What is the latest on Obama's plan? Is everyone going to have to register and pay? He was against that the last time I read about this.

I will gladly donate to any legal fund that will protect my right to chose my own health insurance. Whether we use individual states or one incompetent over-sized gov't to accomplish health-care-for-all, I expect to pay higher taxes, but I expect my right to chose to be maintained. I will not chose the "long-line" option.

I also read recently about the insurance industry's offer to deny no-one coverage.

How many court battles will be fought over this health plan. How many years before the courts decide the matter. How can gov't make me pay for insurance? Many US citizens pay no social security insurance. Teachers in missouri don't. So there seems to be a loop-hole in the retirement security plan.

****
On a side note, about courts, I read that prop 8 is coming under fire. This is a voter backed proposition, right? what have the courts to do with that? At first it made me mad that the courts would meddle with this. But I realized I did not know all the details.

So, where will health-care be decided? In the white house or congress? By voters or lobbyists? Negative. Our health care will, imho, be decided in courts in no less than one decade. people will die! omg! those damn attys.!
*****

 

At one time, it was possible for local government agencies to opt out of Social Security system. I'm not sure what the rationale for that was, but I believe it's no longer an option (unless they're grandfathered).

As I understand it, the court challenge to Prop. 8 has to do with whether or not the California Constitution can be amended in the manner that Prop. 8 did it. In essence, it's a procedural question.

As for what Obama will do about health care, it's probably more about what Congress will do, since they will have to craft the requisite legislation. My guess is that there will be much negotiation and compromise.

 

THESE SEEM TO BE VERY REASONABLE AND LOGICAL QUESTIONS, keep watching this post and i am sure you will get your answers

 

Wait a sec. Obama was just in congress and we have no health care. Now he is president after promising health care and you say he is not responsible for getting it for us?

 

Bladeway, please don't pretend to be so stupid. It's most unbecoming.

For the last eight years, we've had a president who would have vetoed any such proposal. There are not sufficient votes in Congress to override a presidential veto, even if there were enough votes to pass a bill in the first place, which is doubtful.

As of January 20, there are different circumstances in place, and the chances of a bill becoming law have improved somewhat.

 

So don't follow your convictions, follow the path of least resistance.

 

Politics is the art of the possible. What purpose would have been served by tilting at windmills?

 

On the lighter side

 

And what a pathetic cunt you are. Of course we'll keep believing what we want to believe, it's just that I choose to believe things that have evidence, facts, logic, compassion, etc. to back them up with and you choose to believe utter bullshit that you can't even remotely prove.

 

Since there are quite a lot of things that we discuss, why don't you pick the first subject for us to supply facts about.

Oh we understand that you're happy with your life. That's because you're a psychotic psychopathic loon filled with hatred and stupidity so of course you're happy when psychotic psychopathic corrupt scumbags have just finished raping the country, murdering our servicemen, destroying our economy, shredding our constitution, and turning America into one of the most loathed countries in the world. Glad to hear you're happy about that.

That's because you refuse to learn anything. A normal decent human being with event the remotest shred of morality and decency and intelligence would be willing to learn things and even change their opinion or belief based on new information. Only a worthless lump of flesh not fitting to be a member of society or humanity would so blindly claim that they would never change.

 

As the lovely Kimi said, it's mostly over procedural issues at the moment, but the real gist of your question could be applied to other similar situations because you are asking, "Why do the courts have the power to stop what the majority choose?"

The reason why is because that is exactly the power the Judicial branch has been given by the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were quite aware that no matter how wonderful democracy could be, there could be times when a subsection of America could fall prey to the Tyranny of the Majority, and established checks and balances for just such a thing. Even if 99% of the population agreed on a subject and tried to pass an amendment to it, if the very subject itself was unconstitutional, then the courts should and must throw out the amendment, even to protect one solitary American from an unconstitutional attack by the majority.

For example if every single American all agreed that diedre was so stupid that she should be imprisoned for the rest of her life and passed an amendment to the Constitution enacting that, it would be the moral responsibility of the Supreme Court to throw it out and free her since our amendment would adversely affect her rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The same with Prop 8. While the ability of gays to marry does not infringe on any one else's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Prop 8 does actually infringe and restrict homosexuals' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and as such should absolutely be thrown out by the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court did not do their job and actively reverse decisions made by the majority, we might still have slavery, women might still be unable to vote or to receive equal pay, interracial couples might still be unable to legally marry, etc.