Town Square

Post a New Topic

Healthcare law upheld!

Original post made by Stacey on Jun 28, 2012

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that Justice Roberts figured out that the individual mandate is a form of tax. There is no constitutional question that the Federal government has the power to tax. Congress should never have written the individual mandate in such an ambiguous way. Obviously it was done to satisfy conservatives, who invented the individual mandate, to create a new tax without having to call it a tax.

Comments (56)

Posted by Nurse Shark, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 am

Thanks for your expert opinion. Now my day is complete.


Posted by Thomas, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:18 am

Great day for Americans! Yes, stress that it is a tax if that helps one get off their jollies, but taxes are often good things. This tax was much needed. Watch Stacey and the rest of the right-winger tea party crowd twist and turn in order to justify their criticism of a good law that might have been even better save for Republican opposition for opposition's sake. It's a tax! It's a tax! So much tyranny!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:34 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Nurse Shark and Thomas agree with me on the subject of healthcare reform. It's a difficult stretch for them to make it look like they don't. Too funny.


Posted by taxpayer, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 28, 2012 at 12:00 pm

About time that everyone has to pay for health care. Some of us have done the responsible thing our whole lives only to see the leeches thrive by taking no responsibility.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Jun 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

If it is such "a good law", and everyone is paying, why is it that $500 billion has been diverted from Medicare and $675 billion in taxes are needed to pay for it? Why is that the Supreme Court specifically picked out the portion that says the federal government has no business telling states who gets medicaid and who doesn't, declaring that part of the law invalid?
If it was such good policy, and great for America, why did the Democrats ram it through on Christmas Eve? Why did they need to make so many changes to the final bill, changes which were not debated through regular orders?
A trillion dollars in taxes every 10 years, do you think one party should make such a decision when the polls say (now more than ever) the American people do not want it?
If it is a much needed tax, why did the President swear up and down it was not a tax?
The truth is that the federal government has massively, permanently expanded it's scope and power with this overreach. They passed the bill, now we know what is in the bill, the biggest tax increase in history.

The choice in 2012 is clear. It is no different than the last two elections really, only this SCOTUS decision makes it clear and simple for the largely uneducated and apathetic voting public.

If you want massive expansion of government, if you want more taxes & more bureaucracy, vote Democrat.

If you think the federal government is too big and powerful, and it is time to put on the brakes, you have no other choice, we must to replace the Democrat in the White House, and replace Senate Democrats like Dianne Feinstein and Congressman like Pete Stark and Jerry McNerney.

The names to mark in November are Mitt Romney, Elizabeth Emken, Eric Swalwell, and Ricky Gill.


Posted by Nurse Shark, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jun 28, 2012 at 3:29 pm

Poor Jim. I'm so sorry you have to pay taxes; it really isn't fair. I bet you had to eat broccoli as a kid, too. Life can be so cruel...


Posted by Yes. Been There, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:08 pm

I'm so glad the free-loaders in my family will finally have to get insurance or pay something into the system for all the free care they have gotten for childbirth, broken legs, and motorcycle accidents. They went to emergency rooms and paid -0- zero. Now they will at least have to pay *something* into the system even though it might eat into their purchases of computers, car payments and Coach purses. I resented paying an amazing fortune for my co-pay on exorbitant medical bills that are so high because those of us who pay insurance premiums have to cover the costs of the slackers.

Justice Roberts is my hero.


Posted by Taxpayer, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:58 pm

Yes, Been There, apparently you have never heard of MediAID that we taxpayers have long provided for those who don't provide for themselves !!!
We did, do, and will, continue to pay for all those who don't pay their way....many by choice. Except now OURS has been screwed with. and will increase.
Doctor on CNN this morning told of the horrors from a doctor shortage will increase, combined with MORE patients, will cause a crisis we have never seen. So we'll be covered IF we can find a doctor. He said many more will retire than go into field....and more with much lower grades are trying to go into field who should not. ( WHO tells kids to try for unrealistic goals, take up space & $, then drop out....how does that help anybody)


Posted by taxpayer, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 29, 2012 at 7:19 am

Oh please, just stop the whining about the poor doctors. My appointment last week for a routine exam lasted less than 10 minutes. Couple hundred dollars not including the lab charges. Oh, the doc was late for the appointment cause the nanny was late getting to the Alamo McMansion where they live like kings. Sorry but I just have no sympathy for people who have bled us out with their gigantic fees and then work 3-4 days per week and complain all the way to the bank.


Posted by Bob, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2012 at 7:50 am

And add to that the real thieves in the equation, the Health Insurance Companies. Their artificially inflated costs are the real core of the issue. Until we find a way to deal with these shisters the problem will remain.

The law that passed was way watered down. Hopefully itll eventually be fully implemented as it was meant to be.


Posted by A Neighbor, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2012 at 9:31 am

My theory is that Americans who oppose healthcare reform have never been denied coverage. When that happens to you, your perspective changes and it becomes easier to accept that this is the right path for the country.


Posted by Pleasanton neighbor, a resident of Canyon Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 9:40 am

Hello There, well I am one of those mentioned above that is "uneducated". What I do know is that I have worked for 30 years and paid my taxes. All I saw out of the Bush years was a false hyped up economy with no fixes to immigration; healthcare cost also went up then (my family suffered more limits on what that healthcare would cover); and huge push to reverse abortion freedoms.

We all pay for people when they do not have insurance. They show up at our hospitals. With a plan like Obamacare maybe just maybe it will make some sense out of the mess.

Whatever happens we need to make sure that Congress is in the same plan. Not the sweetened plan they voted for themselves...


Posted by equalityworks, a resident of Del Prado
on Jun 29, 2012 at 9:43 am

The Affordable Healthcare act is just that. A law to make healthcare more affordable for everyone. It was shocking to see how crazy the attacks on this law became, and how close this decision was. In America, we still don't let citizens die on the street. Some rational way of paying for EVERYONE'S care is in EVERYONE'S interest. People opposed to the individual mandate seem to believe that they can always succeed in making someone else pay. Without a way to have full participation we would all be at the mercy of small-minded responsibility dodgers who refuse to buy policies and yet get rescued when they have a healthcare emergency. This law is the closest we've come to having a sane way to address the problem of insurance for people with a health condition finding insurance, and the inefficiency of uninsured people getting extremely expensive emergency room care. It's based on working models of care. It can be improved on going forward, if we can get people in this country to work together for the common good, not treat governance like a civil war, where the only important thing is whose side wins.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 9:46 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Yep, the insurance companies manipulate the risk pools like this: Web Link.

One simple statement for jimf01... The quality of our current health care system is indefensible and Obamacare is the first step away from it. Now is the time to continue the reform, not step backwards.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 9:49 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I love this quote from the lawyer in the article I linked to above:

"You buy insurance when you're healthy, you pay into it, and eventually people are going to get sick and are going to use their health insurance. That's how it works."

EVENTUALLY you get old and sick. One doesn't have a choice. Quite unlike eventually eating broccoli.


Posted by Amazon, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 10:15 am

Echoing the very correct comment of A Neighbor above - once you're denied coverage, you'll see how very important this new law is. 2 years ago, my portion of our company's health coverage (to cover husband and 2 kids) was $1440 A MONTH. This was not what the company was paying, this is what I had to pay to keep our family having health insurance. And it was supposed to go up. We just couldn't continue to pay what was amounting to $17280 net a year or what was taking almost $24,000 a year out of my salary. So I decided to opt out of our of company health plan thinking that we could get cheaper coverage on our own. And when I did so, the insurance companies denied my husband coverage because he had a kidney stone 3 years earlier and then qualifed him as having a "preexisting condition." Try living a year in a nightmare of not having health insurance when you want to have it. Moving forward this law will allow people to get insurance when they want to, and not allow the insurance companies to rampantly deny covering people. Its time for everyone to focus on what are the key issues of this important decision..like this important benefit....instead of continuing to try to create some partisan issue around it.


Posted by Bob, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2012 at 10:26 am

But the exorbitant costs are also a very important issue. Something has to be done about Health Insurance Companies having the green light to keep raising prices like there is no tomorrow. If there is a synonim for "Highway Robbery", it must be Blue Shield and others of the ilk.


Posted by taxpayer, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 29, 2012 at 10:31 am

What has never been addressed is the need to stop paying for outrageous costs for people who CHOOSE to have health issues.
Smokers should be denied coverage at any cost. Same for drug users. Want to eat that deep fired cereal at the fair? Better do something about your obesity or your costs should rise with your risks.
It's way past the time for people who willfully abuse their bodies to start either getting in shape or paying the actual cost for their health care.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Jun 29, 2012 at 10:53 am

jimf01 is a registered user.

Stacey - do you really believe that government regulating every aspect of the health care system is going to improve health care and lower costs? When has the government done anything cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector?
One fact is that medicare denies claims at a higher rate than the evil insurance companies everyone is decrying here. Web Link
As taxpayer just showed, when we invite government more and more in to our lives, we ask for things like a limit on the size of a cup of soda (just the start of this trend) like nanny bloomberg is trying to do in NY.
Personally, I am for a solid safety net when it comes to health care. A simple subsidy for health insurance, offered to all via your tax return, would help everyone and keep government out of the patient-doctor relationship. It could easily be means-tested that way as well. It could be paid for by abolishing medicaid.


Posted by Mr. Geeneyuss, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:01 am

All I know is that I want in this scheme. I'm figuring that a good cushy job working for one of the newly created "patient care liaison" groups will be good for at least $85-100K+ a year, couple that with all the free healthcare you can eat, a nice fat pension, 57 working holidays a year and the peace of mind that I'm working for the betterment of our society in general is enough to make me say, "sayonara" suckers! I'm taking the easy way from here on.

Yes, Atlas has finally shrugged.


Posted by Dan, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jun 29, 2012 at 1:16 pm

Mr. G,
My strong hunch is that your wishful thinking will likely be undermined by your inability to write a grammatical sentence or to form a rational thought. Nice try, though.

In the meantime, how about you and I attempt to get the traitor Justice Roberts impeached so that he has to step down? If we manage to bring Jimof1 along, we'll be able to begin our renewed quest for freedom by chowing down on some of his corndogs and country fried donuts.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:36 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

jimf01,
You ask when does the government do anything that is cheaper and more efficient than the private sector. I'm not sure how that impacts this discussion because Obamacare is not a takeover of health care providers by the government nor is it a takeover of health insurance by the government. But there is an answer to your question that is specific to the healthcare debate. Taiwan used to have a system like ours. When they implemented a single-payer system, their costs dropped significantly.

As for regulation, it isn't the existence or absence of regulation that improves something or makes it more efficient. It's the quality of the regulation.

Taxpayer brings up a good point, but fails to address that people who choose to have health issue and are denied coverage as a result end up raising costs for everyone. So it is rather stupid to deny them coverage and thus deny them the lower cost preventative care they really need. The other point taxpayer brings up is that people should pay actual costs for their health care. Why don't you try it, jimf01? Purchase health care on the open market. Lemme know how that goes.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:44 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Speaking of efficiency, maybe jimf01 could show how efficient our current health care system is.


Posted by A Start but need more, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm

While I don't agree with many aspects of the Health Insurance Act, there are two I do.

1. Insurance companies can't deny you under "pre-existing" conditions.

2. and children going to college can be covered under their parents' insurance. I believe it is to 26 now.

My concern, having also been in the position, is the people most likely to be "taxed" are those making minimum wage, working for small businesses, who don't/can't offer group health insurance. Not everyone can work a college educated job or contractor type job which offers health insurance. So how is the retail person going to afford to pay for health insurance? The government can tax all they want, but now it is pay the health insurance and suffer from malnutrician because I can't afford both. What the act does not do is set up an affordable health care plan for those of the working poor. And yes, I've been there as a young adult trying to get my life started, dealing with student loans, and working low wages.


Posted by Tim, a resident of Birdland
on Jun 29, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Obamacare does nothing to address the most serious issue - spiraling costs. An insurance pool with 100% participation should drive costs down. If that's the case then why will there be a 3.8% tax on unearned income, including proceeds from the sale of your home? Just a wild guess that Stacey and everyone else so enamored with Obamacare has never purchased earthquake insurance. My premium tripled and my coverage got worse with the creation of the CEA. A great example of what happens when the government decides to regulate insurance.


Posted by Yes. Been There, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm

The people who don't like this law have never had to get individual insurance and been denied for the stupidest reasons. I was denied because of a minor allergy - specifically because I took Claritan3 for about 3 months out of the year. Seriously? I could hardly believe it but that's what the Blue Shield letter said. Are all of you so darn secure in your jobs in this economy that you are certain you won't get laid-off and end up scrambling for coverage for your family? And if you have a child with a medical condition or if you have - you name it - allergies, kidney stones, a torn ACL, etc. etc. etc. ...Well, lotsa luck. Hey Jim - Karma or whatever you want to call it, exists. Jobs and businesses come and they go. Good luck with the insurance thing. And, Taxpayer...we would pay for the smoker and drug user anyway through higher hospital bills and our Co-pays. Whatever you do, don't go to the Emergency Room - it will cost $2500. just to keep the seat warm in the waiting room after you have registered yourself to get 6 stitches. If you don't want this health care law, you'd better live in some sort of protective bubble.


Posted by Huggy Bear, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 29, 2012 at 5:35 pm

Interesting comments on this subject.The facts are more government, higher taxes, higher unemployment. Just opinion.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Jun 29, 2012 at 5:41 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Stacey backs in to a corner, builds a strawman, destroys it, and screams single payer would be better anyway!
Stacey, go back and read what I said, then maybe you will have an idea of how it impacts this discussion. I did not say Obamacare is a "takeover of health care providers" or a "takeover of health insurance".

I said Obamacare represents a massive increase in federal regulation of every aspect of the health care system. This will reduce efficiency and drive up costs. It has already started.

If you do not wish to address the higher rate of Medicare denied claims, then take this one up, Experts have estimated that 20 to 50 million people will be dropped from employer provided benefits. Why? Because the law provides a penalty for not providing health benefits, but that penalty is much cheaper than providing the benefits in many cases.
Do you suppose that was done intentionally or unintentionally? Is it an improvement to drive millions of people in to the state and federal health care exchanges? I suppose, from the POV of someone who wants single payer, it is an improvement.

I will answer the question. It is the plan, according to numerous statements from Sen Tom Harkin and others, to take this law only as a start to moving the country to single payer.

There is no one who would logically deny that many improvements could and need to be made to health care in our country. We are just going down the wrong path to do it.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Jun 29, 2012 at 5:53 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

My comment to yes been there and all those who extoll the vitrues of the benefits offered to the young and those with a pre-existing condition. I sympathize, truly I do. I have personal experience, my brother-in-law, just a couple years ago now, had a heart attack. Unemployed and broke, he was given angiolplasty in the best cardiac unit in San Joaquin County at CHW, and treated at SJ General, and he is alive today. He didn't pay a dime (because he doesn't have a dime).
I believe that it is important to take care of everyone, and insure everyone. We have a system in place to do that, but it is inequitable and inefficient for a lot of reasons. This law, if it is not repealed, will make things worse and not better.
We can do better in this country.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Jim,

Certainly you didn't say Obamacare is a takeover of services. So why are you asking me to provide an example of government providing a service at a lower cost than the private sector? Your question really has no bearing on this discussion. Then I addressed your other question about regulation. It seems I need to repeat... As for regulation, it isn't the existence or absence of regulation that improves something or makes it more efficient. It's the quality of the regulation.

You wrote: "Obamacare represents a massive increase in federal regulation of every aspect of the health care system. This will reduce efficiency and drive up costs"

I doubt very much that you have any proof to back up this claim. I'm much more inclined to believe that regulation quality affects efficiency. Well-designed regulation probably even can improve efficiency, like removing pre-existing conditions from consideration by an underwriter so that young people with them are not denied coverage, improving their access to low cost preventative care. That isn't to say that Obamacare is representative of perfectly well-designed regulation, only that repealing Obamacare would be a terrible step backwards.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 7:18 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

jim,

It is difficult to address your point about Medicare denying claims. There isn't enough information there. Medicare only covers a certain slice of the population that isn't reflective of the individuals covered by the private insurance providers. How many of those Medicare denied claims were for The Scooter Store?


Posted by Huggy Bear, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 29, 2012 at 7:22 pm

Stacey has been living in fairy tale town which is right down the street from the Pelosi's. This new taxation will not hurt those with, it will ruin those without.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 7:34 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

jim,

Employer-based health insurance is a perverse incentive anyway and cruel to those without jobs. Web Link


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Jun 29, 2012 at 8:55 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

"Obamacare represents a massive increase in federal regulation of every aspect of the health care system. This will reduce efficiency and drive up costs". I doubt very much that you have any proof to back up this claim.

Here is just one example: Web Link

This example shows something even more important; there are numerous uses of the phrase 'the secretary shall' in the legislation, each one indicates some new action the HHS secretary is empowered to take, therefore even saying that you need 'proof to back up this claim' is somewhat of a red herring. HHS is developing new regulation via all of the powers embodied in the legislation. AKA, we have to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill.

I heard and understood your statement "it isn't the existence or absence of regulation that improves something or makes it more efficient. It's the quality of the regulation", and responded to it.

This all gets to why I am asking for an example of government providing a service at a lower cost than the private sector. It's because the federal government has ZERO track record of accomplishing what you are hoping for, improving efficiency or lowering cost of something via regulation. And health care is an area where we really need to do that. Another reason I think we are going down the wrong road.

Finally Stacey, if you are going to offer the opinion of Ezra Klein, who provides political commentary on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opinion shows, and formerly contributor to Countdown with Keith Olbermann, then our debate will end. These shows represent a solid wall of progressive mindset, not a libertarian or conservative peep to be heard. And I am accused of being a Fox News drone?

If you believe MSNBC talking points and really believe a complete government takeover of healthcare is going to be an improvement (you haven't stated that, but you offered S Korea), a la single payer, I doubt we will find common ground on this topic.


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Jun 29, 2012 at 9:53 pm

So, jimf01, what is your opinion about Chief Justice Roberts? Do you believe he is a brave soul, or do you believe a coward as labeled by Glenn Beck?

And, regarding "because the federal government has ZERO track record of accomplishing what you are hoping for, improving efficiency or lowering cost of something via regulation." Humm. Thanks to privatization of health care my costs have gone up.

Look, private medical practice is profit driven. Heavy government intervention drives up cost. We need to focus not on one issue but multiple things that impact our health care costs. You are myopic.


Posted by TAXpayer, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:28 pm

Poo, poo all you want about doctors, but if there aren't enough (for whatever reasons) soon we'll wait 6 mo like Canada & England.And I'd prefer to be treated by an A student, rather than C !!
And, little 'taxpayer', if you want to control lives, let's control the Octomom breeders, illegals and illegal breeders who don't responsibily use condoms, etc. we can really trim down the line to make people shapeup and act responsibily,!!!!
And, 'A Start' with only the well known 2 points in this plan.... Pelosi or none of her DEM congress (who spent a YEAR and HALF), and dumped Billions of the bizzare into 2700 PAGES, 2700 pages! to only come up with TWO ideas. TWO over and over, in 2700 pages and nothing else is worth mentioning. I watch ALL shows on ALL channels and NOBODYon the team has ever mentioned anything except those TWO, no conflict..Stay on til age 26 and pre-existing..Great,a couple days, fits on TWO pages....WHAT, WHAT is in those other 2698 pages of very expensive crap.... ms pelosi said we'd find out after it was passed !! We're still WAITING to find out the other $$$ 2 Trillion that CBO has reported is burried in there. Shouldn't SOMEBODY be able to come up with a third, fourth, fifth, and twenty-fifth costly tidbit ????? Jus sayin'.....I'd like to know. No surrogate on any channel has mentioned anything else...EVER !! Are those the only 'safe 2' to mention???? If so, we're in trouble !!
The Act so desperately needs to include tort reform, which is not included....so we will lose competent doctors to silliness...then have to scrape the bottom to find C students.
The 2700 pages are such a nightmare, we should be able to participate in reviewing....and the TWO easy ones are safe. We were NEVER ALLOWED TO KNOW OR DISCUSS ANY of the OTHER costly crap that's burried in there....seems you would want to know ! ! It's my right, and I should have known from the beginning !!!
Never forget we have a mile high stack of REALLY BAD, BAD LAWS that are LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL ! This is another MOSTLY really really bad law.


Posted by Huggy Bear, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 30, 2012 at 7:48 am

I see the state of California is moving forward on setting up the health care insurance exchange mandated in the new tax legislation[Obamacare.] 36 minions plus a head czar are in place. The federal government has given the state $40 million to start and an additional $169 million has been requested to move FORWARD.
It is estimated that when this tax legislation is fully implemented that there will be 26 million Americans still without insurance.I look at my 10 year old son and shake my head, what are we leaving the generations that will follow us.
Just opinion.


Posted by West Side Observer, a resident of Oak Hill
on Jun 30, 2012 at 8:23 am

I am sure your question was rhetorical. But. It will be debt and loss of freedom.


Posted by Yes. Been There, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2012 at 9:04 am

I think what we are leaving our 10 year old children is the ability to get health insurance even if they had childhood leukemia or epilepsy or even regular old hayfever. Your 10 year old will someday be 27 years old with the threat of bankruptcy hanging over his head if he could not get health insurance. He will not be 10 forever but you will still love him and care about his future and well being.

Also, I think Medicare works pretty well actually. All four of our parents were on it and, after they died, my husband and I had to deal with it and we found it to be easier and better to deal with than our own insurance. And, actually, the denials were to the hospitals and doctors who have to accept the medicare payments and can't pass their loss on to the patient. I think we need to stop slamming Medicare. It worked pretty well for our family even through two serious illnesses.


Posted by TAXpayer, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2012 at 11:18 am

Actually, Been There, you are leaving your children in shackles.. 4,500 new IRS agents are being hired to enforce the burdens imposed in the new act. Making your children wage slaves because of this generations financial bunglings is quite cruel, as is restricting their freedoms.


Posted by Patriot, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2012 at 12:08 pm

jimf01,

"It's because the federal government has ZERO track record of accomplishing what you are hoping for, improving efficiency or lowering cost of something via regulation."

The Glass-Steagall act is a very good example of government regulation which both improved the efficiency and lowered the cost of financial services via regulation.

Web Link

The system worked very well for over 60 years by telling commercial and investment banks what kind of trades and investments they could make. That regulation, along with other with others, such as the uptick rule Web Link
helped keep the financial system sound for decades, though we have seen a great deal of turmoil since these rules were overturned.

Furthermore, government backed deposit insurance, combined with capital requirements has been instrumental in preventing runs on banks.

Web Link


Posted by JimFoL, a resident of another community
on Jun 30, 2012 at 12:49 pm

Who cares what the facts are? Obamacare is unconstitutional. I've read that on the rightwing blogosphere. Govt regulation of anything is bad. That's why Wall Street collapsed. Too much regulation. Our children are going to born slaves. Once a country is in debt it is impossible to dig its way out. Ronald Reagan said that. No, wait, it was Geo Bush the First saying that to Clinton in a debate. We Tea Party-ers need to push the truth against all the lies in the liberal socialist communist media. We need to meet soon! I guarantee unlimited corndogs for the first 10 people who show; and if less than 10 show, I'll divvy up the results.

ps We need to do what Texas has done and rule against critical thinking. Fixed beliefs are something that should not be challenged by public education.


Posted by Huggy Bear, a resident of Downtown
on Jun 30, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Let's all just work for the government/ No banks, no private anything. Give it all away. You people are pathetic.


Posted by Nurse Shark, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jun 30, 2012 at 5:04 pm

I'm with Huggy: this government "of the people, by the people, for the people" should be resisted at all costs. We must fight against "we the people!"


Posted by Nurse ratchet, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2012 at 7:42 pm

Nurse, you are obviously very confused. We the people are not the govt, the taxpayers are We the people. Unless of course you are part of the civil service army of overpaid, undereducated drones hired by a politically correct legislature that only seeks to keep their incompetent butts in office.


Posted by TAXpayer, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2012 at 9:25 pm

Two good points Tim. Everybody seems to ignore the new tax on the sale of our homes...to FUND the HC ACT, which will give both the buyer and seller pause.(one of many taxes & fees for HC Act).
I guess it depends if you're payer or payee...isn't that always the case.
You are right about EQ insurance too.... I pay staggering EQ costs to protect my most valuable asset. Yet, I'd have to just look at my neighbor's rubble for being irresponsible...but, I sure as H*** don't want to pay his premiums for him to be a slacker. Cover your ass**s or suffer the loss. Nobody's picking up my EQ premiums.
Since we want everybody 'covered' , and since we are giving illegals free tuition, and rights to walk free....just how are the procedures working for illegals..... maybe the white house could voice his 'temporary plan' for the election, and then later work out the REAL plan for dealing with illegals. I'll still be covering all the birthing costs, for the new little citizens. I guess they'd be the group for which I'm expected to provide insurance.! I do hope hospitals will still be allowed the RIGHT to charge patients of the world, who can no longer WAIT to get their government medical ...( until we are eventually in the same waiting, sinking boat).


Posted by Nurse Shark, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jun 30, 2012 at 10:43 pm

Sorry, Ratchet--I was quoting Lincoln. The confusion must have been his. He probably wasn't as bright as you.


Posted by question, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jul 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm

A few questions to all democrats:

At what point does our federal government have too much power over its citizens?

Does our federal government have any limit over its citizens? When it have over-reached?

Please help me understand.


Posted by question, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jul 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm

A few questions to all democrats:

At what point does our federal government have too much power over its citizens?

Does our federal government have any limit over its citizens? When it have over-reached?

Please help me understand.


Posted by Nurse Shark, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jul 1, 2012 at 1:14 pm

@question:try this link. Itt should clear things up.

Web Link


Posted by Nomad, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Let's be accurate about the home sale tax.

Starting in 2013, the law imposes a 3.8% tax on investment profits and non-wage income. It applies to couples with greater than $250,000 AGI ($200,000 for singles) or about 5% of the taxpayers. For a home sale, the tax is applied to the profit, not the proceeds. And with exclusions on that profit for selling a personal residence, there may be no tax at all.

The more accurate question to be in is whether wealth redistribution should be required or the means by which to fund subsidized health care.


Posted by Mr. Mittens, a resident of another community
on Jul 1, 2012 at 8:15 pm

Land O Goshen! I read that quaint little document linked above -- called the U.S. Constitution. Just because the constitution doesn't specify that socialism is wrong, that does not make it good policy. We certainly don't need a bunch of poor people (which includes the you-know-who's) thinking they're as good as the rest of us. After all, what are inheritances and legacy admissions into college all about if not protecting us from the unemployed, uninsured, untherightcolor, and so forth?


Posted by Question unanswered, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2012 at 8:59 pm

No surprise that none of the liberal trolls are brave enough to answer your question about how much govt is too much, or when is it ever enough. The answer is its never enough, until those of us funding it run out of money...then we have to start working directly for the govt in one of their labor camps.


Posted by Nurse Shark, a resident of Bridle Creek
on Jul 2, 2012 at 8:33 am

Well, to give a general ballpark kind of response, when the govt gets away with fabricating evidence to get us into a vendetta-feuled war, it's too far. When our govt drives the economy into a Great Recession with criminally incompetent fiscal policies, it's too much. When it defies the mores of civilization to torture people, spy on Americans without warrants or suspend other human rights, it's too much.

When it tries to provide its most vulnerable citizens with a chance for the basic human need of health care and does so in a way that the CBO reports will reduce the deficit in the long run, then it's fine.

Clear enough for ya?


Posted by question, a resident of Amador Estates
on Jul 2, 2012 at 10:02 am

Huge thanks, Nurse (btw: are you a union nurse?),

So let me see...
My comments are in CAPS and follow your quotes...(Please note, my caps are not intended to be "shouting" ... just to separate your comments from mine.)

1. "when the govt gets away with fabricating evidence to get us into a vendetta-fueled war, it's too far." SO WHEN 911 HIT US, WE SHOULD HAVE "THANKED OSAMA" AND INVITED HIM TO HIT US AGAIN AND HARDER.

2. "When our govt drives the economy into a Great Recession with criminally incompetent fiscal policies, it's too much." SO I ASSUME YOU WOULD AGREE THAT A MAJOR EXAMPLE IS WHEN CARTER IMPLEMENTED THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT THAT STARTED THE HOUSING BUBBLE, AND WHEN CLINTON EXPANDED IT, AND WHEN THE DEMS REJECTED THE REPUBLICAN'S EFFORTS TO CURTAIL AND REGULATE FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC, AND WHEN CHRIS DODD AND BARNEY FRANK STATED THERE IS NO FINANCIAL PROBLEM WITH FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC AND ACTUALLY EXPANDED THIS PROGRAM.

ALSO, ANOTHER MAJOR EXAMPLE IS WHEN OBAMA "INVESTS" BILLIONS INTO WORTHLESS COMPANIES LIKE SOLYNDRA AND OTHERS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO AGREE THE FED IS OVER-EXTENDING THEIR AUTHORITY.

MANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF WHERE OBAMA HAS REWARDED HIS CRONIES AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICAN'S HARD EARNED MONEY.

WHEN TARP WAS EXPANDED BY OBAMA AND 'CREATED' ABOUT 3 JOBS.


3. "When it defies the mores of civilization to torture people, spy on Americans without warrants or suspend other human rights, it's too much." SO YOU'D AGREE THAT WHEN OUR FEDERAL GOVT PROVIDES THOUSANDS OF WEAPONS TO MEXICAN THUGS, DRUG LORDS, ETC. TO CAUSE MAYHEM AND TO MURDER BORDER AGENTS, YOU MIGHT SAY THE FED IS GOING A BIT TOO FAR? HMMM?

OR, REGARDING SPYING, WHEN OBAMA ESTABLISHES A HOTLINE WHERE ORDINARY CITIZENS CAN REPORT ON THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS WHO ARE CRITICAL OF OBAMA, YOU MIGHT SAY OUR FED HAS GONE A BIT TOO FAR? HMMM?


4. "When it tries to provide its most vulnerable citizens with a chance for the basic human need of health care and does so in a way that the CBO reports will reduce the deficit in the long run, then it's fine." THIS IS WHAT MEDICARE AND MEDICAID DO! (DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY CANNOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES.)


5. "Clear enough for ya?"

YES, WITH YOUR LOGIC, YOU SHOULD HAVE A BIG ISSUE WITH OUR SOVIET-STYLE PRESIDENT AND HIS POLICIES.


Posted by Mr. Mittens, a resident of another community
on Jul 3, 2012 at 7:02 am

Yes, to HEAR of the tyrant Obama's SOVIET style and POLICIES is certainly music to MY ears. It's good that we have so many intelligent posters who are smart enough to see through Nurse Shark's transparent union liberal SOVIET views.

C'mon Nurse Shark. For gosh sakes! You need to sit down and honestly address all of "question's" extremely well-thought up charges, questions and complaints. Otherwise it will be apparent you're just a union liberal fool who has no real substance.

BTW, I also don't think Obama's KILLING of Osama bin Laden WAS any big DEAL. And did anyone SEE the body? As one of my dedicated followers SAID to me yesterday, somewhere in Kenya they're missing the village IDIOT! What do you think about THAT, Nurse Shark? Now you are ethically obliged to address MY question too. And, too, don't you THINK Obama is in over his HEAD?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The Gay Rights Movement Coming of Age
By Tom Cushing | 25 comments | 1,124 views

Hacienda Business Park evolves to meet demand
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 977 views

A Norman Rockwell Town
By Roz Rogoff | 6 comments | 912 views