. Our concept of wellness is that when we get uncomfortable we get a pill, if we have a condition we get an operation.
        2. People without insurance are not necessarily the ones who can’t afford insurance, and those without the ability to pay are covered by medicare or were just too lazy to enroll.

        There are more ways to accomplish risk management in the health area than insurance but Americans are not sold on them and our government enables many of them to be unhealthy.

        • March 19, 2012 at 3:23 pm
          The Other Point of View says:
          Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 12
          Thumb down 23

          Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

          • March 19, 2012 at 4:46 pm
            bob says:
            Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 16
            Thumb down 6

            The government does not require you to buy a specific car but once the tax breaks and incentives get high enough people will flock to the dealerships to get their free green Volts (When that happens the government will probably mandate the waiver of the medical deductible at burn centers).
            Get real OPV, when the government says something is “free” by mandating that it will be covered by insurance, people will make those “free will choices” to get the tests and the medical industry will take advantage.
            Please do not twist my words, I do not blame the government for everything that is wrong with the world – it is when they waste my money (there is no such thing as government funding) and restrict my freedom that I have the problem.

          • March 19, 2012 at 7:32 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 10

            I didn’t copy and paste it.

            I typed it. Manually from my Iphone into my browser. Go @%@ yourself. Debate my facts. Don’t call me ignorant.

            You did not do the numbers for research with white versus black men in Sweden. I would call that the first thing to do when looking at life expectancies, find out why they are lower. And I would say having 13% as opposed to less than 1% of a population living at a lower life expectancy linked to race was not something you thought to look up or obesity rates and the issues there in then you are a freaking idiot.

      • March 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm
        bob says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 14
        Thumb down 6

        That other Bob is not me. As a side comment:

        TOPV: Let me ask you a better question: What happens when a country with Government run healthcare goes bankrupt? Who pays? How do you re-setup the captial needed to have insurance companies which took about a century to build up to begin with and you just removed? There is no fix when that happens, other than another 50 years of capital building by banks, in order to have some rich guy reinvest his funds to make an insurance company.

        The government runs in red ink in every nation, and you want them to handle healthcare? Get real. They can’t handle the bill. The majority of those responsible and actually get healthcare don’t deserve to have the risk of that being taken from them when the government can’t pay.

        And further regarding your issue with us paying for people through passed on costs from those who get treatment and can’t pay: At least it never translates to government red ink. Government is bad for these situations. They are not businessmen. They cannot handle it, and should not.

        • March 19, 2012 at 6:48 pm
          The Other Point of View says:
          Hot debate. What do you think?
          Thumb up 8
          Thumb down 16

          It is so tedious dealing with you right wingers. Do everyone a favor and leave the posting of comments to intelligent people like me. It is obvious that my intellect was more developed by age five than yours will ever be.

          • March 19, 2012 at 7:03 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 13
            Thumb down 6

            Oh really OPV? That is your response to my comment?

            Remind me: What happened in Russia with the USSR when they went bankrupt? You fail to see that if the only method of payment is the government, then if the government cannot pay then no one can pay.

            Please enlighten me how my comments were “ignorant”.

          • March 19, 2012 at 7:10 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 8
            Thumb down 5

            And as another side comment: Your comments to do with taxation are the most ignorant I have ever heard.

            The one who has to do some research is you. I have not once seen you draw up theory, some numbers, and then make your own conclusion. I have only seen articles used as quotes with their conclusions (opinions)

            I’ve heard your solutions on the left about “taxation” and know the comments on the right regarding “taxation” to you sound equally as stupid, but I’d say this is the best link you never saw which should shut up your comments about how we need to raise capital gains taxes, and should shut up your comments about some other aspects, though I already realize you’re still on about the corporate tax rate despite that being proven to do the same damage as the link below:

            http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-decemeber-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

            And then shut your ignornat liberal left mouth on the tax debates and the war on the lower class bull.

            I have won every arguement I’ve had with you. Other than the other Bob who keeps posting on here who you are probably stupid enough to think is me, despite the fact that he sounds inherently less informed and is more on the right. You couldn’t figure out a game of chess with a manual.

          • March 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm
            bob says:
          • March 19, 2012 at 7:22 pm
            The Other Point of View says:
            Hot debate. What do you think?
            Thumb up 7
            Thumb down 13

            Bob:

            You can’t even copy and paste a link. Thanks for proving my point.

      • March 19, 2012 at 7:41 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 5

        My post to do with obesity rates in Sweden got canned somehow, here we go again:

        Obesity rates Sweden: About 10%
        Obesity rate America: About 35%

        Infant mortality rate linked to Obesity?: Yes. Considerably.
        Amount of cancer cases believed to be linked to obesity: 10%
        Amount of diabities linked to obesity: 20-30%.
        Amount of Heart disease linked to obesity: 1/4
        Amount of blacks in America: about 13%
        Amount of blacks in Sweden: less than 1%

        Life expectancy for black people versus white, about a 7 year difference for both women and men.

        Areas Sweden has a natural edge in: Obesity rates at one third that of America. Blacks at 10 times less. Ten percent of their population would live 7 years longer, 20% of their population would suffer less heart disease, diabities, and infant mortality rates.

        Your conclusion: It must be the health system!

        Again: Idiotic.

      • March 20, 2012 at 8:41 am
        Nolibsallowed says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 5

        If things are so much better in Sweden, TOPOV, I’d gladly pay for a one way ticket for you to go there.

        • March 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm
          Kurt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 6

          Hey Nolibsallowed, I agree with TOPOV and would love to take you up on your offer for a ticket to Sweden. Let me know if you’re for real, or just another republiturd talking out their backend.

          • March 22, 2012 at 2:00 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            I have to assume you aren’t serious.

            After looking at my last post (which would easily account for their lower costs as there would be less issues needing care, infant mortality average numbers would be explained, as infant mortality is per thousand, and if you have 250 additional fat people per thousand, which an infant mortality rate increase of even 20% you add 50 deaths to the infant mortality rate. If it’s linked to 10% of infant mortality you add 25 deaths per thousand, and the average life expectancy is so easily explained when you have 13% of our population with an average of 7 years less based on race, where as less than 1% of Sweden gets that same hit. Get the freaking math yet Kurt? Accounting for this Sweden’s costs and infant moratity rates as well as life expectancies would be naturally lower, considerably at that. But the difference is in fact only 1 year. The moratlity rate differnce is small. The cost is not as large as it should be accounting for the above.)

            Republiturd is not a method of debate. Facts are. My numbers are undeniable. Debate them, or pack and head home.

          • March 23, 2012 at 2:00 pm
            Nolibsallowed says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Thank you, Kurt–you have totally proven a point as to how you liberals deal with differences of opinions–you all resort to name calling. Did you have smoke coming out of your ears, too? Heck–if I could get rid of all radical liberals, I would have already gotten the job done. Have a nice (relaxed!!) weekend! I’m sure you’ll find something else to blow a gasket over, though.

  • March 19, 2012 at 2:36 pm
    Nolibsallowed says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 7

    …”Can the government really tell us what to buy?” A Democratic Government of the People can’t, but I guess a socialist-progressive government can…wake up, people!!

    • March 19, 2012 at 7:15 pm
      The Other Point of View says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 27
      Thumb down 4

      If an asp in the grass is snake, then why is a grasp in the a$$ a goose?

      • March 20, 2012 at 8:41 am
        Nolibsallowed says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 7

        In this case, I’d say the asp in the grass is named Barack Obama.

  • March 19, 2012 at 3:00 pm
    Patrick says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 23
    Thumb down 6

    Right on, Bob!

    If you want something more messed up, just get the government involved.

    Check with Canada and Great Britain to see how in love they are with their plan.

    The problem lies with skyrocketing medical costs. At the root of this issue is litigation, government mandates on medical and medical industry greed.

    Stop the government intervention in free enterprise. Obama and mainly the democrats, think that there should not have to be “free will” or being responsible for yourself and your actions or inaction in the case of Obamacare.

    Public Safety is run amock in the USA. If we stub our toe, it must mean there is an unsafe crack endangering everyone, instead of watching where you are going and picking up your feet. What a heretical concept in the Democrats’ eyes.

    Housing Crisis, everything is a Crisis to Obama, new (protective???) mortgage loan regs and qualifications are making it rediculously difficult for a good, qualified person or family to buy or refinance loans to get approved. Hence, further slowing down any industry recovery which tends to play a key roll in the economic recovery as a whole. Our taxpayer Money, so freely handed out, to help banks recover should have been tied to how many loans were modified to prevent forclosures and promote new qualified buyers. Instead, we have a death spiral where idiot banks and lenders find it more expeditious to turn down reasonable offers on forclosures and short sales, thus allowing properties to linger on their books as bank owned properties when they would have received a better return by moving quickly to accept anything reasonable. Usually, the bank, and its investors, lose more money when this happens.

    I am tired of Obama using “Executive Orders” to legislate illegally what he cannot get legally in Congress. What happened to separation of powers in our Constitution? Oh, that’s right, we are supposed to see things through the “world” view and incorporate Sharia law (or anything else that lets backers of big (brother)government) do whatever they think is right for the great, unwashed, ignorant, mass of which most of us are just a bystander. Remember Nobless Oblige? (We must take care of our peasantry for they don’t know any better and can’t help themselves.)

    Unfortunately, the court system and especially the Supreme Court, who are supposed to be the protectors of our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights, have evolved into something akin to another legislative body and have succumbed to populist liberalism in their rulings. They have also become lost by forgetting (K.I.S.S.)to keep it simple stupid. Simple, moral, right and wrong, ethics.

    • March 19, 2012 at 7:01 pm
      The Other Point of View says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 11

      If there is one problem with ObamaCare it’s that it provides health care to ignorant nostalgists who bandy about outdated concepts like freedom, liberty, responsibility, and self-reliance.

      Ideally ObamaCare would have an IQ requirement for someone to receive medical care. That would make it easier to thin the herd and bring about an enlightened socialist utopia populated by people like me.

      • March 20, 2012 at 8:44 am
        Nolibsallowed says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 8

        …”outdated concepts like freedom, liberty, responsibility, and self-reliance.” Are you kidding, TOPOV?? These are the fundamentals that America was built on, you commie!!! People like you make me SICK–you have no right calling yourself an American.

      • March 20, 2012 at 11:49 am
        Bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 8
        Thumb down 2

        This is either not OPV or he’s being sarcastic. Don’t panic.

      • March 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm
        Todd says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 6

        I see, OPV. So, please enlighten me with your wisdom (read heavy sarcasm). I have seen you continually denigrate others and treat them with derision when they disagree with you. You repeatedly name call and are disrespectful of others. You continue to use the same tired arguments that all conservatives are racists, sexists, and intolerant of others view points, etc, etc. ad naseum. And yet, virtually everyone on the board has been respectful of your opinions when disagreeing with you — until you start getting nasty and…intolerant of others’ opinions. You say that you are smarter because someone else can’t cut and paste an article, and yet your usual reference points are Wikipedia? You need to look in the mirror and see for yourself that you are blinded by YOUR prejudices and ignorance.

  • March 19, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    Rusty says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 22
    Thumb down 5

    I think the whole plan was flawed fom the beginning. First, it was passed without any opposing debate and in the dead of night with all kinds of bribes to garner support – and from the president’s own party! If the proposal was so good, why the subterfuge? Next, why were so many waivers issued? Again, if the plan is so there shouldn;t have been a need for any waivers. (Oh yes, favored groups and politicians on the fence about the law needed them.) Thirdly, during deliberations, former House Speaker Pelosi said, “We’ll know whatr’s in the bill once it is passed”. What kind of government leadership is that? What kind of government do we have now? They pass bills before anyone really knows what they’ll do to our people? It shows how little politicians think of us regular folks who pay the bills they create – including their salaries and pensions.

    There are just too many parts of the law, besides the mandate, that are problematic and because no one was sure what was in the bill, we didn’t hear about many of them as the bill was being passed. Now, as Pelosi said, we are learning what is in teh bill and it isn;t pretty. (No wonder she wanted it passed without any reading.) The latest revelation is that the overall cost will be much greater than initially reported. Surprise. Surprise. Anything the government mingles in always costs at least twice more than originally proposed. So, where are the savings? Non-existent. Like all governmental programs, this will just be added to our debt.

    And, since the mandate for insurers is to cover everyone, a lot more people will undoubtedly use the coverage more often for things like regular check-ups, so how will that be cheaper? And, with more people using medical care, where will all extra the doctors, whose fees will be subject to cost cutting and whose decisions will be reviewed by bureaucrats, come from?

    I’ve only scratched the surface here. The whole plan is a problem for this country not even making a case against the initial purchase mandate which I agree is not legal. If the Supreme Court says the mandate is legal it will not be becaue they decide it on constitutional grounds (which they’re supposed to do) but on ideological grounds (which would be a clue to where this country is headed. Given the latter event, it will be an example of the subtle effort to set the Constitution aside a piece at a time until we are either a European socialist republic or a European feudal system. Either way, it’s likely we would end up with two classes of citizens-the ruling class, along with its cronies (including wealthy supporters),its henchmen(government workers and unions)and the rest of us who get to foot the bill and perhaps fight over the scraps left for us by the ruling class. That is not what the founders intended, but then the drift in this country has been away from the precepts of individual freedom and respoonsibility for oneself as stated in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We’ve even heard politicians sworn to uphold the Constitution consider it outdated or of little relevence to modern “progressive” society.

  • March 19, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    Agent says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 7

    All I know is that the Supremes had better get this right or there will be big trouble in this country. Over half of the states want this dastardly 2,700 page monstrocity repealed. It has been shown to cost twice as much as scored originally, a fact that TOPOV conveniently forgets to mention in his Progressive rants.

    • March 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm
      Always Amazed says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 16
      Thumb down 6

      I wonder if Obama, who pledged transparency, in one of his many wind-bag speeches, will actually have this case on C-SPAN like he said he would do when he was running for the (no-experience needed for the job) presidency.

      • March 19, 2012 at 6:07 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 12
        Thumb down 5

        The Supremes do not permit TV cameras to show the arguments. We will have to hear the TV crews out there predicting what the ruling will be. I am sure NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC will all predict victory for the President. I wonder how they will spin if the Supremes shoot it down.

        • March 20, 2012 at 10:49 am
          Always Amazed says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 10
          Thumb down 6

          Agreed, that they will. Not too biased. I wonder the same as you do. How will Obama’s blessed media spin it? Perhaps they’ll play the race card. And I hope in my heart of hearts Owebamacare is shot down to the ground.

  • March 19, 2012 at 5:19 pm
    Think About This says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 4

    An amicus brief was filed on this last week which makes a good argument – a contract is not legal if it is entered into under duress. In this situation, the insurance company is forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions, which they would not do if not forced to by the government, and consumers are forced to purchase health insurance, even if they would choose not to unless forced to by the government. So both parties are being forced into a contract under duress by the government. Hence, the contract is not legal – or so the amicus brief argument points out.

  • March 19, 2012 at 11:55 pm
    Something Else to Think About says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 4

    An amicus brief was filed last week making the very good argument that a contract entered into under duress is not considered to be a legal contract. Under Obamacare, the insurance company is being forced under duress by the government to sell health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions; the consumer is being forced under duress by the government to purchase an insurance policy even if the consumer would rather not do so. Hopefully this amicus brief will be highlighted during the presentation in front of the Supreme Court next week; it’s one of the best arguments against this monstrosity of a law yet.

  • March 20, 2012 at 8:40 am
    The Other Point of View says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 4

    WHOA! WAIT JUST A MINUTE.

    Someone is posting using my moniker and it isn’t me.

    Whever posted this: “It is so tedious dealing with you right wingers.” Is not me, nor are any of the follow ups to that.

    IJ: You need to institute a system where only one person can comment using a particular USER ID.

    • March 20, 2012 at 8:47 am
      The Other Point of View says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 6

      IJ: And until a system is in place, I’m done posting and I’m done reading IJ. If you decide to implement a system that allows only one person to use a particular ID, let me know.

      Take care Anejo!

      • March 20, 2012 at 11:04 am
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 1

        I count at least 3 different bobs responding as well – this is one thing we agree on.

        • March 20, 2012 at 8:08 pm
          Bobby says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 2

          Yeah – three different bobs out there? Hard to believe – such an uncommon name.

    • March 20, 2012 at 11:38 am
      The Other Point of View says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 7

      Whoever posted this using my name: “If there is one problem with ObamaCare” That was not me either. Anyone who knows me from my posts knows that I never call it Obamacare because that name is disrespectful. It’s calledthe PPACA, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

      • March 21, 2012 at 11:01 am
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 7
        Thumb down 4

        It is interesting you spelled out the complete name of the bill commonly called Obamacare. Please, tell us what is affordable about it. Is a bill originally scored by CBO at $990 Billion escalating to a re-scored cost of $1.762 Trillion fit your definition of affordable? By the time it is implemented in 2014 (If allowed to stand), many have estimated another re-scoring to be in the mid $2 Trillion. I guess we had better get busy drilling on Federal land so we will have some extra money coming in, huh.

    • March 20, 2012 at 3:52 pm
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 1

      Yes OPV I realized after a few of the comments it could not have been you.

    • March 20, 2012 at 8:05 pm
      The Other Point of View says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 6

      Whoever claimed that was not me was not me either. In fact, I am not even sure that this is me. I get a bit fuzzy after I have been away pretending that I went to law school.

  • March 20, 2012 at 11:39 am
    The Other Point of View says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 2

    If an asp in the grass is snake…

    That wasn’t me either.

    • March 20, 2012 at 11:50 am
      Nolibsallowed says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 5
      Thumb down 1

      Honestly–It didn’t look like something you’d post–I don’t know you (obviously), I don’t agree with all you say, but I didn’t think that was you that posted that–so–my reply wasn’t pointed at you, TOPOV..

  • March 21, 2012 at 2:04 pm
    doyourhomework says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    Over 400,000 workers have received exemptions SO FAR with 80%+ of them coming from union shops. How the hell can this farce be considered “fair.” Give me a break!!!!!

  • March 21, 2012 at 2:13 pm
    MARY says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    Will the real TOPOV, please stand up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • March 22, 2012 at 2:22 pm
    Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 2

    On a related topic, the Ministry of Disinformation known as our Federal Government and their minions in the media have announced that higher gas prices are not bad because they estimate over a thousand lives will be saved each year from driving less. I guess they want to save the lazy bums who are collecting their 99 weeks and don’t need to get out and look for a job because they will be taken care of. This is how Progressives think and it is definitely a mental disease.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features