So this article is about jobs?

You realize that Obamacare is going to kill thousands of American jobs right? Once the added cost is placed upon the private sector companies they will be forced to fire workers to stay in business....

So yes....this is of utmost importance.

Businesses arent going to expand until Obama is out of office any ways....seeing as if they make the littlest buit of profit he will try to "put his boot on their neck" or "kick their @ss" why should they do anything?

Companies are in busuness to make a profit....not supply health care and jobs to people....

At some point liberals will wake up and realize that not everything is a not for profit entity.

Aww Drive By, we don't expect you to understand the direct relationship between this bill and an employer's ability or desire to hire. We know you are just a worker bee.

But for fun Drive By - do you have any idea of the projected increase in costs to employers related to this particular bill?

Larry,

Give that argument up already. It has already created more than 10,000 jobs as small businesses and pre existing conditions and children are being added. Start watching something other than that fake and biased news show called Fox. You look pretty silly with your biased uninformed comments.

Yo AnnaB - are those all them 26 year old "children?" Are these not the very individuals whose premiums decrease the overall cost of the plan?

Where are the states going to get the money to pay for the increased burdens imposed upon them?

What is the projected net increase in health care costs to your state from Obamacare?

"You realize that Obamacare is going to kill thousands of American jobs right? Once the added cost is placed upon the private sector companies they will be forced to fire workers to stay in business...."

Ummm....NO the idea is to spread the risk around a larger pool and LOWER COSTS!

The reality is the broken health care system in this country has already cost thousands of jobs.

Ask the Ford workers who, despite superior productivity and build quality at the Wixom MI plant watched as production was shifted to Canada. Their national single payer system saved Ford about $1200 per car. Despite the Fox News spin, most Canadians really like their health care system. Those who want a super deluxe plan can pay for suplemental insurance but nobody falls through the cracks.

With a universal single payer system people aren't scared to change jobs or start their own business because their basic health care needs will be covered regardless. Seriously, so many other countries do a much better job of supplying basic essential health care for less cost than the USA.

Get past the lies and hype and actually talk to people who live in countries with different healthcare systems...we can learn a LOT and make our country healthy and more productive at the same time.

Here's a quote from your own post which makes the point why our system is a mess...

"Companies are in business to make a profit....not supply health care and jobs to people"

Exactly...that's why for-profit health insurance provides overpriced under performing health care.

The insurance companies are not really in business to care for sick people or provide health care.

They exist to MAKE PROFIT not to actually care for people.

Cincy, So when exactly did insurance companies start providing health care. When I get sick, i go to see my Doctor, not my insurance agent.

Yea, why don't we go ahead and decide what to do with dog of legislation so business can figure out their cost.

The reality is that it is dead as of the last ruling. Obama can not by law force any of the 26 states to participate. If the plan doesn't work without mandating 26 year olds to participate - how does it work without 26 states? Yet, Obama just ignores it like it is just some little federal judge telling him his drilling moratorium is illegal and to stop it.

So Congress is against HCR. Federal Judge rules it is constitutional. Almost 60% of the States are against it. Small business is against it. Thirtythree governors are fighting the the maintenance of effort.

People? CNN says 50% are for repeal of all provisions; Quinnipiac has it at 48%; Gallup has it at 46%; Rasmussen at 55%.

54% say States should have the right to opt out. 60% say HCR will increase the deficit. 58% say HCR will cost jobs. 50% say quality of care will decline....... on and on.....

The you got Obama waivers for 770 of his best buds, (unions, big supporters, etc)

BTW - How is that legal.

If the President can not make law, how can he give waivers that say his friends don't have to obey the law?

Yea, GREAT PIECE of LEGISLATION libbies!

Cincy.

Look at other countries - Yea, check out what PM Cameron is saying in the UK, what he is doing to fix their problems (hint the exact opposite of what Obama is doing)

bob-1805084 "So Congress is against HCR. Federal Judge rules it is constitutional (split decision). Almost 60% of the States are against it. Small business is against it. Thirty three governors are fighting the maintenance of effort."

Good points. If HCR is supposed to be so "good for the economy", why are businesses and States opposed to it? Obviously, it's not what it's supposed to be. And if HCR was supposed to "bend the cost curve down", why did it bend it UP by an unprecedented 20% in its first year?

Once more we have a huge disconnect between the 'rhetoric' and the reality.

Wow Bob,,,,,,You have a lot of BS numbers there,,,,,,,,,Maybe you should try looking at the REAL numbers??

if you people will notice the ones that are against the healthcare bill are REPUBLICANS no one else . the GOP is against it because of the Insurance companies .they have pledge to mdefeat this bill because it hurts the Insurance companies . us seniors have to pay all of our prescription,drug cost to wich I paid 4500.00 thru the donut while I had to continue to pay my premiums. but with this healthcare bill I save over 2000.00 . my total prescription cost was 8700.00to which I paid around 6000.00 dollars and insurance paid 2700/.00

not from the GOP they are afraid you will go and have an abortion and they want no about it . let me tell the GOP if i have an abortion they want no about it anyway . the GOP is afraid if they talk a bout jobs then this country start to work again that President Obama would get the credit and they won't.

if this healthcare bill just saved 10 lives then it would have been worth a life is worth more than money of any amount . this bill will save money in the long run maybe not in the short run . you have to get it up an running . but I am getting tired of paying for those deadbeats who had rather buy a boat oa new car or something they would enjoy rather than something that it nesassary. if they don't have insurance then to bad . it is like in the Bible If you don't work let him not eat.

So who wants Washington to tell you what to eat, drink, drive, buy, and at what price? Anytime in our recent history that our government has said we want to provide you with anything---there is always a payback for them through taxes and tax for the US tax payers. (Social security, Federal unemployment, Jimmy Carter's Energy department, EPA, NEA, etc) They will steal healthcare money as they did our social security money. When will the dumb masses of this country stop looking at some one on TV and believe everything they say. Example--Jimmy Carter on the energy department he started--And I Quote: "We will no longer be dependent on foriegn oil" Sound familiar? Al Gore(Ozone depletion, no it's global warming, no now it's climate change, no it's taxes you fools!

What, again, does it do?????

Oh thats right..... it leaves granny's health care up to a nameless bureaucrat in Washington, allows the goverment to come in my house to make sure Im raising my baby to their "standards", unconstitutionally forces people to purchase a product, gives government (the same people who run the post office) control of 1/6th of our economy oh....and best of all....tells people that they arent REALLY adults until they are 26.

Yea..... let me tell you..... that makes me want to support this government take over bill so much more....

How sad is it that the government is trying to make people think that its ok to stay on mommy and daddys insurance even after they get married and have kids....

But hey.... progressivism is the way to go right?

Seems like more states are not fans of the bill.

Where are the states going to get the extra money for all the increased costs imposed on them?

Spanky: Where are the states going to get the extra money for all the increased costs imposed on them?

Why, from the Federal government of course! The Feds will just borrow it, print it, and/or tax it. Uncle Sam will sprinkle the money like magic fairy dust upon the states. Standard Operating Procedure.

Of course we'll have to talk about that small task of raising the Federal Debt ceiling. Trivial matter really.

JoAnna

So basically what you are saying is we will be paying for it on both ends?

WOW what a sweet deal!

That is also what is known as "Obama Money"

Larry, does that much vaunted religion of yours have anything to say about bearing false witness? Or do you just pick and choose amongst the Ten Commandments like you do "facts" about HCR?

Newday? That was a nice persoanl attack on poor old Larry, but really, you got anything substantive on this?

Did Larry refer to any religion in his comment above?

Name one thing Im not being truthful about newday

Obama slipped death panels in over Christmas, a married 25 yeard old man can be on his parents insurance, HCR does give local governments the "right" to come into the house of a new mother to make sure she is doing what she is "supposed" to, and the constitution explicitly states that the government can not force us to buy anything (and dont use the tired car insurance line... thats a state issue and driving is a privalege and a choice).

So what point exactly was I picking and choosing again?

And just so you know..... I have no problem helping others.... I give to Caser Obama what is "his" and I give unto God what is His. What I have a problem with is dealing with a government that believes that it in any way has any right giving authority.

Larry, there is NO such thing as a death panel. Give me a source to suggest that is true. As to a young person being on their parents insurance, that is a GOOD thing. A lot of young people cannot afford insurance. My youngest is on ours now while he waits for Grad school in the spring. THIS BENEFIT IS PART OF MY HUSBAND'S EMPLOYMENT, AND WE PAY SOME TOO! Provide a source for the new mother thing, I have a feeling you are creating a problem where none exists. And, Larry, I asked you a question: what religion are you a part of that allows you to bear false witness against anyone?

Larry,

granny's health will not be decided by a bureaucrat in Washington, the government will not be coming to your house to check on your baby, the constitutionality of the mandate is still being debated with 2 judges saying yes and two saying no, the government is not taking control of the health care industry, and letting people stay on their parent's health care equating to them not being adults is news to me. Newday doesn't have to name one thing you're not being truthful about, every one of your points are talking points that have already been debunked.

If your concerns are the overreach of government and the costs of the healthcare bill, those are valid points worth arguing. Bringing up talking points full of hyperbole are not.

Thanks, Tim, you did a better job than I did.

Good for you NewDay - you at least realize you and your husband are only paying for "some" of the benefit. Do you: 1. know what percent others are paying, and 2. the effect of the additional insured on the overall costs associated with the policy?

And just think - grad. school. Government subsidized student loans? And just a couple of more years until your Child is actually out on his own. Do you still set a curfew for the little guy? You know, your policy, your rules after all.

Tim - how do you think NewDay feels about the overreach and costs associated with the bill? All in favor, right.

So many people,,,,,Sooooooooooo much total ignorance

HCR does one thing, It gives insurance companies a set of actual laws to go by and they are donating millions to fight it,,,,,,,,PERIOD

Me, too chilled.

High court has never heard a case until it has goan through the appeals process. if any one can name a case please. also if the high court will not hear Row-wade, or even over turn it, then its a pipe dream to think they will reverse congress. its just has never happened.

this goof is probably up for re-election and want to build up some street cred!!!!

Psst Jeff - try googling "direct appeal" and Supreme Court.

74 members of congress signed a letter to Justice Clarence Thomas pointing out that his wife’s new job could have ethical consequences for him: As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/09/thomas-recuse/

The important thing about judicial ethics is to avoid even the appearance of impartiality. The point being that a judge's impartiality should be unquestioned and he/she should avoid anything that even suggests bias. Based on that standard I don't see how Justice Thomas could rule on any issue his wife's firm was involved with.

Ginny left Heritage years before the law was drafted.

That letter was not about Thomas - it was about Kagen, who worked for DOJ when the bill was drafted. I've always had judges recuse themselves in cases involving former partners. Here the case is defended by the DOJ, in which Kagen was an employee. Here boss was Obama. She's going to sit for a case litigated by her former boss and department.

That's a much tougher call than Thomas.

But then again, I'm guessing there will be no recusals.

Ginsburg made her comments at a forum sponsored by the NPR. Since she spoke at a forum sponsored by a liberal radio station, this forum provided the appearance/suggetion of liberal bias. According to your logic, her impartiality is now questionable and she should recuse herself.

Rocco---I really don't think you want to suggest that any Supreme Court justice who speaks in public should recuse himself or herself from cases---either conservative or liberal. There is a huge difference between giving remarks to a group---liberal or conservative---and having one's spouse work for a lobbying group involved in the very issue before the Court. I would say the same thing if the spouse of a liberal judge was involved in a similar situation.

Virginia "Ginni" Lamp Thomas is an American attorney who is presently serving as a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank; the founder and president of an advocacy group associated with the Tea party, Liberty Central; and the head of Liberty Consulting, Inc. She is the wife of U. S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginni_Thomas

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ginni-thomas/8/b27/6a5

http://www.afro.com/sections/news/national/story.htm?storyid=4010

Impeach Clarence Thomas. Oh, and don't forget Alito, Scalia and Roberts.

Steeler-I am not suggesting that but, using a very literal interpretation of your remarks, her speaking at a NPR forum would give the appearance of bias. The real question is where do you draw the line of impartiality. I don't think who your married to is one of them. I'm conservative and my wife is very liberal. That doesn't mean we can not judge a case on the merits. However, there would be a good probability of different outcomes even though we were both right based on our viewpoints.

newdayDAWNING10

Impeach Clarence Thomas. Oh, and don't forget Alito, Scalia and Roberts.

Yes i agree impeach him for being a dirty old man.

Justice Marshall gave us Brown -board of education,

Clarence Thomas gave us sexuall harassment laws along with a skank wife.

Rocco---I would actually prefer that our Supreme Court justices NOT speak at events such as an NPR forum but their rules permit that and they do. To me their speaking should be confined to academic environments such as law schools but I'm not in charge.

Again, speaking about the appearance of bias, I do think that cases where one's spouse has had involvement in the specific issue raise that possibility and the Justice should recuse himself or herself. I don't think that precludes Justice Thomas hearing all conservative cases but, to me, he should not be involved in any case where his wife has had an association.

If they as a family receive some benefit, like pay, for Ginni's work, and a case comes up before the court that Ginni has advocated for, you would think that Thomas would have the brains that God gave a goose and recuse himself. If he doesn't, impeach him.

And Jeff, I don't disagree with you.

newdayDAWNING10

And Jeff, I don't disagree with you.

Newday, when Justice marshall retired everybody in the black comminuty wanted another black to serve, i did not want any body that was put there because he was born black, i wanted the best justice. as we see Obama has not put a black on the court, because he found a 2 women who were the best for the job. Bush senior gave us clarence thomas because people wanted a black man but what we got was a dirty old man.

again everytime i see a artical about clarence thomas i get pissed at Bush senior for giving us a dirty old man who did not make a difference the way justice marshall did to get on the high court.

Ok NewDay, pray tell and do tell us what Thomas' impeachable offense would be, and who gets to make the call.

How do YOU feel about Kagen's ability to serve on cases invovling her former employer? What if any understanding do you have regarding the rules related to judicial ethincs?

I hear you, Jeff. The best person should be selected to serve regardless of ethnicity or gender. Didn't happen in this case.

Elena Kagan told the Senate during her confirmation hearings that she would hear the case on HCR if it came to the SCOTUS. She said she would step aside from any case in which she was the counsel of record or played a substantive role.

Evidently this was good enough for the senate to confirm her appointment.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/07/19/kagan-says-shell-hear-health-care-lawsuit/

Gosh Steeler Fan I thought you was a lawyer. Given your statement has it been a long time sine you were in law school?

It has been a long time since I was in law school and I don't practice constitutional law, as does the Va. AG, but I remember that much.

So you are familiar with the direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the types of matters that can be directly appealed (i.e. matters of public concern) and the rule changes on '98?

And I do not do constitutinal law either. But I sure am getting a kick out of all these non lawyers spouting off about impartiality and recousal. Gosh, to read some it's almost like they have filed many motions to challenge judges.

But hey, if some folk only talked about stuff they actually knew about they'd be totally silent, ain't that right Fiesty old girl?

The funny thing to me, Spanky, is that Republicans are always against what they call "activist" judges. Yet here they are asking the Supreme Court to step in and allow a direct appeal---sounds pretty activist to me.

How is that "activist?"

It's going to the Supreme Court. We all know that. Waiting only makes everything worse. Heck, even Bev and I agreed on this a few days ago.

But tell me, did you find Vinson's ruling activist? He kind of hit tthe nail on the head - the drafters included, then intentionally deleted the severabilty clause. I know that I have had big problems with contracts I drafted that did not have such clauses.

That's not activism. That was a conscious choice. Now let's see what the ultimate arbitrator, the Supreme court, has to say and get this over with.

I would consider it activism if the Supreme Court were to deny the circuit courts the opportunity to rule on the law and take the case directly.

And that would be activism because it has never been done before? Besides what difference would it make either way?

dcollins

If yo don't work you don't contribute to social security that is the difference

Yeah, but you are still FORCED to participate. With the mandate, you freely purchase insurance so the rest of us don't have to pay for your emergency room visits. With social security, you can not opt out. They take your money before you get it. Big government! Now, the GOP wants to create a "ponzi scheme" by first, calling Social security an, "entitlement" as if you are/would be getting you did not contribute to. And then they want to open it up to the thieves on Wall Street, so when the next bubble busts, we'll be like the states, who opened their pensions to these same thieves, and now have an excuse to renege on contracts they signed.

must have been a different bunch of republicans I guess

and that does not affect the constitutionality of the mandate