VOTE!!!!

Didn't mean to open up a "can of worms". Please don't say anything to get the thread locked.

I'm on Medicare with a private secondary insurance. (I pay premiums plus meet the deductibles for both.)
Because of the provisions of The Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), I was able to have 2 colonoscopies within a 12 month period without having to pay 1000's of dollars. My GI insists on frequent scoping because of one occurrence of low grade dysplasia. It's either scopes or colectomy (which I'm trying to avoid as long as possible).

One of the biggest fears of getting older is that you'll run out of money for healthcare needs. Many people do end up bankrupt.

Under the Act, I can also get an annual wellness checkup and mammogram as well as other certain preventive services that are totally covered.
I really appreciate these benefits and would like to see them continued.

Not sure if I'm considered one of the 47% but I do pay taxes every year, probably proportionately more than the top 1 or 2%.

I worry that the rest of Obamacare will not be as it has been presented... or that so many bad things will be tagged to the end of the "note" so-to-speak that it will make it not worth it to US citizens.

My biggest question is what is the real truths about both of them? Or for all campaigns I might add...

I wish we could make them tell the truth only, no slander or smear campaigns.. real truths so we could all make good informed decisions!!

Agreed Too Busy!  It will be what it will be I suppose. We can only hope our next President and our Congress will work hand in hand (yes, together!) for the betterment of the American people.

Oh that would be awesome...even for just a day, lol!! That is very funny!

Yes, it almost depends on what audience they are speaking to and tell them what they want to hear!

ROMNEY for me!! We can't afford 4 more years!

Hey Christine -- been thinking about you! Are you doing okay? Speaking of Christie, everytime Atlantic City was mentioned I'd think about you and hubby going to your favorite buffet and hoped you fared well. tc, Carol

I don't know what changes will be in the future (if and when Obamacare gets in)...but w/ the new "help" my family health insurance premium's went from 650/month to 1060/month w/ a higher ded. and max out of pocket. I can do without "help" like that. Sometimes w/ good intentions come unintended consequences. We are small business owners so we seem to not be the "people of choice" under the current administration.

I will def. be voting tomorrow.

I've been very disappointed in the supreme court the last several years. I used to respect the court as they were supposed to be the best of the best legal experts and supposedly knew the law better than anyone else. It really makes you wonder though when the court is divided 5-4 on any issue. Recently of course it was the Obamacare thing but it could be any topic really. To me it is a black and white issue. Either something passes the muster or it doesn't. It seems like supreme court decisions should always be 9-0, 8-1, or 7-2. How can 9 justices look at something which is supposed to be a legal issue and half think one way and half the other? It is either legal or it isn't and if they all know the law so well then it should always be a lopsided victory. Whether it is Obamcare or Roe vs. Wade, how can we trust the court to be nonpartisan when Roe vs. Wade or Obamacare is decided one way one year and then later on a different court could decide the same exact thing totally different. That takes it away from being a strictly legal issue and makes it a purely partisan issue because if it were only a legal issue it would always be decided the same way no matter what the makeup of the court was. Our most important legal issues are going to be decided, not by the law, but by the makeup of the court. Should abortion be legal just because there happened to be more liberals on the bench at the time of the decision or should abortion be illegal just because there are more conservatives on the bench at the time of the decision? Which one is right, or has the supreme court become just a useless branch of politics?

By the way, my family's health insurance premiums went up over $2,000 this last year, mostly because of me. Obamacare will probably help me out with lower premiums when it is fully implemented but I pitty the poor suckers who are healthy who will be paying higher premiums because of people like us.

 

Voting Obama! Ok. I'm Canadian. So I can't :(

I really do care about politics and how they are going to effect my life in the next few years, but ever since I was 18 and moving on to college, I felt rushed or pressured to just vote even if I didn't have a clue.

Still, a few years later, I haven't had the time to sit down and do some research on the candidates, and as much as I see why others want my vote to count, I still don't want to vote without really knowing my stance. :(

garylouisville said...
I've been very disappointed in the supreme court the last several years. I used to respect the court as they were supposed to be the best of the best legal experts and supposedly knew the law better than anyone else. It really makes you wonder though when the court is divided 5-4 on any issue. Recently of course it was the Obamacare thing but it could be any topic really. To me it is a black and white issue. Either something passes the muster or it doesn't. It seems like supreme court decisions should always be 9-0, 8-1, or 7-2. How can 9 justices look at something which is supposed to be a legal issue and half think one way and half the other? It is either legal or it isn't and if they all know the law so well then it should always be a lopsided victory. Whether it is Obamcare or Roe vs. Wade, how can we trust the court to be nonpartisan when Roe vs. Wade or Obamacare is decided one way one year and then later on a different court could decide the same exact thing totally different. That takes it away from being a strictly legal issue and makes it a purely partisan issue because if it were only a legal issue it would always be decided the same way no matter what the makeup of the court was. Our most important legal issues are going to be decided, not by the law, but by the makeup of the court. Should abortion be legal just because there happened to be more liberals on the bench at the time of the decision or should abortion be illegal just because there are more conservatives on the bench at the time of the decision? Which one is right, or has the supreme court become just a useless branch of politics?
By the way, my family's health insurance premiums went up over $2,000 this last year, mostly because of me. Obamacare will probably help me out with lower premiums when it is fully implemented but I pitty the poor suckers who are healthy who will be paying higher premiums because of people like us.

It isn't just about legal versus "not legal." Our system of laws isn't just made up of laws - it is also made up of the body of jurisprudence, or "case law," that has interpreted those laws over the years. The Supreme Court RARELY reverses itself. Rarely. In fact, I can only think of two instances - segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson) and sodomy (Bowers v. Hardwick). That is a pretty darn good track record.

The law is just not black and white. Take for example, the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment." Did they really mean AND? Like, it has to be both cruel and unusual to be prohibited? Or could it be one or the other? This is about judicial philosophy - strict constructionist versus the idea that the laws / constitution is a "living document." I spent 3 years in law school studying this, and there is no way I can really explain what I mean in a random post on a message board, but please believe there is more to it than just yes/no black/white.

I didn't really understand it until I started writing motions of my own. You can be dead set on an interpretation of the law, and then do all of the research, be half finished writing the thing, and change your mind.

Thank you, BabeintheWoods, ipoop, & Carlie. The ACA is far from ideal, but it will end the pre-existing conditions exclusion for adult patients in 2014 & has already ended it for children. Furthermore, dislike of the ACA is no reason to vote in a government of rightwing religious fanatics who discriminate against women at every opportunity, and contradict sound principles of science to rabble-rouse. Those self-righteous frauds belong in the 8th & 9th circles of Dante's Inferno, where he depicted them parading behind a leader who kept farting. How appropriate to their lies & distorsions! I love my country and want it to progress, not to sink backward 150 yrs. May the truly decent and peace-oriented candidates win! / Old Hat (32 yrs with left-sided UC; presently in remission taking brandname Colazal)