A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality
Posted: Mar 27, 2012
Lets hope they vote on the side of the law and vote it down. If they do the right thing and vote against it, my trust in them may rise, but unsure. Just unsure if they will do the right thing. My take on the health care is this. Those that want it should be able to get it. Those that don't should not be forced to buy a product we don't wish to purchase every month. And on top of that be told the product has to meet certain circumstances, whiich for most of us means our health care costs would rise. I myself have health insurance as I feel it is the responsible thing to do, but I do not think it's fair for someone to order somone to buy something they don't want to have.
Still waiting for the verdict.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10883874-supreme-court-expresses-skepticism-over-constitutionality-of-health-care-mandate?ocid=ansmsnbc11
;
waiting anxiously also - but on the other side
[ In Reply To ..]It is unclear to me why those who oppose it do not seem to care that you and I will be paying the medical bills of those who refuse to buy insurance. You want freedom - so do I. Freedom from paying slackers' medical bills for going to the ER for a sore throat.
My answer to that is... - what if
[ In Reply To ..]Do you really think socialized health care (i.e. Obamacare) will be cheaper. The simple answer is no it won't be. Just do some research on it. If that is passed we still will be paying for others who don't. There still will be others who get it for free and us who will cover them. Nothing will change except our rates will go up and if we don't pay more...well that's only obvious.
The only way healthcare cost will stabilize or - sm
[ In Reply To ..]or go down is if there is a public option.
healthcare cost will stabilize - You clearly are unfamiliar with Canadian or UK
[ In Reply To ..]public options. Costs continue to spiral out of control in both cases.
I am quite familiar thank you. If you - sm
[ In Reply To ..]click on this link you will see a graph with per capita health care costs for different countries and how much they have increased over the years since 1995.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_per_capita,_US_Dollars_PPP.png
That is not the whole story - Only a small portion
[ In Reply To ..]and does not accurately or completely reflect all medical costs. Have seen that link without your assistance prior. I am not one of the lazies on this board that are unable to locate information or need guidance in research. Many of these diminished costs reflected in those so-called stats (not just referring to your post alone, but several charts) have to do with the fact that people simply can no longer afford the healthcare out of pocket in socialized medicine, even if available by private payment; so, they simply do not get the care. Thereby, it diminishes what is "spent" and, thus, recorded as less as to what people spend on medical care, which in turn does not give an accurate, honest portrayal of medical costs. There are massive, massive studies documenting the out-of-control costs and problems with Canada and UK; quite readily available for all that want a complete and truthful picture of socialized medicine and not the socialist talking points.
My 3 sons have already - benefitted
[ In Reply To ..]by extending coverage age. I am grateful for that. That pre-existing conditions will not result in denial of coverage. I am grateful for that. As far as still paying for others, I am willing to chip in for the public good same as I do for roads and libraries. I think it is a step in the right direction. Those who can, should.
Not all of us "can" - what if - sm
[ In Reply To ..]If you are that rich and you can afford to pay for others that won't should be an option and by all means please send in your riches to help out. I am a one income family and I can barely afford what I pay. Let alone with this socialized health care bill if it is passed my rates will rise. There is not only the expense about it, but the fact that forcing people to buy a product they don't want to own is wrong. It is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional it does not belong in our country. If people want socialized health care or anything else there are countries who will be happy to accommodate them. That is not our country.
I'm glad your sons have benefited. That is the way it is supposed to work. Those that need and want it should get it. And on the other side, those that don't want to suffer under it should not have to. There should be two choices. If people want socialized health care let them have it. The rest of us who are fine with our health care leave us be. Let all the people who want it pay for those who still will not pay anything. I don't think it is a step in the right direction. First socialize that then what's next. Where do they stop. These are not systems that work well in other countries so why would we want to follow their failures. I don't think it's a step in the right direction.
There must be a better way for health care. Not give it to some for free and let everyone else pay for them, which it still won't change anything except our rates now go up.
It's funny now the people who say they are willing to chip in for the public, yet when a republican president is in and the health care remains the same they are not willing to chip in for others.
I still say, those who want it should be able to get it. The rest of us who don't, leave our health care alone. We are happy with what we have.
Besides, this socialized system is only for people like us. The rich elites, 1%ers, politicians, lawyers, etc are exempt from it and they will continue to receive far superior health care than you or I.
you costs are going up - constantly
[ In Reply To ..]anyway. If you are happy with your current coverage - rates and benefits and exclusions - you are a true, true rarity. One of the major incentives for public outcry for national healthcare was precisely because of the for profit insurance companies raising rates, dumping the sick, denying valid claims, etc. I can understand your reluctance to embrace the unknown, but there was fear when Social Security was implemented and now it is one of our most treasured institutions. The fact that you are content with your coverage now could change in a literal heartbeat and you could be cancelled and the pubic would be picking up your catastrophic costs anyway. The plan is certainly not perfect, but baby steps.
It's not reluctancy to embrace the unknown - what if
[ In Reply To ..]It's not the unknown. I know what socialism is. Plenty of websites to read (yes reputable ones) on what people write who are living under socialism. I know what their health care is like. It's socialism and no, I do not want to embrace that.
Something about your post - Coincidence? Naaaa
[ In Reply To ..]There was something about your post - the part where you said "I can understand your reluctance to embrace the unknown", etc. I just heard something the other night that sounded exactly like what you wrote. It was in a movie, but as they say - movies are a reflection of real life happenings. It went like this.
"It was hard for me to accept too, the first time I heard these words... But I changed. I let them take away my pain."...
Huh? Did someone forget to - take their meds? nm
[ In Reply To ..].
No, I think the thought - is just too
[ In Reply To ..]for those it was intended for. Went right over our heads.
Further explanation - Coincidence? Naaa
[ In Reply To ..]The poster I replied to stated "I can understand your reluctance to embrace the unknown". I watched a movie "Riddick" the other night. Riddick did not want to become one of them. They were trying to convince him. They said "It was hard for me to accept too, the first time I heard these words... But I changed"...
Sounds like they could have come from the same writer. Very creepy. Sounds like some religious cult trying to convince others that joining the cult is a good thing ("I can understand you reluctance to embrace the unknown"). Very creepy. Just sayin.
response - puz
[ In Reply To ..]Sorry but your explanation is a little too loose contextually for me to understand. There is obviously a context and frame of reference that we do not share. I do appreciate your attempt to clarify though. Sorry you were frightened. I certainly did not mean to frighten you.
That's okay I think if people could not write messages that - Coincidence? Naaa
[ In Reply To ..]make it look like they're from some cult trying to convince people to join their cult then maybe their Stepford wives messages of "embracing the unknown" the "it will all be okay". attitudes that would probably freak out many people.
Wasn't really frightened, just made hair on my neck stand up, but thanks for your concern.
Your situation could change in a heartbeat. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I am a single mother too. I know that if I lost my job I would lose my insurance and would pray I didn't get sick. I spend a larger and larger percentage of my paycheck on health insurance every year, and over the last 10 years my pay has decreased by about 20-25%. What would you do if you lost your job and/or your insurance? Even responsible people who have insurance are vulnerable.
my question - goldie
[ In Reply To ..]I've always wondered why health insurance is tied to our employer. And waiting 90 days at a new company for the insurance to kick in has always been so stressful. It's been that way as long as I can remember. Is it just because of the group rates and the theory of costing less with more participants? Even still, I don't buy my house or car insurance that way, why do I have to buy my health insurance like that? I would love to pick and choose a policy that fit my needs. For example, I don't need well-baby care or prenatal care, but I still pay for it in my policy.
Does anyone know why that is?
Although regulated state by state, your auto - sm
[ In Reply To ..]and home insurance are regulated by the private insurance companies. Hawaii car insurance is often over $2000 a year just for liability, Vermont $350. Go figure!
Do you have auto insurance? - That is required by law, too.
[ In Reply To ..]I thought the way you did for a long time, but I have recently changed my mind. I have auto insurance because my state requires it. I have NEVER filed a claim under any of my auto insurance policies, but I have never let them lapse.
I honestly don't think this is any different. The only thing I have issues with is the fact that health insurance is so flipping expensive and that will require some major budget juggling on my end, but I can see the reasoning behind requiring it.
Auto insurance - Not the same at all
[ In Reply To ..]Obamacare is forced on you simply because your breathe. You do not have to own a car, therefore, no insurance needed. You have other options for transporation (bus, rail, taxi, subway), which you can pick and chose to use at your will. If you chose none of those things, you pay nothing and face no fines. Not so with Obamacare. You pay in many, many ways (92 new taxes) and you also pay for others and have all choices removed from you as to what you pay for and how much. You don't get it, you are fined, have your propery liened or imprisoned. Huge difference.
That is a totally different thing. That's already been discussed here - It's not the same thing - sm
[ In Reply To ..]That was brought up before. You are talking about 2 different things. That's like saying - "well you buy applies at the grocery store...same thing" Car insurance is a different thing and no, not every person has car insurance. We are talking about forcing a person to buy a product they do not want to have. What's next them forcing us to buy certain vegetables or certain pillows to sleep on or a winter coat. All are good things, but the government is not supposed to tell us what we are supposed to buy in our own personal lives.
So what you are saying is that.... - anony2
[ In Reply To ..]The government should force every single person (including children and elderly no longer driving) should buy car insurance even if they don't drive or own a car?
It is very much two different things. You are talking above vehicles versus a person's health. People also have homeowners and renters insurance so everyone should be forced to buy that too?
I have issues too that health insurance is very expensive. However, under Obamacare it will go up even more. Having a tough time budgeting it in. I've cut my budget, but what do they want, us to eat only one meal a month so we can pay more taxes to them?
I see the reasoning in making insurance affordable for those who want to purchase it. I don't see the reasoning in them invading our personal lives telling us what we have to buy. I'm with a couple other posters here. What is next. Telling us we have to buy broccoli every month and eat it because it's healthy and the only "responsible" thing to do. AND regulate how much money we have to spend on broccoli.
I hope the SC does stand up for the rights of American citizens and the constitution and don't make people buy something they don't want to.
Shocked by short-sightedness - sm
[ In Reply To ..]First of all, the cost of insurance more than doubled that last 10 years. Of course, it will keep going up. Hopefully, everyone here is making double what they did 10 years ago and will make double what they are making now in the future 10 years from now. Good luck to you.
Secondly, today I did another report. Woman had exploratory surgery. Has tumors spread all through her abdomen. When dxd initially with CA, she had been prescribed a cancer drug, but could not take it due to cost and insurance would not cover. But hey, the insurance is covering the exploratory surgery now! I type something like this every _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day.
There, but for the grace of God go I (and you too).
Short sitedness but not - by OP
[ In Reply To ..]You need to check out drugs Obamacare is disallowing for cancer, as well as cancer screening and procedures.
Heard someone say we should be like Canada. Almost all health info and stats comes from the govt. - no bias there. There costs have skyrockted, they have eliminated procedure left and right, there is a severe doc shortage. On top of the "free" healthcare, approximately 75% of Canadians buy additional coverage on top of the "free" healthcare they are already being taxed to cover what the govt plan does not. Check out what their taxes are for this "free" care...far, far more than is stated on this board. Any hospital not meeting what govt deems as acceptable for expenses is fined, and the hospital has to immediately cut services to comply. Yeah, sounds like premium healthcare - NOT.
...and M. Bachmann said today that almost 50%. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]of US doctors would close their practices. Yeah, right! How ridiculous is that?
BTW, Canadians do not get "free care". I have quite a number of Canadian friends as I live near the boarder, and 100% of them love their health care and their government. Do some have extra policies so they can access premium care, yes, but that is their choice.
I actually have friends (I accessed this venue myself when I had bronchitis and no insurance) who cross the Canadian border to have a walk-in doctor visit which only cost $15, and then you could fill your prescription for cheap before crossing back across the border. If you had no money, the doc would see you anyway. You don't see many Canadians trying to cross into the US for a better life. They know they have it good. Luckily I live in a state where we have it pretty good too.
Aside from the Canadian issue, ****. Your claims about chemo drugs and cancer screening and procedures is bogus. You should be ashamed using scare tactics like that.
...and M. Bachmann said today that almost 50%. - sm - STOP WITH THE PERSONAL INSULTS -(SNIFF) *SIGH*
[ In Reply To ..]Prove your "theory" or as you so *** state to others "put up or shut up". With your attitude your post is even more surprising because you state you have "friends"...prove it.
For obvious reasons of confidentiality - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I cannot "prove" what I said. However, I will give you this quote from another forum.
"In Canada about 70% of our healthcare services are covered under universal single payer system and 30% is covered by private insurers (for things like drugs, glasses, chiro, private rooms, etc).
Works pretty well. Like every large scale system it has its problems, but the foundation is solid."
Geographically, I live in Vermont, crossed the border at Derby Line, and am the proud supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders.
imagine if we had - a whole congress
[ In Reply To ..]of thoughtful men like Mr. Sanders. Would that not be amazing!!
I agree - mbmt
[ In Reply To ..]Would love it if more politicians were like Bernie Sanders.
Interesting - thanks for posting
[ In Reply To ..]Every once in a while on this board I find a jewel in the piles of dung.
Here's your jewel - SM
[ In Reply To ..]By Derek Abma
OTTAWA — The Canadian health-care system has proven to be a black hole for federal tax dollars over the past decade or so, says a new report.
Despite hikes in federal transfers to provinces for health care that were $97.6-billion beyond what was needed to account for inflation and population growth in the past 13 years, there has been little improvement in access to care for Canadians, says the Fraser Institute study released Wednesday.
As an example, the report noted the time it takes to get treatment from a specialist after a referral from a general physician. The median time was 19 weeks last year, up almost 60% from 1997.
Related
Matt Gurney: Wilfully blind McGuinty tells the truth, technically
.
“Canadians should have expected the health-care system to improve, and it’s troubling that there has not been an improvement in spite of this very large increase in health-care expenditures since 1997-98,” said Nadeem Esmail, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the study.
He said the Canada Health Act is constraining provinces from improving the efficiency of their systems. Allowing people to pay for quicker access to care, and more private-sector involvement in health insurance and delivery, while still ensuring universal access for all, are among the measures Mr. Esmail recommends.
“The core problem here is that the Canadian health-care system is relying on an inefficient model for health-care policy, that is we have a preponderance of government in the health-care system,” Mr. Esmail said. “Government is delivering health care and government is regulating health care.”
The report found that since 1997 wait times have increased for getting an appointment with a specialist after a referral, getting treatment from a specialist after the initial consultation, getting a CT scan and getting an ultrasound. It also found fewer nurses in proportion to the population, as well less availability of lithotripters (machines that break up kidney stones so they can be more easily passed).
The study did find improvements in four of the 11 factors it compared between 2011 and 1997; there were more physicians, MRI machines and CT scanners per capita, as well as shorter wait times to get an MRI.
However, Mr. Esmail said it’s a sign of the system’s general inefficiency that wait times for a CT scan increased despite greater availability of the equipment. He also noted that the number of available MRI machines increased 353.8% in proportion to the population, but wait times to use them fell by just 4.2%.
He said he is not suggesting a move toward U.S.-style health care, but something closer to the models in Switzerland, France and Japan. Those countries allow more private-sector involvement in universally accessible health-care systems and have produced better results than Canada has.
The Fraser Institute’s study did not specifically look at health-care outcomes, and Mr. Esmail acknowledged at least some of the increased funding seen in Canada in recent years has improved the quality of patients’ health after treatment.
“The reality is that it would be very difficult to spend $97.6-billion without buying something,” he said.
On how much of the money went toward serving an aging population, Mr. Esmail said this accounts for just one percentage point of the 6.9% average increase in annual health-care costs since 1997.
Postmedia News
.
Posted in: Canada, News Tags: health care
If you live in a state where you have it pretty good - what if - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Why did you supposedly cross into Canada to go to a doctor. I've read article after article that state - No Americans are eager to get care in the socialized Canadian system. The traffic seeking health care is all in the other direction.
I also have relatives in Canada, so I do understand how their system works.
I also read in Canada Free Press - "If you Americans are planning to institute a national universal healthcare system similar to ours, you might want to look somewhere other than Canada for the ideal model." Very interesting read -
To give you a brief overview of Canada’s Universal healthcare system, it all started off well enough and ran like a top for many years...
Then the federal Liberals (the equivalent of your Democrats) decided to pass the Canada Health Act, which made medical coverage a basic human right. The act stipulated that health care was to be provided by the government only and that any form of private care was illegal. It put the burden of paying for healthcare into the hands of taxpayers, as the service would now be paid from the government’s general coffers.
In addition, there were numerous other provisions, such as controlling costs by limiting doctors’ salaries and keeping nurses and other healthcare professionals at relatively low wages.
So the first thing that happened was that the doctors threatened to go on strike. The government called their bluff and told them to go ahead, but the doctors chickened out. Next, many of our best doctors moved to the United States, where government was not going to limit the amount of money they could earn.
Of course, the end result is predictable. Most jurisdictions in Canada now have a doctor shortage, despite the government’s denial of this stark reality. Anyone without a family physician is forced to attend a soviet-style walk-in clinic to receive routine medical care. As transient physicians staff these clinics, there is no relationship that develops between the doctor and his patients and items such as annual physical examinations are not available in these clinics. If one’s family doctor should retire, move or become deceased, then all of the doctor’s patients will be scrambling to find a new doctor. Yet, the government appears to be creating this doctor shortage on purpose, as enrollment in medical schools is strictly regulated and only a certain number of applicants are ever accepted, regardless of their academic standing.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/klaus071204.htm
Think it was the same old spin tactic - with praising Canada
[ In Reply To ..]With all that is written about poor care in Canada and UK, I think that was a poor attempt by the other poster to try and spin it into something it's not. There are articles everywhere outlining the problems with the socialized medicine. Just the same old, same old.
as far as - your final paragraph
[ In Reply To ..]before the link, I read it substituting the US and it was equally valid. Our health care system already has all these problems. Difference is that Canadians CAN go to the doctor when they are sick, because they are covered.
You asked me why.. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I crossed the border to see a doctor in Canada. This happened several years ago when I lived near the border and had no health insurance. To pay out of pocket in the US it would have cost at least $50, so I went to a doctor in Canada for $15 and get my prescription for less than half what I would pay at home.
Several years is not now and - and Canada costs have skyrocketed
[ In Reply To ..].
as they have in the US but the fact remains that.. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Total health care costs in Canada per person are about half what is spent in the US.
Not completely true - Several procedures have been
[ In Reply To ..]discontinued or patients in Canada can't afford to have them done. That drives the overall costs of their care down strictly by omission or inability to get the procedure; NOT BECAUSE IT IS MORE COST EFFICIENT. Does not make that better health care to ration or eliminate services to spin a POV. It is rationing pure and simple. Try reading more than 1 article and try reading independent critiques. Your assumption is WAY OFF. BTW - Canada govt. also issued a report supporting my post. How Canada "fines" hospital that do not meet a budget set forth by Canadia govt. and are required to cut costs immediately, usually by eliminating procedures, tests and treatment options to patients. When you only read limited reports, your view is limited.
I stand by my statement and am very well read, - thank you very much. nm
[ In Reply To ..].
Even rats will jump off a sinking ship - but hang onto your misinformation
[ In Reply To ..].
History says individual mandate is GOPs baby - 1989 to 2007
[ In Reply To ..]The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate. Forgetting one's own political history and party's root contributions to major policy initiatives is beyond short-sighted.
Sigh. Another one of those "they were for it before they were against it" thingys. There are some pretty handy charts in this link that trace the individual mandate timeline. The sponsors and cosponsors column, along with the vote breakdowns since 2007 shows a halting about-face. Gee, I wonder why that is.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
GOP's idea - indyvote
[ In Reply To ..]This was their idea? But I keep hearing that the GOP don't like the poor. Why would they want to help them?
"Forgetting one's own political history and party's root contributions to major policy initiatives is beyond short-sighted." Do you really want to open that can of worms again?
Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.
History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.
History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party.
Some called it the Civil War, others called it the War Between the States, but to the African Americans at that time, it was the War Between the Democrats and the Republicans over slavery. The Democrats gave their lives to expand it, Republican gave their lives to ban it.
During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities. Senate debates revealed that the Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.
History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.
After the Civil War, Democrats murdered several hundred black elected officials (in the South) to regain control of the southern government. All of the elected officials up to 1935 were Republicans. As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.
History reveals that it was Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill. Today many white Democrats are opposed to paying African Americans trillions of dollars in Reparation Pay, money that should be paid by the Democratic Party.
History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.
Congressional records show it was Democrats that strongly opposed the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. These three Amendments were introduced by Republicans to abolish slavery, give citizenship to all African Americans born in the United States and, give Blacks the right to vote.
Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:
Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960
And during the 60's many Democrats fought hard to defeat the
1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Voting Rights Acts
1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
Court records shows that it was the Democrats that supported the Dred Scott Decision. The decision classified Blacks and property rather than people. It was also the racist Jim Crow practices initiated by Democrats that brought about the two landmark cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education.
At the turn of the century (1900), Southern Democrats continued to oppress African Americans by placing thousands in hard-core prison labor camps. According to most historians, the prison camps were far worst than slavery. The prisoners were required to work from 10-14 hours a day, six to seven days a week in temperatures that exceeded 100 degrees and in temperatures that fell well below zero. The camps provided free labor for building railroads, mining coal-mines and for draining snake and alligator invested swamps and rivers. Blacks were transported from one project to another in rolling cages similar to the ones used to transfer circus animals. One fourth of the prison populations were children ages 6 to 18. Young Cy Williams age 12, was sentenced to 20 years for stealing a horse that he was too small to ride. Eight-year old Will Evans was sentenced to 2 years of hard labor for taking some change from a store counter and six-year old Mary Gay was sentenced to 30 days for taking a hat. While authorities sent whites to jail for the same offenses, they sent blacks to the prison camps with much longer sentences. Thousands died from malaria, frost bites, heat strokes, shackle poisoning, others were buried alive in collapsing mines, or blown to pieces in tunnel explosions, and still others drowned in swamps or were beaten and shot to death. Every southern black citizen was a potential prisoner for any alleged small offense, including violating evening curfews. Through the prison camp system, southern owners of railroads, mines and farms had an unlimited source of free labor. The black prisoners played a major role the South's economic development. Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative, said, in his opinion, "the prison camps were a new form of slavery, but far more inhumane."
History reveals that it was three white persons that opposed the Democrat's racist practices who started the NAACP.
Dr. Martin Luther King, several Civil Rights leaders and many historians reported that during the first two years of his administration, President John F. Kennedy ignored Dr. King's request for Civil Rights. The chronicles of history reveal that it was only after television coverage of riots and several demonstrations did President Kennedy feel a need to introduce the 1963 Civil Rights Act. At that time, experts believe the nation was headed toward a major race war.
History reveals that it was Democratic Attorney General, Robert Kennedy that approved the secret wire taps on Dr, Martin Luther King Jr., and it was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson that referred to Dr. King as " that nigger preacher." Senator Byrd referred to Dr. King as a "trouble maker" who causes trouble and then runs like a "coward," when trouble breaks out.
Over the strong objections of racist Republican Senator Jessie Helms, Republican President Ronald Reagan, signed into law, a bill to make Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday. Several Republican Senators convinced President Reagan this was the right thing to do.
Congressional records show after signing the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act and issuing Executive Order 11478, Richard Nixon, a Republican, that started what we know as Affirmative Action.
On December 15, 1994, federal Judge David V. Kenyon issued a court order to the Clinton Administration in the Case of Fairchild v Robert Reich Secretary of Labor (#CV92-5765 Kn). The order demanded that Secretary Reich and the Clinton Administration force 100 west coast shipping to develop an Affirmative Action plan to stop discrimination against, African Americans, Hispanics, Female and Disabled Workers. Female employees were being sexually harrassed, Hispanic were being denied promotions and training, Disable Workers were being laid off, and African Americans were being force to work in an environment where they had job classification called " Nigger Jobs." Clinton left office six years later and never complied with the court order. The companies still do not have an Affirmative Action Plan.
President Clinton sent 20, 000 troops to protect the white citizens of Europe's Bosnia, but sent no troops to Africa's Rwanda to protect the black citizens there. Consequently over 800,000 Africans were massacre
During the 2003 Democratic Primary debates, the Rev. Al Sharpton, said the Democrat take the black vote for granted and treat African American like a mistress. They [Democrats} will take us to the dance, but they don't want to take us home to meet mama."
On December 3, 2002, President Clinton spoke to Democratic Leadership Council in New York regarding the future of the Democratic Party and how they could retake the White House. At no time did he address Civil Rights issues for blacks or doing things to improve the conditions of African Americans. His only reference to Civil Rights was Civil Rights for Gays. His only reference to improving communities was his recommendation to revisit the Marshall Plan to re-build communities in other countries. His entire speech was aired on C-Span.
After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today. Congressional records show that all previous legislation (since 1964) had strong bi-partisan support, even though some Democrats debated and voted against these laws.
After reviewing all of the evidence, many believe America would have never experienced racism to the degree that it has, had not the Democrats promoted it through:
Racist Legislation
Terrorist Organizations
Negative Media Communications
Bias Education
Relentless Intimidation
And Flawed Adjudication.
The racism established and promoted by members of the Democratic Party affected and infected the entire nation from 1856 with the Dred Scott decision, to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case. But they never offered or issued an apology.
Today both parties must remember their past. The Democrats must remember the terrible things they did to Blacks and apologize and the Republicans must remember the terrific things they did for Blacks and re-commit to complete the work that their predecessors started and died for.
I can only imagine the source of this bundle of lies. ? - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
I can only imagine the source of this bundle of lies. ? - nm - Where's UR proof, links - Just a flamer here
[ In Reply To ..].
THANK YOU,THANK YOU, THANK YOU - Indyvote you did a spectacular job
[ In Reply To ..]Never have I seen such a comprehensive, accurate portrayal of black history and what was suffered at the hands of Democrats who continually try to position themselves as a savior to the black race. Being of mixed descent/races, I appreciate this more than most because they have absolutely no understanding of the evil behind the Democrats.
The only thing I would add personally is the hateful roots of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, promoting and establishing abortion as an accepted form of doing away with the "undesirables" where she put blacks at the top of the list. Sad to say, she has been very effective in her promotion, and after her death, her supporters, of brainwashing women into believing this is "healthcare" which is not at all in keeping with Sanger's stated purpose and stated mission. Democrats have also significantly brainwashed women that this is a right, which unfortunately, most do not understand was an establisehd legal way for them to remove, through social engineering, the blacks Sanger and the Democrats hated with such passion and wanted to control literally cradle to grave. Since it was harder legally for them to kill the adult blacks, they turned their destruction to completely defenseless, vulnerable babies in utero.
Hey indyvote - CryBabyLibs
[ In Reply To ..]Notice how all the lib and Dem spinners are keeping quiet over this post? They'll hit you, me and a few others with the dislike button (big deal), but have nothing in defense of what you posted. Nor can they distort the truth of what you posted. I am sure if they post anything against what you posted, they are in danger, gasp, of being called their favorite "moniker" of anyone disagreeing with Obama...racist. Every single vote you posted can be verified. They have the links they always scream for, but I seriously doubt they are intersted in finding any truth at all. Just look at what they write on this board.
You got all the links there and source materials to make it easy, but those that so weighted by lies and deception, will probably never enter one thing in their search bar, putting their computers to good use to actually find out what their beloved Dems, libs, progs (all interchangeable) are truly about. Then, there are those that actually believe in the ideology of the Dems and promote those beliefs that you posted; just don't have the guts to say so. They hide behind their manufactured outrage at "social injustice" (socialist code word) and "fake" outrage on behalf of the common man. Yeah right, we aint buying what you're selling. Cannot wait for your sequel exposing Hitler's beliefs and what Hitler promoted early in his career, before WWII, based on their "democratic" ideology and socialist practices. They cannot stand that their mask has been removed and they have been revealed for exactly what they are, and it is not good.
No, I for one will no longer respond to the - Obama haters. nm
[ In Reply To ..].
Obama Hater - Nobody mentioned Obama - except you & you did respond (sniff)
[ In Reply To ..].
What's with throwing Obama under the bus? - You hate him? - Only you did that (sniff) *sigh*
[ In Reply To ..]x
Off task much? None of this ramble changes the fact that - mandate is GOPs baby (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]The only thing in your post that even remotely relates to the history of the individual mandate post is your question about why would repugs do such a thing? Easy peasy. They were opposing Clinton's health care initiative that explored the idea of EMPLOYER mandate. Their motives had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with helping the poor.
This simple irrefutable historical fact really did set you off into quite a tizzy, huh? You have gone all over creation trying to dodge this truth, but not to worry. No one really expected an answer to the rhetorical question about the 2007 abrupt about face. We are all too familiar with the hypocrisy within the GOP ranks and the deep hatred they harbor for our president.
None of your ramble changes the fact that - Dems are babies - Why so hateful grasshopper/someone crap in your
[ In Reply To ..]corn flakes?
This is an excellent post indyvote - what if - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I knew some of what you wrote, but not the extent that you have written. I've learned a lot from your post. I knew that the Democrat party was behind forming the KKK, but wow, you gave a very good history lesson to all of us.
This is why I like this board. There will be posters like yourself who do the research and understands the truth of our history and I learn a lot from some posters on this board.
Thanks again for your post. I really enjoyed it and learned from it.
BIG SIGH - another incomplete listing of information - As usual misrepresents what is stated in article
[ In Reply To ..]"Sigh. Another one of those" posts leaving out vital information "thingys". "There are some pretty handy charts in this link that trace the individual mandate timeline." Unfortunately, you did not bother to review the ENTIRE chart and timeline. "The sponsors and cosponsors column, along with the vote breakdowns since 2007 shows" restrictions which you very conveniently ignored. You also ignored the fact that The Heritage Foundation, after reviewing information for years, stated a position that they came to the conclusion, following their extensive research that mandates were NOT a good thing and would NOT endorse them. "Gee, I wonder why" all that info was omitted?
Does not change the fact that mandate is GOPs baby - they nurtured for 18 years
[ In Reply To ..]then suddenly made an about face the minute Obama was sworn in. These facts speak for themselves.
Does not change the fact that mandate is GOPs baby - they nurtured for 18 years - Does not change fact YOU misrepresent CONSTANTLY
[ In Reply To ..].
...and you mimic everyone's posts - CONSTANTLY. nm
[ In Reply To ..]/
Similar Messages:
Supreme Court And DNAJun 03, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html What are your opinions on this ruling? Is this constitutional or a 4th amendment violation? ...
Do You Trust The Supreme CourtMar 26, 2012
Before the decision even comes down from the Supreme Court on Obama's health care law I have to admit I have no confidence in them. It's all political. Giving the election to bush over Gore and allowing corporations to fund elections makes me think the court is not bipartisan. When the highest court in the land is partisan I have no hope. I feel sad for our country. Do you trust them? ...
Why The Supreme Court Will Strike Down All Of ObamacareApr 06, 2012
By Peter Ferrara Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added). President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare heal ...
Breach Of Ethics--Supreme CourtJan 27, 2011
Where is the outrage? Corruption at the highest levels--I hope they impeach this guy. Source: Los Angeles Times\"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife\'s income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the fou ...
Supreme Court Potential JudgesApr 11, 2010
Ever since Barack Obama's election as president, there has been anticipation among scholars at the University of Chicago's Law School that one of their own could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court bench in the next few years.That anticipation was heightened late last week with news that Obama, who taught constitutional law at the school from 1992 to 2004, soon will be making his first Supreme Court pick.Almost every short list of possible nominees to succeed Justice David Souter inclu ...
Supreme Court Overturns DOMAJun 26, 2013
A huge step in the right direction. The legal challenge to Doma was brought by New York resident Edith Windsor, 83. She was handed a tax bill of $363,000 (£236,000) when she inherited the estate of her spouse Thea Speyer - a levy she would not have had to pay if she had been married to a man. "Doma writes inequality into the entire United States Code," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Wednesday's ruling. "Under Doma, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, ...
Will The Supreme Court Stop Cops From Sep 17, 2013
In many states, police can rifle through your smart phone—even if you've just been arrested for not putting on your seat belt. —By Dana Liebelson | Tue Sep. 17, 2013 3:00 AM PDT 8 Rich Siegel/Flickr If you're like many Americans, your cell phone is overflowing with personal information—text messages, emails, photos of your friends and family, an organized history of who you've been calling, private notes, automatic logi ...
U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Hear Jan 13, 2015
but apparently there is another attack in March to try to deny people the tax-credit subsidies offered by the law. ...
Republicans Are Screwed If The Supreme Court....smMay 20, 2015
guts Obamacare. I don't think they will rule that way; but, if they do, there will be big trouble if all those people lose their insurance. ...
Tea Party Rally Has Message For Supreme CourtMar 26, 2012
There are so many good things about the Affordable Health Care Act. It's hard for me to understand why someone would even think about going without insurance. Cain and the TBs are full of hot air.Two years ago, thousands of members of the tea party descended on Capitol Hill to protest the passage of President Barack Obama’s health care law.On Saturday, just two days before the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law, hundreds of tea party supporters ...
Obamacare: Well Now, Isn't This An Interesting Bit Of Phrasing From The Supreme Court.Jul 25, 2014
Should Obamacare be sent to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and should the SCOTUS actually decide to hear it, the 4 dissenters when the ACA was upheld by the court previously have already made clear in their dissent what they believed Congress' intent was in setting up the exchanges. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (joint dissenting opinion of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) "...because Congress thought that some States might decline federal fu ...
Here's What The Supreme Court Could Do To Insurance Premiums In Your StateNov 13, 2014
More than 800,000 Floridians would see their monthly insurance premiums rise, from an average of around $70 to an average of around $350, or roughly a factor of five. More than 600,000 people in Texas, about 325,000 in North Carolina, and another 275,000 in Georgia would see insurance premiums soar by similar amounts. Nationwide, more than 4 million people living in 37 states would be in situations like these. Most would have no way to pay the higher bills, forcing them to drop insurance covera ...
How The Supreme Court Can Resolve The Debt Ceiling CrisisOct 14, 2013
Adam H. Rosenzweig from the Washington University School of Law proposes a different approach to ending the debt ceiling crisis: Let the Supreme Court resolve it as a Constitutional matter. What should happen when Congress and the President find themselves in a fiscal policy showdown resulting in a Constitutional violation? This question has risen to the fore in light of the recent political showdowns over the so-called “debt ceiling” crisis. Some scholars have argued that there ar ...
Mass. Supreme Court Ruled On Pledge Case..smMay 09, 2014
In this case, a family sued on the grounds that having the Pledge Allegiance recited in school everyday discriminated against their children because they did not follow/worship the Christian God. While their children (and all U.S. children) are free to not recite it, it was argued that non-pledgers were discriminated against, treated as un-American, and un-patriotic, and ridiculed as such. Additionally, even if they wanted to demonstrate their patriotism, these students could not because "Under ...
German Federal Supreme Court: Measles Is NOT A VirusJan 26, 2017
This is the strangest vaccine story I have ever come across. Several scientists proved successfully in Germany that measles is NOT caused by a virus. The case was heard before the German Federal Supreme Court (equivalent of our U.S. SupremeCourt). The plaintiff was a biologist, and he was awarded monetary damages. Reseachers in the past decades committed a critical mistake: They used no controls. As a result, components of regular cells were misidentified as vira ...
Democrats Attempted To Filibuster Bush's Supreme CourtFeb 17, 2016
he would shift the balance of the court. What hypocrites they are and they get away with it. Apparently Harry Reid has forgotten his own role in trying to do so. Payback is a ....... Just two years ago Harry Reid went for the nuclear option eliminated the filibuster rule of 60-40 votes required to override one so he could pack the super-important DC Circuit Court with extreme leftist. The cool thing about having no moral values and no accountability is that you can lie without a guilty ...
Supreme Court Overturns Objection To Cross On Public LandApr 29, 2010
By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 29, 2010 A splintered Supreme Court displayed its deep divisions over the separation of church and state Wednesday, with the court's prevailing conservatives signaling a broader openness to the idea that the Constitution does not require the removal of religious symbols from public land. A 5 to 4 decision by the court overturns a federal judge's objection to a white cross erected more than 75 years ago on a ...
Supreme Court's Majority Sides With U.S. Chamber Of Commerce In Over 2/3 Of Cases Jun 10, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/supreme-courts-majority-s_n_607714.html ...
Soros Organization Tried To Influence Illegal Immigration Supreme CourtAug 19, 2016
Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros’ stated vehicle for progressive social change, orchestrated a well-funded attempt to secure a desired outcome in a U.S. Supreme Court case on illegal immigration enforcement, according to a newly discovered memo between the organization’s top U.S. officials and board members. Members of the advisory board include Soros family members, left-wing activists, Ivy League professors and columnists for The Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine. The ...
Supreme Court Asked To Revive Virginia's Anti-sodomy Law. Aug 19, 2013
"the state wants to “wave a magic wand” and read the broad anti-sodomy law as protecting minors. But the law “does not mention the word ‘minor,’ " From The Washington Post The High Court It is not the headline that Ken Cuccinelli II would have written, of course. But considering the flak Virginia’s attorney general has received for pressing his defense of the commonwealth’s “crimes against nature” law to the Supreme Court, C ...
Supreme Court Signals Support For Corporate Religious ClaimsMar 25, 2014
Maybe there is hope after all... ...
Liberals Lose Their Cool In The Supreme Court Fight Over ObamacareNov 18, 2014
On Nov. 7, the Supreme Court said it would entertain the latest legal assault on President Obama’s health-reform program. Leading liberal analysts worry—reasonably—that the justices will cripple Obamacare. Unfortunately, these defenders of the program are making their case by preemptively accusing right-leaning members of the high court of bad faith and rank partisanship. Paul Krugman of Princeton and the New York Times has has called the argument that a sy ...
Supreme Court Sends Redistricting Law Back To South Carolina. SmApr 20, 2015
A big victory for voting rights and against gerrymandering of voting districts! ...
Supreme Court Rejects Limits On Corporate Spending In Electoral CampaignsJan 21, 2010
Well, back to square 1. Wonder how many judges are in the pockets of corporations? Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns Video High court rolls back campaign spending limits The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns. » LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER ...
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Obama Birth Certificate ChallengeJun 11, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit.The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers alleg ...
Critics Say Supreme Court's Prop 8 Ruling Takes Power From VotersJul 01, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/critics-say-supreme-courts-proposition-8-ruling-ta/ ...
Senate Plans To Follow Biden’s Advice On Supreme Court VacancyFeb 23, 2016
Gotta love that man! LOL ...
Study: If Supreme Court Guts Obamacare, 9.6 Million Will Lose Health InsuranceJan 09, 2015
January 8, 2015: As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could prove to be a fatal blow against the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, a new study has concluded that the consequences of striking down the law's subsidies for low- and middle-income individuals will result in a sharp drop in the number of Americans with health insurance, as well as a steep rise in premiums. Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-08/study- ...
Critics: âDestructiveâ Supreme Court Decision âempowers CorruptionâJan 22, 2010
By Ron BrynaertThursday, January 21st, 2010 -- 12:17 pm Republicans say 'freedom won,' liberal jokes real winner is Satan Update: Obama vows 'forceful response' The US Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a 20-year ruling which had set limits on campaign financing by US businesses, and critics, including nonpartisan watchdogs and Congressional Democrats, are up in arms about the decision, which most had feared for a long time. Meanwhile, aside from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), ...
Frist On HCR Constitutionality Apr 18, 2010
FRIDAY, APRIL 16, 2010 12:50:00 PM Former Senate GOP leader Frist questions health care lawsuits BY CHRIS RIZO Dr. Bill Frist (R) NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Legal Newsline)-Lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the new federal health care law are not likely to succeed, a former U.S. Senate Republican leader said.Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he is pleased that the Obama administration will be able to extend health ...