#588 – Dick Bernard: Election 2012 #28. "Obamacare" or "Obama cares" Part 2. Thoughts following the Supreme Court Decision.

UPDATE July 1: An excellent 9 minute video summary from the Kaiser Family Foundation on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is here. This slices through the complexities. July 3: from the same source, a ten question quiz on what you know about ACA here.
Many comments follow this post under UPDATES:
I posted #587 before the Supreme Court ruled on June 28. It now includes 23 comments which speak for themselves.
Today has been a wild one…from the Right…how dare Justice Roberts rule as he did? (they say) I follow this stuff, and the TV ads are disgusting, but who cares. Lies don’t bother anyone any more, or so it seems.
Yesterday I wrote as I did because I lived within the vulnerable reality of almost no medical insurance while my wife, Barbara, was dying of kidney disease in 1963-65. I know how it is, not just how it might feel. I have a first-person real life experience that I feel is relevant.
Since our experience happened nearly 50 years ago (that’s hard to believe), I have had more than ample opportunities to revisit all the aspects of those two difficult years, which ended with my flushing down an Anoka toilet a cake pan full of unused pills of many varieties left by my deceased wife; then preparing to file for bankruptcy to get out from under very large medical bills a couple of months later.
Been there, done that.
I have some thoughts after yesterday:
Sometimes I hear the “God’s Will” narrative. It was God’s Will that Barbara died at 22.
I have no beef with God, though I have no specific idea of who God might be. There are people who seem sure that they know all about God, but their opinions seem to differ, so end of that story. God is a mystery even to the experts who say they know….
Anyway, when God ruled the roost, let’s say that was in Jesus’ time, over 2000 years ago, Barbara would have died, regardless of her station in life, and there would have been no child. Nor would there have been doctor or hospital bills or the pills or other assorted residue of a terrible illness. She could have been royalty. The outcome would have been the same. There would have been no other story to tell. She died. (A friend, who has a PhD and is an ordained Christian minister and anthropologist who has spent much time studying human history, says that already in Jesus’ time there were 250-300 million people world-wide, in places like India, China, Africa. What is now the Middle East had only a tiny number of these people..)
With relatively minor variations, the above kind of narrative would be consistent until recent times.
100 years before Barbara’s illness, the American Civil War was raging. There were hospitals and such, but one didn’t especially want to be sick or injured in those days.
Comprehensive and complicated medical care is very recent and remains an unattainable luxury to the vast majority of the world’s peoples.
Barbara lived about two years after her illness was diagnosed. Even with inadequate insurance it was possible to cobble together some kind of equitable treatment for her. But it took family, friends, neighbors, doctors and hospitals (church and community) who were willing to take her in off the street with no assurance of payment. And more than a little luck.
We weren’t ‘legal resident’ anywhere during that time, so who was going to pay the public welfare cost was an active question.
I could’ve gotten insurance when the insurance guy came around a week or so after I started teaching, but I only got the doctor portion.
I’ve thought a lot about that.
At the time, I was 23. I had a boatload of things on my mind, and getting sick wasn’t one of them. Barbara wasn’t sick, and I’d gotten past two years in the Army without ailments. In hindsight, I was foolish. At the time, my decision was probably rational – like those folks in Duluth recently who didn’t think they needed flood insurance, and lost everything…. And almost certainly, Barbara had an unknown pre-existing condition which would have disqualified her from coverage anyway.
(When we got married in 1963 a friendly insurance agent sold me a $5000 policy on my life. He added a rider for $1250 on Barbara’s life. Of course, the thinking then was that I was the “breadwinner” and she would live on…. Logically, the coverage should have been the reverse.)
Now the debate rages anew about “Obamacare” or “Obama cares”.
I’ve noted only a few things:
It was said that 250 million Americans do have some kind of insurance. That means 85% of us are insured. Why deny the other 15%? As happened in my case years ago, we’ll pay their bills anyway. We haven’t reached the point where the sick person down the street dies in the gutter because it’s his or her problem. We do have deep compassion. Why make it so hard for those who don’t have insurance? It makes no sense.
It is said that many, perhaps most, Americans don’t like Obamacare.
This is one of those really interesting assertions that I hope is dis-aggregated at some point. There is an extremely odd loose “coalition” in opposition to Obamacare. It includes those who hate the very idea, of course. But it includes also those who think the Act didn’t go far enough, and the people like the lady who wrote comment #4 in #587 who apparently rejects the plan because she doesn’t like some particular aspect of it, like, perhaps, birth control. There are lots of these single-issue opponents. It’s not productive in a nation of over 300,000,000.
For reasons already mentioned, I don’t suspect that God has a “dog in this fight”. This is a human being issue. Among us.
This is a classic Wealth vs Democracy kind of question, and we’re well advised to be engaged in the upcoming debate, particularly Election 2012.

For other Election 2012 commentaries simply enter Election 2012 in the search box and click. A list will come up.
1. Sabrina: Thanks for sharing.
2. Bruce: Your personal narrative is good and helps make your point(s). I do agree that the ACA is important policy, and as it unfolds, it will be modified and changed to deal with the problems that will develop.
Two points I have to make. First, “Obamacare” is a pejorative. Its a slur and shouldn’t be used to describe what is said to be the most important piece of social policy since the New Deal. The sooner this ugly term evaporates from the public consciousness the faster it will be accepted as an entitlement for the American people. Second, for the most part the responses you received from # 587 seem to think that “liberals” won the day because Roberts sided with the “liberal” side of the court. They should be reminded that the ACA is a conservative policy that presents a market place solution to health care. It will make a lot of money for insurance companies, their executives, and their stock owners at the expense of the people. This is not liberal policy, and if you think so, you have be numbed by the slide to the right of the American political system over the last 30 yrs. Liberal policy is being implemented in Vermont where it looks like the first single payer universal health plan will be enacted.
3. John: This is good, Dick.
4. Norm: A powerful revelation and recollection, Dick.
Thank you.
That is the kind of rubber meets the road impact of the lack of health care coverage in the face of a major illness or traumatic injury that the opponents of “Obamacare” and/or universal access to medically necessary health care (to me the most important public policy issue in the health care debate and discussion) don’t seem to understand or, perhaps more correctly, understand but do not want to accept. As per my brother, access to medically necessary health “is not a right!!!” Of course, he enjoys Medicare and Tricare but he would, of course argue, that he earned his ability to utilize both programs due to his career of work and military service. “If folks want health care coverage, they can just get a job that offers it. Why in the living hell should I have to pay for health care coverage for free loaders who do not want to work and just expect the government to take care of them…” or words to that effect.
It appears that lots of folks share the views on my brother, all of whom will support the car maker’s kid this fall with the hope that he will follow through on his long-standing promise to get rid of “Obamacare.” Our own family was of very modest means living on a marginal farm in north central Minnesota where my Dad supplemented the limited farm income with sales of mutual fire insurances, organizing for Farmers Union, and later, serving in the state senate. We didn’t have much but as the cliche goes, we never thought of ourselves as poor as we had much more than many of our neighbors and so on. On the other hand, our parents gave us the world in that they always made sure that we were subscribed to a daily newspaper, took many of the leading magazines of the day, i.e. Look, Life and so on, something that the parents of many of my classmates did not do which was always surprising to me. On the other hand, while we had some limited health insurance through Group Health (we were co-op people through and through), our parents had to struggle to cover the costs of major injuries and so on. My right wing brother spent 6-8 weeks in the hospital with a broken hip he suffered after falling down the ladder to the haymow in our barn which I am sure put a heavy strain on family finances, a situation that still is present for many, many people yet today.
5. Carol: Wow, Dick, right on!!
My husband’s niece and her husband lived in a mobile home, had two adorable daughters. They were struggling, but they both had jobs. She changed jobs – a convenience store, but it provided insurance. Then she became pregnant with their 3rd child, but hey, she had insurance. There were problems with the pregnancy, she spent time in the hospital, and the baby was born very prematurely – of course, also spending weeks in the hospital. But, they had insurance. Except that since the baby came early (and didn’t wait the required 9 months), her insurance company decreed that she had a pre-existing condition when she obtained the policy, and denied all coverage.
They struggled to pay the hospital bill. The hospital (in Wichita, I’d like the world to know) hounded them unmercifully. Her parents tried to help. When the bill was paid down to $30,000, they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Things went downhill. One morning at 5 a.m. I answered the phone to hear my bro-in-law say that the husband had picked up a gun and killed the entire family.
Obviously medical bills, or bankruptcy, don’t kill people. Neither do guns, they tell me. But they all help push at-risk situations over the edge. In my opinion, that insurance company, and hospital, are as guilty of murder as he was.
The Supreme Court ruling finally won one for Sandy.
6. Kathy: As Paul Wellstone once said” We all do better when we all do better.”
7. Joyce: My Mom and my Dad’s sister died from Alzheimer’s – this is huge:
‘Tucked away in the act is a pilot program for 10,000 people called the Independence At Home program. This is a technique first developed by the Veterans Administration — motto: Single-Payer Works! Just Ask
Us! — by which a patient with a chronic disease, like Alzheimer’s, is treated in his or her own home by a team of doctors, nurse practitioners, geriatric pharmacists, and any other health professional whose specialty is required. This is not only cost-efficient, being infinitely cheaper than hospitals and nursing homes, but it is a comfort for the patients and their families, for whom familiar surroundings can be essential for psychological well-being.’
8. Jermitt: Thanks Dick for sharing some of your early personal family history. I also remember the 60’s when health insurance was a luxury. When school districts first provided health insurance, it was only for the “head of the household” which primarily met you had to be a male teacher. It wasn’t until teachers were able to collectively bargain that women were included in most contracts in most school districts.
9. Larry:Excellent post you wrote on Barbara and her illness, sad story but needs telling to all of these “compassionate” conservatives.
Thank God for Medicare and, unlike some of the comments, Medicare A and B with a private supplement has been great, effective, and popular solution to senior health care, without bankrupting every person 65 and older in this country. What in the world would we do without the program that, yes, a “liberal” Democrat signed into law? You’d be okay if you’re on Veterans’ Benefits or you’re a Congressman.
Medicare operates on 1 to 2% administrative costs. Blue Cross plans operate on 10% and other insurance companies are upwards of that, sometimes approaching 30% and 40%. The Affordable Healthcare Act reins in some of those outrageous insurance company profits.
I always wonder what the Republican answer is to the 50 million uninsured. Status quo? Keep those paying for insurance paying for those without? Also, without Medicare or Medicaid, what’s the solution? Give sick people a gun? Is that the Republican plan? I’ve heard none other except Congressman Paul Ryan’s Medicare “Advantage,” which involves a severely limited provider network. Talk about getting between you, your doctor and payment, Medicare Advantage does that in spades. Medicare A and B combined with a standard supplement gives you a choice of thousands of doctors, without interference.
Is there waste? Yes. Medicine itself is sometimes more art than science, any good doctor will tell you that. Is there fraud? Of course, a certain number of docs who call themselves “conservatives” and are card carrying Republicans screw the Medicare and Medicaid programs and the taxpayer. Fix that. Don’t kill these much needed program.
At the bottom line, are we a country ruled by the almighty dollar? Is that the criteria? Cut taxes, but who cares about caring for the sick, unless they can pay. Is that the kind of country we want? Cut taxes but let the roads and bridges go to hell. But make the sure the defense-contractor-political-contributors have plenty, like the $651 billion the Republicans just voted for to make more nuclear bombs. We’ve had enough of these for decades; sufficient to blow up the entire world several times over. But, hey, defense contractors gotta eat. Let Grandma go bankrupt with no decent Medicare and don’t heal poor sick people because “it costs too much.” Fear of fears, we just might have to raise taxes. Oh-my-God! No wonder Canadians, who love their health care system, can’t understand the USA. Their biggest fear is getting sick while in America, NOT in going to the kind of health care financing system we have.
Dick..Whew!! Ya got me started. You have my permission to post any of that with my name: Larry Gauper 🙂 My blog is at www.Wordchipper.com and the email address I use with that is on the blog..
Thanks for sharing..and stimulating my thoughts…haha….good to hear from you…Larry
10. Jeanne: (the person referred to as #4 in #587) My issue is not a “single issue” unless you consider religious liberty a single issue.
My conscience tells me that some of the things that are being done and I am being forced to pay for are immoral. If you consider something immoral or against your beliefs should you be forced to pay for it for someone else?
Or do you really believe that there is nothing that is immoral?
11. Marvin: Obama Care. Drastic increase in my Medicare costs over the next few years and a very interesting side note, if I should downsize the home I sweated to acquire for a smaller home I will be hit with a 3.8% sales tax. If you can do the math, that amounts to a whopping $11,400. I am not a happy camper with the LIBERAL JUDGES decision on Obama Care. And the flim flam of no added taxes….
A. UPDATE July 4: I asked Marvin to be specific about the 3.8% sales tax and he responded late July 3 with a link provided by a realtor relative which referenced the National Association of Realtors and turned out to be from the Republican Party in April, 2010, about three weeks after the ACA was signed into Law. A simple google search found as first listing, an undated but apparently recent pdf of a booklet issued by the National Association of Realtors which is very specific about the topic. Snopes.com also takes on the issue here. Succinctly, the 3.8% applies only to the wealthiest Americans, commonly called the 2% or 1% highest incomes. The specifics are in the referenced booklet.
12. Ellen: Thank you Dick, words cannot express what this means to us to people like us. It is a step in the right direction but we need many more steps…
Still 30 Million will be left out. I sent this to HCAMn… we changed our name as you know.
13. Greg: July 1, 2012 Star Tribune (Strib) op ed page has editorial comment from other papers on Affordable Care Act (ACA). [see also here] Also, compare comments of most people on ruling discussing concepts/implications to health care and comments from conservatives who view this as just a game. For example letter to the editor in today’s Strib faults Obama for saying ACA does not increase tax and yet Supreme Court said it did impose a tax. Implication is that “Ha,we won since Supreme Court agreed with us that ACA does impose a tax”. And just what does that “analysis” mean to anything/anybody? Since when has government, our common voice as a society become only a contact sport?
14. Carol: This is in response to “Jeanne #10” who says, “My conscience tells me that some of the things that are being done and I am being forced to pay for are immoral. If you consider something immoral or against your beliefs should you be forced to pay for it for someone else? Or do you really believe that there is nothing that is immoral?” (I assume she’s asking that question of Mr. Bernard, which is pretty derogatory.)
I’m not sure what this has to do with the Supreme Court decision – however, I’ll wade in. Many of us who pay taxes believe various things those taxes are used for to be immoral. We considered the invasion of Iraq – based on attempts to persuade us that they had WMDs and were responsible for 9/11 – to be very immoral, for example. We didn’t get to withhold part of our taxes because of that belief.
Altho’ my husband and I are fortunate to have good employer-provided medical coverage, I know that our insurance company also tries to find “pre-existing conditions” in order to deny coverage to others (inc. once to my daughter – who didn’t even have the condition they decided on). To me, that’s very immoral, but we don’t get to withhold part of our premiums on that basis.
Jeanne may be referring to the contraception flap. Some believe that contraception is immoral. I believe that it is immoral to force a woman to become pregnant against her wishes. I believe that it is immoral for someone to keep having children they cannot reasonably care for. There are many different religions and beliefs in this country. If everyone who objected to their money being used for something or other refused to pay their taxes (or for health care), the country would grind to a halt. If something is legal, then yes, sometimes we are forced to help pay for it, even if it goes against our personal beliefs. That is not a new concept.
15. Dick and Jeanne: #10 initiated this e-mail exchange between Dick and Jeanne, which is added with Jeanne’s permission. This kind of uncomfortable conversation is essential, and lacking, in our society. Of course, there could be endless “call and response” on this and many other issues, and I won’t add beyond what Jeanne and I shared on-line, but I run towards, rather than away, from these kinds of conversations.
A. Dick: Living in a society is a complex issue. If we were all to demand our right to not pay for the things we don’t agree with, there would be chaos.
We’re in a town home association with 96 resident owners. Even with 96 there are people who have issues about some things. Democracy in our association means that we elect a board to represent us (my wife is current president), and if the issues are big, like siding the units, the whole association votes, and the majority rules. The ones who hold out can be and are forced to pay, and if they refuse to pay are fined, and if they don’t pay are occasionally foreclosed. They don’t like it, but that’s how democracy works. We can’t be free agents.
Personally, I’ve been in any number of leadership positions over the years, and in every instance, there is somebody who will disagree with something, but there’s a process to deal with this.
But, again, if you care to, let me know the precise issue(s).
It would help me if you could tell me exactly what it is that upsets you. Then maybe we could have a conversation. What are the “things”, if you’re willing to answer?
B. Jeanne: Go see the movie For Greater Glory. It will help to reinforce what I am saying.
I do not know if it is worth my time getting into a discussion about this or not. Coverage for abortion, sterilization, and contraception by the HHS [Health and Human Services] mandate requires going against religious beliefs. Your example (note- I live in a town home with an association also) does not involve forcing a person to violate their beliefs. Why do I hold these beliefs? Not because the Catholic Church tells me to but because of a deeply held conviction that God is the author of human life. We are to work in cooperation with him. I can think of no reason that can justify abortion.
My son is alive because his birth mother was raped and made a courageous choice. This choice allowed her not to be violated twice but to bring something good out of something harmful.
I am one of a small 2% that survive with Turner Syndrome. Doctors can be wrong and when I was diagnosed little was known about it. Disabilities do not justify abortion either. Contraception and sterilization allow human beings to say in effect, ” I will not give myself completely to you”. They allows men to be dispensible and there to be no commitment. They cause health problems as well . I am not the most well versed woman to explain more. Read about Theology of the Body to understand more.
If my beliefs can be forcibly violated, so can yours. That is not how America was founded.
C. Dick: I’m just back from Basilica, where I ushered again today.
I looked For Greater Glory. It’s not playing here to my knowledge. When/If the film shows up here, I will see it. Please remind me.
What you say is helpful for my understanding of where you’re coming from.
The business of abortion, birth control and the like is a matter of belief and as you doubtless know, there are many beliefs, including among fervent Christians, of what ‘life’ is defined as being. Those who are zealots in the pro-life movement perhaps could be accused of having the same mindset that the Mexican Government had in the 1920s. (I know nothing more about that situation than the brief reviews of the movie.) It gets tricky when one tries to impose his/her/their beliefs on others.
There were a great many learnings for me in those two harsh years of 1963-65. One was about abortion. In fact, I wrote about it three years or so ago: here, October 12, 2009.
I won’t impose my belief on you. Please don’t impose your belief on me.
I know [why] you’re on my list…. I think I might have met you once…. It is rare that I depart from the ___ topic on the list. In this instance, I felt it was important. I haven’t censored any comments, and I sent the commentaries to many people, many of whom consider themselves very conservative.
PS: I looked up Turner Syndrome as I had not heard of it.
FYI, my youngest daughter, Heather, now 36, is Down Syndrome and has lived with an implanted heart pacemaker for 32 of those years. She is something of a medical marvel, and a marvel in all ways.
She lives in a small group setting in Apple Valley and I see her frequently, most recently on Friday. She and I will go to a movie sometime this week. Her biologic mother, my second wife, died of cancer six years ago. We had been divorced for many years. I have written about Heather on a number of occasions in the blog. Just put Heather in the search box.
We did not know she was Down until after she was born. Knowing would have made no difference. Her condition was of no issue at all to me; it was very difficult for her mother to accept, and it added to tension in the marriage (we had two other daughters, and I had the one son from the first marriage.)
I say this only to say that I have walked the walk, too, in a sense.
D. Jeanne: go ahead and post. Others may learn from the discussion.
Greater Glory had been showing here in past weeks. Perhaps it no longer is.
16. Carol: I read the “conversation” between Dick and Jeanne [#15 above], in which he said some of the same things that I had tried to.
I’m really sick of abortion being dragged into every debate, frankly. That’s been the case for all my life, and I’m not going to get into it here. But I do want to say that I admire Jeanne for apparently adopting her son. Adoptive parents (and good foster parents) are to me some of our greatest heroes. But my comment is (and correct me if I’m wrong, either of you): Federal funds cannot now be used for abortion. I am sure that that is true of the Affordable Care Act, as well. And, if so, why are you bringing this up? [Dick: so far as I know, the answer is “no, they can’t”].
As far as contraception issues – people should really learn to pick their battles. Equating free birth control pills (or every other issue which one doesn’t agree with) to Nazi Germany – as some have done – is beyond offensive, and only serves to diminish the horror which occurred there.
16A & B: Carol continuing on the topic, later June 2:
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Abortion Provisions

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act maintains the status quo on abortion policy and does not shift federal abortion policy in either a pro-life or pro-choice direction. The following provisions will ensure that the bill does nothing to restrict or expand existing abortion law, while ensuring that federal funds cannot be used for abortion coverage or care.
Health Plans Cannot Be Required to Cover Abortion. Health plans cannot be required to cover abortions as part of its essential health benefits package. Health plans can choose to cover: no abortions, only those abortions allowed by the Hyde amendment (rape, incest and life endangerment), or abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde.
No Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage or Abortion Care. Tax credits or cost sharing subsidies may not be used for abortions not permitted by Hyde. Private premiums would be segregated from public funds, and only private premiums could pay for abortion services beyond those permitted by Hyde.
No Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option.
The Secretary may not determine that the Community Health Insurance Option provide
coverage for abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde unless the Secretary:… 2)
guarantees that, based on three different accounting standards, no federal funds are used… A State may elect to require coverage of abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde, only if no federal funds are used for this coverage…
No Preemption of State or Federal Laws Regarding Abortion. The bill stipulates there is
no preemption of State laws regarding abortion coverage, funding or procedural requirements on abortion like parental notification or consent. Similarly, the bill stipulates that there is no preemption of Federal laws regarding abortion, including federal conscience protections…
Conscience Protections for Providers and Facilities. Individual health care providers and health care facilities may not be discriminated against because of a willingness or
unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Conversely, no wonder people believe the lies. (But you notice, they can’t spell “abortion”…)
17. Bruce: The ACA is the law of the land being upheld by the Supreme Court. Its a big decision on an issue that is 14% of our economy. I’m not a Charles Krauthammer fan, far from it, but he at least in the initial stages of Monday morning quarterbacking, made the best analysis of the Robert’s decision. Time will pass and the decision excitement will simmer down. For those, like me, who favor single payer and to pay for it install a tax, which was the center of Roberts’ decision, on payroll look to Vermont for hope. It will be the States that lead the way to true universal health care for this country. The States need the help that single payer promises because they are broke. Its basic federalism and maybe that’s the way it should work. The ACA will help the States with that. It codifies into law universal health care as an entitlement and provides funding for States to experiment.
If you haven’t read the original opinion piece, here it is.
18. Joyce: A good explanation as to why we have not been able to implement a single payer system: here.
19. Greg: who sends on a forwarded graphic which says: “Paradox: The Government wants everyone to prove that they are insured; but people don’t have to prove they are citizens…”
His response: So, Tom, hypocrisy has changed to a paradox. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Actually the government doesn’t give a rip if people are insured or not. If not purchasing health care insurance, people can just pay a tax.
Remember, my pancreatitis has cost more than $700,000.00. I am just one person. Baby boomers comprise 20 per cent of the population. They are just entering their medicare years. Health care costs continually rise, taking up a greater portion of our GNP each year. Will sitting back and just criticizing the federal government adequately address this problem?
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), comprising about one thousand pages contains many provisions, some of which seek to address inefficiencies in the delivery of health care.
No one ever has said the ACA will solve all problems with health care delivery. It is just a start. There remains a lot of heavy lifting to be accomplished.
Numerous studies of people who have filed for individual bankruptcy protection list unpaid medical bills as one of the major reasons for bankruptcy filing.
Every year more and more people are alive, having defeated cancer.
Yet, by repealing the ACA we would lose the protection from insurance companies excluding preexisting conditions from policy coverage. Insurance companies would also be free to re institute lifetime caps on health care benefits.
How can that be labeled progress?
Health care delivery is such a huge animal I fully expect the ACA will need to be amended as we gain more experience with it. We need to rally as a society to make it work better.
20. Rick: Actually I was pleased….
Not that I like the ACA, because I don’t and I don’t like the way it was done up in congress and forced through the system. But that’s a different discussion.
I like the decision that now at least I have a ray of hope that we have 1 branch of government and a chief justice that can make a decision based on the rule of law and the constitution. Not on ideological grounds. The rest of Washington could take some pointers and direction from C.J. Roberts on how to govern.
21. Jeff: I think [ACA] is a nonevent for the mkt
The mkts are reacting to the newest bandaid from Europe on the situation there, no doubt by Tuesday they will realize it’s a problem that needs triage, not bandaids.
Hey O’Reilly’s buddy Justice Roberts stabbed the right leaning side in the back! [My wife} watched news nonstop yesterday on CNN, Fox and MSNBC and PBS getting all the sides.
I agree with you it’s a cobbled mess.
But it is interesting to see Romney… how does he campaign against something he passed in Massachusetts… and also the Corporate interests are in favor of Obamacare (which is why one should be skeptical of it) so does he throw his birthright (corporate capitalism) away for the Tea Party? Its all passing strange.
Part One of this post is here.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.