published Friday, June 29th, 2012

ObamaCare unleashed

Today is a day of disappointment and alarm for the United States of America.

The U.S. Supreme Court erred badly and dangerously on Thursday in narrowly upholding ObamaCare, the federal attempt to seize effective control of medical care. A majority of the states -- which are to be saddled with enormous costs related to ObamaCare -- had sued. But the court has brushed off their objections in a 5-4 ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts surprisingly and unfortunately joined the court's four most liberal members -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor -- in upholding ObamaCare.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and even liberal Anthony Kennedy rightly dissented.

The justices who voted to keep ObamaCare fully intact did so despite Roberts' own acknowledgment that the law "is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part."

He said the law's punishment of Americans who do not purchase government-approved medical plans -- the so-called "individual mandate" -- cannot be sustained under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as the Obama administration argued. But, he added, "it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

Sorry, but construing the law that way isn't reasonable at all, and Kennedy said so.

"The act is invalid in its entirety," he said from the bench. The Obama administration went to "great lengths to structure the mandate as a penalty, not a tax." Obama himself said in 2009 that the individual mandate was "absolutely not a tax increase."

More to the point, it is not within Congress' power in the first place to force Americans to purchase government-sanctioned medical insurance or be penalized. The Constitution makes no such provision either directly or by implication. It is a matter left, under the 10th Amendment, to the states and the people.

Nevertheless, the deeply unpopular law's mortal threat to the liberties upon which this country was founded now remains in place, with only minimal hope that Congress will be able to repeal it.

Repeal would require a Republican president as well as continued Republican control of the House of Representatives and -- most difficult to achieve -- a Republican super majority in the filibuster-happy Senate. That is not in prospect in the near future, and repeal will grow tougher as years pass and a sense of entitlement to the costly, unsustainable provisions of ObamaCare grows.

Constitutionally speaking, the individual mandate is the most offensive part of ObamaCare. But it is far from the only facet of the law that is a slap in the face to freedom-loving Americans.

ObamaCare was:

• Sold under grossly false pretenses.

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what," Obama claimed in 2009.

ABC News called him on that, noting that ObamaCare would drive many employers to drop medical insurance, requiring workers to join government-promoted plans. That in no way guarantees that they may keep their doctors or the parts of their employer-based coverage that they like. Obama belatedly admitted that when pressed. "When I say if you have your plan and you like it, ... or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform," he said.

That's a gigantic caveat. The government may not directly be forcing people off their private plans, but it is creating an atmosphere in which many companies will have a huge incentive to do just that. In fact, The Wall Street Journal reported in April on large employers that have been advised that they can save in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars per year if they dump their insurance plans, pay some fines and push workers into government-backed "insurance exchanges" under ObamaCare.

• Promoted with jarring arrogance.

"We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy," then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said prior to Democrats' passage of the bill. She apparently believed the American people could not be trusted with the facts about ObamaCare until it was the law of the land and its repeal became exceedingly difficult.

• Passed in disregard to constitutional limits on federal power.

"The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country," U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., declared at a town hall meeting in late 2010 in response to a question about the then-recently enacted law. He was roundly booed.

• Broadly opposed by the public.

Of 97 surveys of likely voters by Rasmussen Reports from the time ObamaCare was enacted in early 2010 through early June of this year, only one found less than 50 percent support for repealing ObamaCare. Support for repeal has climbed as high as 63 percent, while opposition to repeal has been as low as 32 percent. Never has opposition to repeal been greater than 44 percent, and it is currently at a telling 39 percent.

Americans do not want this law.

But we are stuck with it anyway.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

A majority of the states? Perhaps, but not a majority of the population.

In fact the only portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that doesn't enjoy majority support is making people pay for it.

Huh. So I guess you are endorsing that attitude, of receiving without paying for it?

The rest? WIDELY SUPPORTED. Yet you don't mention that. Is there some reason why you overlooked it?

Thanks for at least quoting Nancy Pelosi's whole sentence, but actually she was making the point that certain entities HAD been deceiving the American People about the law.

Don't you think it's important to have a true experience of something, not just rely on what you emotionally believe it will do?

BTW, I'd love for healthcare to be independent of employers, as it would increase freedom of entrepreneurs.

June 29, 2012 at 12:08 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

Justice Kennedy is a "liberal?" Yeah, using Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun as your standard he might be.

Rational people consider him a moderate or swing vote on the sharply divided, deeply partisan SCOTUS. I guess moderates are actually liberals in some twisted way of thinking characteristic of the Free Press's editorial staff.

June 29, 2012 at 12:21 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Single payer remains the only health care model that has been proven to cover all the people at a lower cost. The new US health care bill was a product of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and is the perfect example of corporatacracy.

This wasn't the bill that Obama, or the Democrats, or the Republicans wanted. This was no victory for Obama, this was a victory for lobbyists, corporate lobbyists who pay the money necessary to fund congressional elections. We the people may pay the congressional salaries, but we don't pay for the election costs required to get elected. They are not our representatives. They sold their souls to the corporations that wrote the checks for their election campaigns.

Our system is broken. Health care is but the latest example.

Do we need more proof that we are too big to govern.

June 29, 2012 at 3:22 a.m.
fairmon said...

We probably won't recognize Obamacare by 2014. Many regulations included in it have not yet been written. I tend to agree with nucanuck that said...

Our system is broken. Health care is but the latest example. we are too big to govern.

June 29, 2012 at 6:59 a.m.
joneses said...

70% of Americans are against obastardcare and America is moving backwards thanks to the greedy, pathetic, liberal leaches that continue to want something for nothing.

Obamacare says new CBS poll

Sovereign Man on JUNE 13, 2012

When Barack Obama came into office, one of his platforms was “health care for everyone”. Hence Obamacare was created and it is now scheduled to be examined by the Supreme Court over its constitutionality. In an election year however, this legislation may hurt his reelection chances as a new CBS poll reports most Americans are not in favor of the mandate in its current form: “… nearly seven in ten Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn either all or President Obama’s health care law or strike down just the individual mandate. In the poll released on Thursday, 41 percent of those polled think Mr. Obama’s health care law should be overturned completely by the Supreme Court, with another 27 percent of respondents saying they want the court to keep the law but overturn the mandate.

June 29, 2012 at 7:03 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Anthony Kennedy is a "liberal" justice?! That's hilariously wrong.
FP editorial editor, please try to use accurate descriptions and definitions. The current Supreme Court has swung to the right; to call its swing vote "liberal" is like saying Eisenhower and Reagan were liberals.

June 29, 2012 at 9:13 a.m.
chatt_man said...

OK Bulbs, I tried your suggestion when you said "Don't you think it's important to have a true experience of something, not just rely on what you emotionally believe it will do?"

This morning while cooking some breakfast, I placed my hand on the stove eye, I didn't like it. I emotionally believed it was hot, and you know was.

All I could think of, while I was spreading the butter on my hand, was "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy."

I guess the fog part was the smoke coming off my burning hand.

June 29, 2012 at 9:31 a.m.
Easy123 said...


You could also believe the eye of the stove was hot. And, against your better judgement, place your hand on it only to find out that it was, in fact, not hot.

This is precisely the case. You don't "know" whether the eye is hot or not. You just believe it to be.

Stop watching Fox News for 1 day. Stop listening to Rush for 1 day. Look at the facts about Obamacare, not what the Right-wing propaganda machine tells you.

June 29, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
Leaf said...

Chatt_man - while I disagree with your politics, that was a good comeback. The visual of you contemplatively spreading butter on your burned hand was great. Good thing you weren't on bath salts at the time or you may have been tempted to spread some jelly on too and eat your hand.

Anyway. Hooray for our side.

June 29, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Chatt_man, if the first thing you thought about after burning your hand on the stove eye was Nancy Pelosi, I'd say you have some serious issues. Regardless, your "comeback" was totally unrelated to her comment. Everybody from the age of 2 upward has personal experience with a hot stove eye. We all know that it's hot. What's more, you didn't have a bunch of people standing around you telling lies about it like the Republicans were lying to the people about the health care bill.

"All I could think of, while I was spreading the butter on my hand, was 'We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.'" Seriously?? That's not only totally unrelated - that's just weird. Very weird.

June 29, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Today is a day of disappointment and alarm for the United States of America." - editor

Let me get this right: you are not talking about 9/11; or Katrina; or the recent passing of Citizens United that basically assured this country of becoming even more of a corporatocracy than it already was. You're talking about the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the health care bill, right? The health care bill that was basically a gift to the private insurance companies, assuring them of more business? The health care bill that would see to it that millions more people who couldn't afford health care or were unjustly denied it would be able to have access to it? The health care bill that the CBO said would actually be less costly than our present system? Oh, I see. Yeah, well, we should be alarmed, all right. Very alarmed. This is truly a sad day for all Americans. I'm almost ashamed of what our country is coming to - the very thought that one of our presidents had the audacity to do something like make health care accessible to more people. Yes, be alarmed, America! How low can we possibly go!

June 29, 2012 at 10:51 a.m.
chatt_man said...

Rickaroo, sorry you didn't like my weird sense of humor. I guess it was my way of illustrating that I thought bulb's comment made about as much sense as Pelosi's comment. Maybe bulb's won't treat me too badly, as I did include the whole comment from Pelosi.

Leaf, thanks for being the one independent and honest enough to admit you recognized the humor as it was intended. It's ok that we disagree politically. I appreciated your bath salts humor as well.

And Easy...well, he's just easy.

June 29, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
conservative said...

The much increased anger, more Americans unemployed, and more taxes and more taxes and more taxes will drive many to the polls and they will take it out on the one most responsible and his Demoncrat minions just as they did in the mid term elections.

June 29, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.

chatt_man, thank you for demonstrating why it's important to have the actual experience to not do stupid things.

If you'd been a bit more exposed to the discussion, maybe you wouldn't facetiously claim to be hurting yourself to try to make what you think is a point. But you didn't.

You just made an emotional response, which all it showed is why it is important that a person NOT be coddled to the point where they don't know why they need to keep things safe. I've seen a lot of people who are indifferent to safety protocols because they didn't first learn what pain and harm meant, so they would haphazardly follow rules instead of living by them.

Thanks again, by letting your emotional reaction sway your response, you showed why it's important to have the genuine experience to understand, not just leap to whatever rhetoric you think applies.

June 29, 2012 at 11:56 a.m.
chatt_man said...

Ok bulbs, thanks for the lesson. I get it now. We must first turn our healthcare to sh*t, and experience that for a while, so we can appreciate something different and better in the future.

Bulbs, I wasn't making an emotional response, I was making a damn joke.

I am amazed that we agree about NOT being coddled, we have been trying to get you all to stop coddling people from cradle to grave for a very long time.

June 29, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You still don't get it.

June 29, 2012 at 3:22 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

A nation that cares for the health and well-being of its citizenry is not "coddling," Chattman. That is simply the hallmark of a civilized country.

You rugged individualist types are truly laughable. You think you've done it all on your own, as if you were born out in the wilderness among wolves and everything you have today is due entirely to the blood, sweat, and tears of your own efforts and planning. Without some form of government "coddling" that has been provided for you already, you would not even be here typing your "coddling" comments on your computer.

June 29, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.

Rickaroo, Government is what the constitution was put in place to guard the people against. Your attitude that government is the benevolent provider of everything good says alot about who you are. The government we currently have is exactly what the founding fathers rejected when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. The people are no longer being represented in the government. The republican/democrat machines and the banksters and corporations are who is being represented now. The people are once again surfs to an unaccountable entity. We should all get a copy of the Declaration of Independence, modify it to indicate this new oppressor and sign our names next to the founders names and send it to our "representatives" declaring our independence from this oppression.

Your laughable assertion that those of us who are not dependant upon the government had some invisible government hand to help us make it ignores the fact that there are homeless failures in every city in this nation. I am not talking about the mentally ill homeless, the criminal or handicapped homeless. I am talking about the able bodied homeless who prefer to be that way or made bad decisions and landed on the street. Where was this invisible, all powerful government when they needed it?

June 29, 2012 at 3:48 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"Your laughable assertion that those of us who are not dependant upon the government had some invisible government hand to help us make it ignores the fact that there are homeless failures in every city in this nation. I am not talking about the mentally ill homeless, the criminal or handicapped homeless. I am talking about the able bodied homeless who prefer to be that way or made bad decisions and landed on the street. Where was this invisible, all powerful government when they needed it?"

There is not one person in this country that hasn't benefitted from a government program or some entity funded by government funds.

Homeless people can receive the same benefits from our government as the poor. Do you not realize that? Many are just hopeless.

June 29, 2012 at 3:59 p.m.

The notion that obamacare somehow ensures gobs of money will flow into the coffers of private insurers shows a decided lack of understanding of how risk pools work.
Do you think everyone is going to pay thousands of dollars of premiums a year for insurance when they can just pay a pittance of a yearly penalty and then get insurance after they get sick? No. They will pay the penalty every year and then buy insurance when they get sick. Imagine how that will affect insurance companies. A young woman, let's call her Julia just for fun, is young and healthy and instead of paying hundreds of dollars a month in insurance premiums, decides to pay a few hundred in penalty charges each year because she hardly ever gets sick.

Julia finds out one day that she has breast cancer and decides she needs insurance. She can't be denied for a pre-existing condition so she is able to get insurance and pulls anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 out of the insurance company coffers after having paid only a few thousand dollars into the system. After she is cured and has had all of her follow up visits, she promptly drops coverage again.

You see this as good for private insurance companies? How would you make ends meet if everyone who bought insurance from you was definitely going to pull more money out of your company than they put in? The simple answer is you wouldn't. You WILL go out of business. Obamacare is just a step toward a single payer system owned by the federal govt.

Why don't car insurance companies follow the same rules? Why can't you buy car insurance AFTER you wreck your car? How long would car insurance companies be in business if they had a guaranteed 100% loss on every single policy?

June 29, 2012 at 4:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...


"Do you think everyone is going to pay thousands of dollars of premiums a year for insurance when they can just pay a pittance of a yearly penalty and then get insurance after they get sick?"

Everyone won't. But many will. You can create any negative scenario. But that doesn't mean you are correct or that your scenario will be true for everyone.

Private insurance companies will make money because of this. There is no viable scenario where they wouldn't.

June 29, 2012 at 4:11 p.m.

Easy, I would rather not benefit from any of these programs I wouldn't readily pay for. Benefitting is almost impossible to avoid at this point because our government is throwing our money around like a drunken sailor. I wouldn't miss any of the government funded benefits I am forced to or unknowingly benefit from. I would rather provide for myself and have a solvent country that doesn't waste the treasure of it's people. This government isn't what the founders created. It is a runaway train headed for a cliff and we are all aboard. The difference is, I see the cliff coming and am running around warning people that we are about to die. You are updating your FB status from your Ipad.

June 29, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

" I wouldn't miss any of the government funded benefits I am forced to or unknowingly benefit from."

Police, public schools, interstate highways, the EPA, any part of the military, Social Security, most hospitals, new technology, Judicial system... I'll stop there.

How many of those do you think we could get rid of before you started missing them?

June 29, 2012 at 4:25 p.m.

I just gave you a viable scenario that will definitely happen starting in 2014.

Around 7500 people in TN got breast cancer in 2008 according to the CDC. Of those 7500, around 3100 were insured by BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee. The average total cost of treating the most common form of breast cancer costs $50,000-$100,000. If half of those people bought insurance after they realized they had cancer, BCBST would have paid $77,500,000 - $155,000,000 without taking in more than a couple thousand dollars of premiums from those individuals. They only made $59,000,000 profit in 2008. Last year they had a good year and made $119,000,000. Either way, BCBST would be out of business if very short order and thousands of your neighbors, friends and maybe even family would be out of a job.

Chattanooga and Tennessee tax revenues would fall across the board and the cascade of failure would extend to small businesses that depend upon the patronage of BCBST employees and those that contract with it.

Does the additional detail help make this scenario more believable? Remember, this is just one of the hundreds of incredibly costly diseases that BlueCross helps it's members pay. It isn't even the most expensive. Compound that across the gamut of ills inflicting people and it only paints a darker picture. Paint that same picture for the rest of the insurers in Tennessee and you have an economic disaster that will shake this state and the rest of the nation to it's roots.

Obamacare is nothing but a hostile takeover of the private health insurance system that will cause nothing but pain for our nation.

June 29, 2012 at 5:08 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"I just gave you a viable scenario that will definitely happen starting in 2014."

No, you haven't. And you have no idea what will happen in 2014. Assume all you want. But it proves nothing.

June 29, 2012 at 5:13 p.m.

chatt_man, jokes often rely on being emotional responses, yours in particular was doing just that. You can present your words as flippant, but they still had a purpose. It just failed at it with me. But our healthcare and insurance system was turning against us, that is why a majority of people are supportive of most of the specific reforms. The only thing you can get opposition to is the dreaded spectre of paying for it. No surprise there, so I am hardly bothered.

What people need to learn is that that isn't going to hurt them and stop throwing a tantrum like a toddler about to get a shot. Yeah, it stings, but the benefits are far more worthwhile. Same with this reform.

Unless they've been willfully exploiting the system, they'll pay less. If they have been, they won't. Am I supposed to be sad for them? Weren't we supposed to be upset at freeloaders?

Easy123, I doubt recognition of any of the benefits of living in our current society will be forthcoming. Some people strongly believe in anarcho-libertarianism, and that mindset means all government is evil and wrong.

FPSE, now you know why the reform doesn't let you be a free rider. You can thank the Heritage Foundation.

June 29, 2012 at 5:14 p.m.

You missed what I said at the beginning. "I would rather not benefit from any of these programs I wouldn't readily pay for."

Police: I would pay for a form of policing, but believe what we currently have could be reduced greatly if the second amendment hadn't been raped.

Public schools: Have you seen how effective our public schools are? Let me keep the tax dollars and teach my own child or send them to a private school that earns it's pay.

Interstate Highways: I would gladly pay to support these.

EPA: Please... This craptastic agency needs to be defunded yesterday.

Military: I would gladly pay to support them.

Social Security: PONZI SCHEME. A mason jar buried in the back yard would be a million times better.

Hospitals: Most? Private industry is doing this better than the government. Of the hospitals in Chattanooga, Erlanger is the public one. Guess which one is having financial difficulty?

New Technology? What are you talking about? Most innovation is being done by private industry.

Judicial system: I would pay for this in a form that works. I would love to see loser pays tort reform. That would fix alot of what clogs the system now.

Keep it up. Your military and interstate systems examples were lame. They are covered in the constitution and are some of the only truly neccessary reasons for taxation.

June 29, 2012 at 5:20 p.m.

Can't deal with facts and numbers easy? Blame public school education. 2014 is when most of the provisions of Obamacare kick in. It's almost like you don't know anything about what you are talking about.

June 29, 2012 at 5:22 p.m.

HWNB, the pittance of a penalty people will have to pay is going to be far less than what they would pay to maintain coverage. Even a public school education is sufficient to figure that much out. Well, for those who paid attention it is. How about we meet somewhere in the middle and call them almost free riders.

June 29, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.

If that had been your only statement then you might get by with your qualifier, but you also said any that you are forced to or unknowingly benefit from, that expands upon your initial statement to make it far more all encompassing, perhaps more than you intended.

But you still said it.

Perhaps you might want to rewrite your words, as I do think that the sentence Easy123 quoted does exclude all of those things, even the ones you say you support.

And really, you support the military? Without qualification? A greater furball of financial exploitation for private entities has yet to be produced. Defense spending is the financial black hole of the government. At least limit it to effective spending on personnel.

Edit, to reply to your second comment, now you know why numbers have to be adjustable. If you can make an argument that it is an insufficient deterrent at one level, set it to another. This is why we don't have the same fines and penalties as we might have had centuries ago.

Even crimes have different sentences. The results may not be effective, but that's another problem. Of course, there are other tools in the reform than dealing with the free rider problem, including preventative screening. Screwy, huh, spending money to save money!

PS, I wouldn't go to Memorial or Park Ridge if you paid me. They have other problems.

June 29, 2012 at 5:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Your numbers are from the CDC and BCBST. Everything else is speculation.

It almost seems like you think you are talking about facts. You aren't. Everything you said is speculation. Do you not realize that?

So you need 4/9 things I mentioned. I'll address the others.

Public schools: You can send them private, if you have the money. You can home-school them, if you have the time. But everyone doesn't have the money and everyone doesn't have the time. Public schools could be a lot better, I'll admit that. But many kids do well in public schools.

EPA: Do you like clean air, water, waste disposal, clean food, etc.? If you do then you should like the EPA.

Social Security: This is the only one that I could probably do without.

New technology: Have you heard of NASA? Space technology? Micro-chips? Railroads? Airplanes? Satellites? All would probably never have come along without government funding.

Keep it up. It would seem as though you were born yesterday.

June 29, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.

If the government were were working as intended instead of corrupt politicians looking for ways to throw their supporters money through government contracts, even military spending would be down from where it is now. All government spending is a financial black hole. I have never heard the govt state they couldn't possibly spend any more money on anything. I don't believe it ever even crossed their minds.

I am sorry you see the first statement as having been superseded by the second. I guess I really should have been more clear. Thank you for helping me clarify.

June 29, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.

Don't all scenarios contain some speculation? What is your point? I reject your argument that this country would be a stinking hole filled with industrial waste if it weren't for the EPA. Are you saying that before the EPA was established in 1970 that the US was swimming in pools of sewage? Was our air unbreathable? No. Noone likes pollution, even the evil Capitalists.

I reject your premise about innovation. It would have come without government funding. Computers weren't invented by the government. You are just blinded by your fanboi bias.

June 29, 2012 at 5:56 p.m.

Easy123, public schools in isolation do well. Figure out why...and you realize that the problem isn't with them being public schools.

Besides a lot of the money goes to private industry which is the problem. Especially the standardized tests, which are easily exploited.

Social Security has been wifely effective though, you just may not see it since you don't recall how bad aging was before it. Or know those who did. Seniors are a lot better off, that is why you won't pry it or Medicare from them except by prying it from their cold dead hands.

FPSE, your later statement does take any attempt you might have made to limit your words and blow it out of the water.

But actually, no, lots of government spending is prudently and effectively employed, that which isn't, as I said, often comes because it goes to private entities. Who want their profits. And if you have never heard of fiscal prudence, you haven't been paying attention to how we spend less per person as a net effect in lots and lots of ways. Of couse , sometimes that is the waste, due to it increasing costs down the road.

But actually, yes, there is long history of problems from pollution and Capitalists are quite fine with pollution, as long as the costs don't go on their bottom line.

A government cannot be so indifferent. They had to care about burning rivers, dying forests and deteriorating soils. Not to mention floods. Yes, I know that Saint Reagan hated the TVA for what it did, but he was using rather shoddy math.

Where the computer industry would be without government investment, well I don't know, but I know you don't either. I do know patents, copyrights and trademarks are three things they love. And that comes from the government.

June 29, 2012 at 5:57 p.m.


Government will never be more efficient than private industry at anything other than waste, bureaucracy, tyrrany and theft.

Period. Unless you have examples of where the govt is more efficient than private industry... Please. Present them.

June 29, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Also, how can you reject my premise on innovation? Most innovations have parts e.g. the micro-chip that were invented directly through government funding. Without those parts, how would inventions like computers, etc. arise?

June 29, 2012 at 6:14 p.m.

Just because they were invented while being funded by government doesn't mean they wouldn't have been invented without government funding. The funding didn't invent the microchip, the scientist being funded did.

June 29, 2012 at 6:19 p.m.

FPSE, I'm sorry, but if you're under the impression that the private industry is not efficient at waste, bureaucracy, tyranny and theft, then you are quite mistaken. They are quite good at it, because they can profit from it. To the express detriment of others.

That's why we have to have a government.

But honestly you can espouse your belief that the government is some paragon of waste all you want, but I know you don't have any kind of genuine objective demonstration of it. I'm sure you can produce a litany of alleged examples of government waste, but...that's not the same thing as producing a real demonstration.

You're just taking it as a given, because it's one of the truisms you live by.

Me, I won't bother, since I know you're not making it as an argument. It's an article of faith with you. You didn't even bother to define efficiency. What does it mean? Not just in vague terms, but in real ones, because I do know this, pursuit of efficiency often leads to the bureaucracy you just got done hating. Not to mention a number of other less than salubrious things. Yet people claim it's SO efficient. So it MUST be good.

Pardon me while I gag.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument for efficiency, even aside from the great waste I've personally seen in private industry, it isn't quite the touchstone you want to make it out to be either.

And you don't know that any of those things would have been done. You may think it would be, but you don't know.

June 29, 2012 at 6:46 p.m.

Was this the same fantasy that had John Roberts being threatened to have his birth certificate revealed if he didn't vote properly on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Were there aliens, zombies or shark-men involved?

June 29, 2012 at 7:43 p.m.

You really should involve aliens, zombies, or shark-men.

It'll make for a much more interesting story.

At least have a cranky wizard.

June 29, 2012 at 7:57 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Social Security: PONZI SCHEME. A mason jar buried in the back yard would be a million times better." - FPSE

That statement is so moronic that it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response. But I feel that I've pretty much sold whatever dignity I had down the river anyway just by being on this site in the first place, mingling with the likes of so many teabagging cretins and holy rollers. So here goes:

Social Security is not a perfect system but it has worked well for decades, sparing millions of people the indignity of living in squalor. Even as bad as the economy is today, S.S. is still working and working well. If Congress hadn't raided its coffers starting in the 80s S.S would not be in any sort of financial straits at all, and even with the difficulties it is experiencing today it's nothing that a little tweaking won't fix.

To say that a mason jar buried in the back yard would be better than Social Security is not just dumb - it's dumb and dumber (dumber even than the movie of the same name). Left to their own devices how many people, starting from an early age, would have the wisdom and the discipline to sock away 15% or 10% or even 5% of their earnings each paycheck? Very few. And it's not just a lack of discipline or wisdom that would prevent most people from saving for retirement; in most cases the people are living paycheck to paycheck and do not have the money to invest in the first place, or to put in a "mason jar." And then, look at the vast number of people who played by the rules, worked hard, lived frugally, invested in their 401Ks or IRAs, but still lost everything as a direct result of the recession that hit in '08. The only thing between being out on the street and having a roof over their heads is their social security.

And to add insult to injury, you teabagging, libertarian nitwits are opposed to a decent minimum wage, affordable health care for the masses, or unemployment insurance...those minimal assurances and safety nets that help to ensure that people don't have to live a life of abject poverty and deprivation in this country.

FPSE, I'm sure you have many family members and friends on Social Security and you yourself are probably drawing from it or will be soon. EVERYBODY in this country has benefited from it or will eventually. Do you also hate the air you breathe because the government (EPA) had a huge hand in cleaning it up? And do you hate the water you drink because of government standards of making sure it's pure and palatable?

Mason jar in the back yard a million times better than Social Security? The "logic" of you government-hating libertarian loonies never ceases to amaze me.

June 29, 2012 at 9:18 p.m.
CharlieCroker said...

We are joining the rest of the civilized world in making sure millions of people have access to healthcare. Do your homework, and stop talking about long lines for doctors "practicing socialized medicine". I have traveled all over, and that's just not how it is. Each place has its own program, too. Thank God for Obamacrae, the first step in a long needed process. It is disgusting to see how many of you confuse freedom with denial of access.

July 1, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.
jazzman said...

re:......JonRoss said... So it goes back to Congress and Romney for repeal after the inauguration in January.'

while you're indulging in projections.... I suggest you keep better track of electoral projections

re: 'No actually Roberts didn't want his home firebombed by a pack of violent Obamists. So he caved. Fairly simple concept.

simple concept from a simple 'mind'

re: 'fire bombed'

'Federal officials are investigating a fire that started overnight at the site of a new Islamic center in a Nashville suburb. Ben Goodwin of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department confirmed to CBS Affiliate WTVF that the fire, which burned construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro,....... is being ruled as arson.'

'A self professed white supremacist was sentenced to federal prison for fire bombing an Islamic center in Columbia, Tenn. Christians and Jews in the area supplied money and assistance for rebuilding the mosque.'

Why fantasize when you can read recent state history ?

July 2, 2012 at 2:22 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.