Obamacare Upheld
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
I can't believe it's not on here already? :?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/28/ ... ur-wallet/
On Thursday morning, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- aka "Obamacare" -- was constitutional, there was a brief pause as the country took a moment to imagine what this brave new world would look like. Had socialism won the day? Were death panels on the way? Would children be roused out of their beds for compulsory morning calisthenics?
Within moments, Twitter was hopping with messages from conservative dissenters such as Michelle Malkin, Ari Fleischer, the Heritage Foundation, and dozens of others, vowing to keep fighting health care reform all the way. But outside the beltway in the rest of the country, many Americans simply wondered how this ruling would affect their daily lives.
Back to the Future
In some ways, the future is already here. Many portions of the PPACA have already been quietly enacted. The government has streamlined the approval process for generic drugs and expanded Medicare's prescription benefit. It has levied a 10% tax on tanning booths, and passed several rules that will make it easier for people with "pre-existing conditions" to get the lifesaving treatments they need. For insurance companies, lifetime limits on coverage, price gouging, and a host of other cost-cutting measures are now illegal.
Slowly, almost imperceptibly, medication is getting cheaper, insurance coverage is getting easier to attain, and a healthy lifestyle is becoming more attainable.
Now, we can expect that over the next few months, more and more of the future will show up. Starting in August, insurance companies will not be able to charge a copay for many forms of preventative care -- treatments like colonoscopies and mammograms will now be free for patients. A few months later, people who make more than $200,000 per year will start having to pay an extra 0.9% tax which will help fund health care.
The Big Changes You'll Hardly Notice
These are little things, incremental changes that most people won't notice, except perhaps to occasionally wonder about when medications got cheaper or why achieving the Snooki look has gotten more expensive. But the big transition, the creeping socialism that Obamacare detractors are really worried about, will arrive in 2014. That's when everyone will either have to get insurance or pay a tax.
The funny thing is, creeping socialism probably won't feel much different than the current system. Imagine, if you will, an ordinary, middle class family. For mom and dad, who work full time, insurance will still be provided through work. They'll still go to the same doctor, pay the same copay, and head to the same hospital when things get dire. Their kids will still get the same care, too, although they'll be able to take advantage of their parents' health insurance until they're 26, if they need to.
As for grandpa and grandma, if they're over 65, they'll still be insured by Medicare, and their lives will largely go on as usual. If they're younger, and suddenly find themselves without insurance -- if, for example, grandpa is laid off from his job -- they will be able to get health insurance in spite of their pre-existing conditions. So grandpa may be stuck working part-time as a Walmart greeter, but he won't have to worry about paying for his insulin and blood pressure meds.
The Big Changes You Will
But what if grandpa's new job doesn't pay much and he can't afford insurance? Well, the new law may still cover him. One aspect of PPACA is that people who make up to 133% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $23,344 -- would be eligible for Medicaid at no cost. Meanwhile, families that make up to 400% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $70,208 -- would be eligible for some form of discounted insurance rate, scaled to their income.
So mom and dad, grandpa and grandma, and the kids are covered. What about Uncle Hank, the uninsured rebel with the ponytail and the motorcycle? Well, assuming he makes more than 400% of the poverty line, Hank's going to face a tough decision: He can either get insurance or pay a tax that will probably be slightly higher than the cost of insurance.
Hank might be able to get insurance through his work, but if he can't, the new law will give him another choice. It requires each state to create a health insurance exchange -- basically, an online marketplace where various insurance companies can directly compete with each other. Here are some proposals for Minnesota's health insurance exchange.
If Uncle Hank decides not to pay the health care tax, he would likely go to the exchange, pick a plan, set up a direct deposit program to take money from his paycheck -- much like the health insurance withholding that mom and dad pay -- and get an insurance card. And, later, if Hank gets into an accident on his bike, his insurance would cover his trip to the emergency room, as well as his ensuing operation and physical therapy.
The Winners and the Losers
So who wins and who loses under the new insurance program? For insurance companies, it's going to be a mixed bag: On the plus side, they will get millions of new, relatively young customers like Uncle Hank who will be cheap to insure, and will add mightily to their coffers. On the opposite side, they'll also get millions of older, low-income customers -- like grandpa and grandma -- who will be expensive to insure, and will have pricey pre-existing conditions. Overall, the insurance companies will probably make a tidy profit.
For the poor, the chronically ill, and the unemployed, the new insurance program will also be a definite win. Millions of people will be able to afford basic health care, get diagnostic tests, and buy medications. Many will be covered by an expanded Medicaid program, and those who aren't will likely see a steep drop in the cost of insurance.
For the average taxpayer, the new program will also be a win. Right now, a lot of the basic health care in America takes place in emergency rooms, where uninsured people end up when their colds turn into pneumonia, their untreated diabetes turns into a coma or an amputation, or their unmedicated high blood pressure leads to a heart attack. Many of these emergency rooms are already receiving taxpayer dollars. Preventing major, expensive health crises while they are small, inexpensive-to-treat problems saves everyone money.
In fact, the biggest losers of the new health care program will be folks like Uncle Hank, who previously didn't worry about health insurance, but will now have to pay for it. On the other hand, many will now have access to preventative care and basic medical care that were previously unavailable. Speaking as someone who once had to pay over $1,000 out-of-pocket for the treatment of a broken hand, I'd argue that mandatory health insurance might be an unwelcome prescription, but it is hardly unnecessary medicine.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/28/ ... ur-wallet/
On Thursday morning, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- aka "Obamacare" -- was constitutional, there was a brief pause as the country took a moment to imagine what this brave new world would look like. Had socialism won the day? Were death panels on the way? Would children be roused out of their beds for compulsory morning calisthenics?
Within moments, Twitter was hopping with messages from conservative dissenters such as Michelle Malkin, Ari Fleischer, the Heritage Foundation, and dozens of others, vowing to keep fighting health care reform all the way. But outside the beltway in the rest of the country, many Americans simply wondered how this ruling would affect their daily lives.
Back to the Future
In some ways, the future is already here. Many portions of the PPACA have already been quietly enacted. The government has streamlined the approval process for generic drugs and expanded Medicare's prescription benefit. It has levied a 10% tax on tanning booths, and passed several rules that will make it easier for people with "pre-existing conditions" to get the lifesaving treatments they need. For insurance companies, lifetime limits on coverage, price gouging, and a host of other cost-cutting measures are now illegal.
Slowly, almost imperceptibly, medication is getting cheaper, insurance coverage is getting easier to attain, and a healthy lifestyle is becoming more attainable.
Now, we can expect that over the next few months, more and more of the future will show up. Starting in August, insurance companies will not be able to charge a copay for many forms of preventative care -- treatments like colonoscopies and mammograms will now be free for patients. A few months later, people who make more than $200,000 per year will start having to pay an extra 0.9% tax which will help fund health care.
The Big Changes You'll Hardly Notice
These are little things, incremental changes that most people won't notice, except perhaps to occasionally wonder about when medications got cheaper or why achieving the Snooki look has gotten more expensive. But the big transition, the creeping socialism that Obamacare detractors are really worried about, will arrive in 2014. That's when everyone will either have to get insurance or pay a tax.
The funny thing is, creeping socialism probably won't feel much different than the current system. Imagine, if you will, an ordinary, middle class family. For mom and dad, who work full time, insurance will still be provided through work. They'll still go to the same doctor, pay the same copay, and head to the same hospital when things get dire. Their kids will still get the same care, too, although they'll be able to take advantage of their parents' health insurance until they're 26, if they need to.
As for grandpa and grandma, if they're over 65, they'll still be insured by Medicare, and their lives will largely go on as usual. If they're younger, and suddenly find themselves without insurance -- if, for example, grandpa is laid off from his job -- they will be able to get health insurance in spite of their pre-existing conditions. So grandpa may be stuck working part-time as a Walmart greeter, but he won't have to worry about paying for his insulin and blood pressure meds.
The Big Changes You Will
But what if grandpa's new job doesn't pay much and he can't afford insurance? Well, the new law may still cover him. One aspect of PPACA is that people who make up to 133% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $23,344 -- would be eligible for Medicaid at no cost. Meanwhile, families that make up to 400% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $70,208 -- would be eligible for some form of discounted insurance rate, scaled to their income.
So mom and dad, grandpa and grandma, and the kids are covered. What about Uncle Hank, the uninsured rebel with the ponytail and the motorcycle? Well, assuming he makes more than 400% of the poverty line, Hank's going to face a tough decision: He can either get insurance or pay a tax that will probably be slightly higher than the cost of insurance.
Hank might be able to get insurance through his work, but if he can't, the new law will give him another choice. It requires each state to create a health insurance exchange -- basically, an online marketplace where various insurance companies can directly compete with each other. Here are some proposals for Minnesota's health insurance exchange.
If Uncle Hank decides not to pay the health care tax, he would likely go to the exchange, pick a plan, set up a direct deposit program to take money from his paycheck -- much like the health insurance withholding that mom and dad pay -- and get an insurance card. And, later, if Hank gets into an accident on his bike, his insurance would cover his trip to the emergency room, as well as his ensuing operation and physical therapy.
The Winners and the Losers
So who wins and who loses under the new insurance program? For insurance companies, it's going to be a mixed bag: On the plus side, they will get millions of new, relatively young customers like Uncle Hank who will be cheap to insure, and will add mightily to their coffers. On the opposite side, they'll also get millions of older, low-income customers -- like grandpa and grandma -- who will be expensive to insure, and will have pricey pre-existing conditions. Overall, the insurance companies will probably make a tidy profit.
For the poor, the chronically ill, and the unemployed, the new insurance program will also be a definite win. Millions of people will be able to afford basic health care, get diagnostic tests, and buy medications. Many will be covered by an expanded Medicaid program, and those who aren't will likely see a steep drop in the cost of insurance.
For the average taxpayer, the new program will also be a win. Right now, a lot of the basic health care in America takes place in emergency rooms, where uninsured people end up when their colds turn into pneumonia, their untreated diabetes turns into a coma or an amputation, or their unmedicated high blood pressure leads to a heart attack. Many of these emergency rooms are already receiving taxpayer dollars. Preventing major, expensive health crises while they are small, inexpensive-to-treat problems saves everyone money.
In fact, the biggest losers of the new health care program will be folks like Uncle Hank, who previously didn't worry about health insurance, but will now have to pay for it. On the other hand, many will now have access to preventative care and basic medical care that were previously unavailable. Speaking as someone who once had to pay over $1,000 out-of-pocket for the treatment of a broken hand, I'd argue that mandatory health insurance might be an unwelcome prescription, but it is hardly unnecessary medicine.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
0
-
people want to repeal something that actually helps their friends and neighbors and the uninsured. shows how selfish of a society we really are....
access to basic health care and insurance is just as important as access to food and water. people complain about having to help fund food assistance, but if you withold food and water from someone they are gonna die. same as if you withold basic health care and preventive medicine from people. they are gonna die too. don't we have a duty to one another to make sure that we are not letting our brothers and sisters die?"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
no, it is just that everyone has already spit their bile and anger into that other thread, i would not want them to ruin yours as well.Jeanwah wrote:
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:people want to repeal something that actually helps their friends and neighbors and the uninsured. shows how selfish of a society we really are....
access to basic health care and insurance is just as important as access to food and water. people complain about having to help fund food assistance, but if you withold food and water from someone they are gonna die. same as if you withold basic health care and preventive medicine from people. they are gonna die too. don't we have a duty to one another to make sure that we are not letting our brothers and sisters die?
Exactly. But taking care of each other isn't anywhere a part of capitalism - capitalism breeds greed and selfishness. And capitalism seems to be all conservatives are about. It certainly isn't about providing for friends, neighbors and the less fortunate...
Just look at the 1%. What's really troubling is that all the people that support Romney are too blind to see that he doesn't give one shit about them. He's into taking care of the 1% and that's it. I can't believe the stupidity of so many people.0 -
people will always vote against their own interests. that is the nature of politics today. all you have to do is log on to the internets or listen to talk radio and all it does is talk about how bad the other guy is. all it does is spread misinformation, ie death panels, and that everybody's taxes are going up, which is complete bullshit. the only tax increases are on those making over $250, 000 and on those who make all of their money on capital gains, which in my extimation over 99% of us on here do not fit into either of those categories. i could take a dump in a box, put it on top of a manequin dressed in a suit and call it mitt romney and people will vote for that box of crap simply because it isn't obama. this is the product of the media in our day and age.Jeanwah wrote:Exactly. But taking care of each other isn't anywhere a part of capitalism - capitalism breeds greed and selfishness. And capitalism seems to be all conservatives are about. It certainly isn't about providing for friends, neighbors and the less fortunate...
Just look at the 1%. What's really troubling is that all the people that support Romney are too blind to see that he doesn't give one shit about them. He's into taking care of the 1% and that's it. I can't believe the stupidity of so many people."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
"regarding the supreme court decision on the affordable care act, i don't want to gloat, but i will simply say this......
Domino Motherfucker!!!
who else wants some of this???""You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:
people will always vote against their own interests. that is the nature of politics today. all you have to do is log on to the internets or listen to talk radio and all it does is talk about how bad the other guy is. all it does is spread misinformation, ie death panels, and that everybody's taxes are going up, which is complete bullshit. the only tax increases are on those making over $250, 000 and on those who make all of their money on capital gains, which in my extimation over 99% of us on here do not fit into either of those categories. i could take a dump in a box, put it on top of a manequin dressed in a suit and call it mitt romney and people will vote for that box of crap simply because it isn't obama. this is the product of the media in our day and age.Jeanwah wrote:Exactly. But taking care of each other isn't anywhere a part of capitalism - capitalism breeds greed and selfishness. And capitalism seems to be all conservatives are about. It certainly isn't about providing for friends, neighbors and the less fortunate...
Just look at the 1%. What's really troubling is that all the people that support Romney are too blind to see that he doesn't give one shit about them. He's into taking care of the 1% and that's it. I can't believe the stupidity of so many people.
No kidding! If people just opened their eyes to the manipulation the media does to us every single day, maybe they'd learn a thing or two about psychology and mass manipulation. It just goes to show what suckers people are for thinking the media actually is telling them something when it's not about news, it's about manipulating the viewer into buying a product or acting the way the seller wants them to. I actually wanted to work in advertising design and marketing until I realized what a massive scam it all is on the human psyche. And political media is ten times worse. Sigh.0 -
^^
i think it is pretty shameful that if we want actual news we have to go to newspapers from other countries to get it. so much for the 4th estate..."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:
people will always vote against their own interests. that is the nature of politics today. all you have to do is log on to the internets or listen to talk radio and all it does is talk about how bad the other guy is. all it does is spread misinformation, ie death panels, and that everybody's taxes are going up, which is complete bullshit. the only tax increases are on those making over $250, 000 and on those who make all of their money on capital gains, which in my extimation over 99% of us on here do not fit into either of those categories. i could take a dump in a box, put it on top of a manequin dressed in a suit and call it mitt romney and people will vote for that box of crap simply because it isn't obama. this is the product of the media in our day and age.Jeanwah wrote:Exactly. But taking care of each other isn't anywhere a part of capitalism - capitalism breeds greed and selfishness. And capitalism seems to be all conservatives are about. It certainly isn't about providing for friends, neighbors and the less fortunate...
Just look at the 1%. What's really troubling is that all the people that support Romney are too blind to see that he doesn't give one shit about them. He's into taking care of the 1% and that's it. I can't believe the stupidity of so many people.
I'm trying to make an image of that in my head gimme.
But seriously, I've observed for years the way so much of our populous follows political trends like zombies without really looking at the issues. It's uncanny."It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
i would probably put this pic on the front of the box, just so people could tell who it is...brianlux wrote:gimmesometruth27 wrote:
people will always vote against their own interests. that is the nature of politics today. all you have to do is log on to the internets or listen to talk radio and all it does is talk about how bad the other guy is. all it does is spread misinformation, ie death panels, and that everybody's taxes are going up, which is complete bullshit. the only tax increases are on those making over $250, 000 and on those who make all of their money on capital gains, which in my extimation over 99% of us on here do not fit into either of those categories. i could take a dump in a box, put it on top of a manequin dressed in a suit and call it mitt romney and people will vote for that box of crap simply because it isn't obama. this is the product of the media in our day and age.Jeanwah wrote:Exactly. But taking care of each other isn't anywhere a part of capitalism - capitalism breeds greed and selfishness. And capitalism seems to be all conservatives are about. It certainly isn't about providing for friends, neighbors and the less fortunate...
Just look at the 1%. What's really troubling is that all the people that support Romney are too blind to see that he doesn't give one shit about them. He's into taking care of the 1% and that's it. I can't believe the stupidity of so many people.
I'm trying to make an image of that in my head gimme.
But seriously, I've observed for years the way so much of our populous follows political trends like zombies without really looking at the issues. It's uncanny.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Gimme, your "dump in a box" comment is brilliant, i may have to remember that one for future threads San Diego Sports Arena - Oct 25, 2000
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 20230 -
I suggest everyone start reading up on the definition of "direct tax" and also look in to "the stamp act" (the first "direct tax" ever imposed on American Colonists) and its consequences (revolutionary war).
I also suggest you read the very top of the first page of the US Constitution starting at Article I, and just below the blip about the creation and requirements for House & Senate (ie. "NO DIRECT TAX").
It was of EXTREME importance in the founding of our country,
and it has been PERVERTED BEYOND REPAIR by this decision.
What the 16th amendment started by debasing the notions of freedom from oppression\tyranny in the United States, this ruling has finalized. We are back to being serfs.
Having read the full opinion of the court, i am utterly disgusted by CJ Roberts in general, and in several points IN SPECIFIC in his opinion.
Quite possibly the single most explicitly hypocritical and inexplicable portion of his opinon is the following set of statements which are SELF CONTRADICTING:
The Setup (all quotes from current Supreme Court opinion):Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as a tax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
True statement.
Then:
AT THE CRUX OF HIS ASSERTION THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL IS THIS ABOVE HORSESHIT OF A STATEMENT.Opinion Of CJ Roberts wrote:"A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax." [...] "It is not a capitation." [...] "The payment is also plainly
not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax"
HERE IS THE PROBLEM\CONTRADICTION:
CJ Roberts acknowledges that the only previously existing (because no one had thought of other bullshit ideas) KNOWN EXAMPLES of "direct tax" are "capitations" and "land taxes". BUT BETWEEN THIS ASSERTION AND THE ABOVE (that it is "thus not a direct tax") LIES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY ROBERTS:"In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax."
THAT WAS THE LAST FUCKING TIME THE GOVERNMENT TRIED TO PULL THIS BULLSHIT -- THE INCOME TAX ITSELF. (the FIRST time "they" proposed it) -- THE CHIEF JUSTICE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE DEFINITION OF "DIRECT TAX" HAD TO BE EXPLICITLY "EXPANDED" BY THE COURTS IN RESPONSE TO AN ATTACK ON FREEDOM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
This time around he simply says the courts shrug and say, "oh well its not an existing defined KNOWN EXAMPLE of a 'direct tax' " ... ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
GROW BALLS AND EXPAND YOUR EXPLICIT DEFINITION IF YOU NEED TO.
***BUT ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GO GOOGLE "DIRECT TAX" AND READ WIKIPEDIA LINE 1 SENTENCE 1***
ITS NOT VERY COMPLICATED.
beyond that, go google "stamp act" (as previously stated) and use your freaking brain.
if the colonists considered BEING TAXED DIRECTLY ON PAPER because they want to WRITE to be a "DIRECT TAX" AND ABHORRENT AND WORTHY OF REVOLUTION, how can you possibly not get OUTRAGED at A TAX DIRECTLY ON YOUR HEAD (remittable DIRECTLY to the IRS) for a. EXISTING b. MAKING MONEY (which the government is ALREADY DIRECT TAXING through a bullshit ammendment ONLY allowing an INCOME tax and NO other DIRECT tax) and c. NOT PURCHASING SOMETHING?If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
The hospitals, doctors, insurance and drug companies of america love obamacare. But obamacare isn't about capitalism right? :roll:0
-
It's a fucking shame. Single-Payer is the only real solution. Obamacare is an Obomination to the U.S. Constitution. It blows my mind that people call him a socialist. He's a capitalist through and through. A wolf in sheep's clothing.DS1119 wrote:The hospitals, doctors, insurance and drug companies of america love obamacare. But obamacare isn't about capitalism right? :roll:0 -
Thanks for posting that article, Jeanwah. Some people can't be convinced, but most people will find out that this legislation actually was necessary and it's not the end of America ( :roll: ), and then they'll be grateful for it. Maybe they'll even wonder why they ever trusted the Republicans who told them to fear it. Although I agree we should have a single payer system, we already have well-established private insurers, and I think this law was the best way to improve health care in the U.S. in the short run. Hopefully improvements like the public option, and then total public-funding will come relatively soon. Unless we find out it hasn't worked out, my ears are deaf to complaints about it.0
-
have you read or listened to any of the right wing media reactions to john roberts' decision? people are calling for him to be removed from the court and some are lobbing personal attacks at him such as his seizure medication impacted his decision...kenny olav wrote:Thanks for posting that article, Jeanwah. Some people can't be convinced, but most people will find out that this legislation actually was necessary and it's not the end of America ( :roll: ), and then they'll be grateful for it. Maybe they'll even wonder why they ever trusted the Republicans who told them to fear it. Although I agree we should have a single payer system, we already have well-established private insurers, and I think this law was the best way to improve health care in the U.S. in the short run. Hopefully improvements like the public option, and then total public-funding will come relatively soon. Unless we find out it hasn't worked out, my ears are deaf to complaints about it.
it is funny to see the reaction from the extreme right and tea party in the media. they are acting like a bunch of petulent children who did not get their way. they do not have the ability to use introspection and see what it was in their argument that caused roberts to decide the way he did. could it be that they made a mistake in their argument of the case? no, can't be that....the answer is roberts is just a sellout....
rupert murdoch, who owns fox news, had a stern warning for romney and republicans on twitter today. he said that the gop is going to lose badly if they campaign on overturning the affordable care act. and i think he is correct."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:rupert murdoch, who owns fox news, had a stern warning for romney and republicans on twitter today. he said that the gop is going to lose badly if they campaign on overturning the affordable care act. and i think he is correct.
I agree. Let them go psycho over it. For once, I hope they don't listen to Murdoch!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help