the reason the leftist do not like it is that it did not go far enough

Dare I remind you that the requirement to buy health insurance was a REPUBLICAN RIGHT idea and not a part of Obama's initial concept> Thier problem is they want us to be required to buy it while removing regulations making insurance companies provide what they get paid to and allow them to double thier prices overnight. Yeah..let's repeal the health care bill and put the one in place that the president initially wanted...WITH the public option. Better yet. Let's trash the entire system and go to socialized medicine.

Government IS NOT A CURE ALL! Big Brother has bankrupt every program they have engaged in! There should be consequences and rewards for ones decisions, not entitlements and bailouts!

Obamacare IS socialized medicine...its forcing the doctors and insurance companies to provide a benefit (not a RIGHT) that would not be otherwise be due. Medical treatment can NEVER be a right (because its forcing a different person to provide the services..thereby forcing them into slavery). Rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, because they're self-actualizing, not forced/ripped from another person. And even if you call Obamacare 'comprehensive care' you're forcing doctors to treatment whom they would ordinary NOT treat, and for less money.--what's fair to the doctors? Further, to actually balance the budget, you can't just keep rasing taxes, because those of us who actually EARN WOULD just have to decide to not work for a year or two, and the programs will be out the window for lack of funding. Time to grow up folks, stand on your own two feet, and figure out how to take care of yourself, without relying on government. Its called being an adult.

Liz, you're totally off base. Who is asking doctors to treat things they normally wouldn't treat? Really. I work, and at my age, life is a pre-existing condition. Insurance companies have messed things up, refused coverage and doctor prescribed medications, for those who need it, all in the name of "profits." This healthcare plan is as best as we could get. Not perfect, but a start.

Liz, no one is forcing the doctors to treat you, and I still think they will be paid for it. I think the only people that hate this is the freeloaders that don't have health insurance, and then when they get sick go to the emergency room. The healthy people that feel they will never get sick, and then when they do they whine because the insurance company won't give them coverage, and then go to the emergency room that raises our rates. it is not all the "illegals" or the "poor" it is a lot of healthy people.

To me you have to have some form of socialism in a free economy where there are little to no rules involving ethics & responsiblity on the corporate side of things. Otherwise corporate will have their way and that is to get as much of your money as possible.
After last night I think I will vote Republican from here on because the Democrats have shown me that they are not willing to fight for their rights. My belief is that you cannot fight for anyone who is not willing to fight for themselves. I do believe in doing the right thing but, that is a lonely battle and it takes a great deal more than any one individual can give.
Yesterday the Republicans reminded me of the Pittsburgh Steelers with the intensity and heart they voted with & us Democrats look like the Dallas Cowboys knowing we have what it takes but not utilizing what we have to accomplish our immediate goals.
It almost saddens me to see the mindset of the people in this country & it saddens me even more that we are going back to the same old ways especially with the global climate in the situation that it's in.
I also learned yesterday that I agree with a few of the Republican stances.
Lower taxes and less intrusion by the government on individuals' rights. Also, that only the strong can survive especially when you have those that don't take part in the most critical funtcion of this process. Again, you cannot fight for those who aren't willing to fight for themselves!!!!

The Federal government is giving the American people MORE rights, specifically the right to affordable health care. The Constitution is a floor not a ceiling. The government is allowed to give us more rights, it just can't take away those enumarated in the Constitution. The only reason anyone would be against more rights for the American people is for political gain.

Speaking of politican gain, that is the only reason these pointless mandates are on the ballot. They are unenforceable, but the conservatives know that these fear-based tactics will drive their base to the polls. Like here in Florida, there is a question about an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that would be impossible to enforce. It wants to create an amendment in the U.S. Constitution to balance the budget, but (here is the kicker), WITHOUT allowing any raise in taxes to pay for it.

Impossible? Of course. Enforceable? Nope. But it gets the angry extremists to the polls. Mission accomplished.

If the US Government has the authority to grant rights, then we must live in a dictatorship.

All rights granted to US citizens come from the Constitution, the bill of rights and the amendments. All of which are voted on by the people.

Only the people can grant rights - and access to health care is not one of them.

Fine then. Put universal health care up for a vote (or whatever version we end up with). I bet the majority of people would choose it rather than chosing to go on without health care insurance. We are talking about people's health here. Life and death. I believe we should be covered from birth until death. I also believe if it were put to a vote, that people would actually vote for it. Most people really do not want to be without health insurance. They just can't afford it. It would be cheaper for all of us if everyone participated and if health insurance companies were not-for-profit and if we all had the choice to buy into Medicare at cost if we wanted to.

mt,

I would welcome a vote. I might remind you that Missouri put it on a ballot in August. 72% of the people voted against the current health care law. Three states are also voting on this issue today. Watch and see where the counts end up.

You are also mixing up what this is all about. True most people would not want to be without health care, the question is who pays for it - AND IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Remember, the government can not give to one citizen without taking from another.

If this Health Care is so affordable how come only 3200 people out of the 4 million who could have signed up a the end of June with pre-existing conditions have signed up for that part of the plan which started then????

Because they cannot afford it.

So Clotho................where is MY health insurance?I'm among the ones with pre-existing conditions that were to have been started on AFFORDABLE insurance in July. My State DOES offer it, but believe me, I can't afford it.

Frankly, I'm waiting my next 14 months until I can get on Medicare; they don't up rates for pre-existing conditions nor are they unaffordable. I know; I do hubby's for him.

P.S. mt: we DO have the choice to buy into Medicare at age 65 IF we want & most DO!

The Federal government is giving the American people MORE rights

WRONG. The Federal government does not grant rights. They take them away. Get a clue. I don't know about you, but I was born with my rights. The right to live my life unmolested by big government.

The Government has never given us anything unless someone pays for it. I am tired of paying and I have never gotten anything from the Government in return. It is only getting worse. I'm tired of paying those fat cats in the Government to do a poor job.

JJD-561872 - you have it partly right. But ..

"We hold these truthes to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certail inalienable right". It's not Government ... it's not the people ... it's "their creator" who endows them with rights. and ...

"When any form of governments becomes destructive of these ends, it it the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government."

Is that what it's going to have to come to?

That's the Declaration of Independence which is not a legislative document. The reference to "their creator" is a reference to so called "natural rights." While we in the legal community still debate where exactly laws come from, natural rights really haven't stood up well to time. Even Scalia won't rule solely on a claim of "natural rights," so I doubt your belief that all our rights come from a "creator" would survive much scrutiny.

Lawyers...

And replace him with who?????? A Republican?????? hahahahaha like that will make it better. . . dont forget what the previous 8 years were like lol

How about replacing him with someone who follows the constitution?

Oh and I haven't forgot how good it was before 2006.

I think we all can agree something needed to be done about healthcare. The only problem is Obama started at the wrong end of the snake.

Big Stevo,

Both your quotes are from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. We did not vote on the Declaration of Independence, we voted on the Constitution. Which starts out

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

You see, are rights are granted from one another, not from God.

"forced upon"... ok boehner. sorry but the leaders who helped enact this law were elected--democratically. you can't just say it's not legitimate every time YOUR guys loses.

Marc, you havent forgotten how good it was before 2006? You mean when GW was stripping us of our rights?

...and the Bill of Rights?

Yes. That's right. When you get sick and I know you will, please don't look for someone else to help you pay for your medical treatment and when you do, I will be with you by your side and make you eat your own words.

if you're not covered, you pay then! duh

rwereal, have you not heard about the problems hospitals have due to indigent care. What about all the money the government (fed, state & local) have to spend on indigent care. duh

Joe - If a person is indigent, how in the hell do you think they can afford to pay for insurance? With this law, now they will have to pay more in income tax. Where do you think that money will come from? Now we as taxpayers can pay to prosecute and jail all of these people that cannot pay their tax liabilities.

Besides, do not force anything down my throat I do not want. This is just another way to bleed the middle class. You kick a dog enough times; he is going to bit you eventually! The politicians are just now finding this out today! By the vote!

Hey afmcalaxn - You sound so ignorant! "freeloaders"??? its no wonder why America is crashing! I guess the roads, the military, police, firefighters, medics, schools, etc., should all be paid for also HUH??? I guess even though I pay my taxes, you'd probably think I'm a "freeloader" for using these services????? The government is put in place to protect the well-being of the people!! you say if a person can't pay they die!!?? really??? You are a poor example of an American!!!

Chris: Not everyone has the luxury of having company paid bennies for health care esp. in retirement. IF you work the system correctly (& it does take a bit of work), you can get your meds. very reasonably. Part D. also "forced" all the drug retailers to begin the "generic $4 drug" cost with, w/o Part D, they would never have been pressured to do. THAT HELPS EVERYONE!

V.Bevis,

You are flat wrong. The basic flaw in Medicare Part D is that drug prices are based on Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) rather than the Usual and Customary Rate (UCR) used by insurance companies. The difference across the board is about 15% plus and much, much more for brand name drugs. Medicare Part D has nothing to do with the $4 prescriptions. This was a move started by Walmart and others had to match it or lose out.

What Part D did was to increase everyone's drug prices under Medicare by at least 15% and those under private insurance by a similar amount. The "dirty little secret" of Walmart's $4 prescriptions was that it increased the price of about 20% of the generic drugs, more than covering the cost of the few generic drugs on which they lost money. For example, under Walmart's pricing plan, generic tylenol plus codeine went from $2.74 for 30 to $4 for 30. Several of the vendors changed to a "standard" prescription month of 28 days versus 30 to squeeze people a tiny bit more. (That's about a 7% increase if you do the math.)

Walmart limits only your co-pay to $4 for generic drugs and collects the difference between the MSRP and $4 from Medicare unless you have not met the $295 deductible. In that case, the $4 generic is disregarded for all drugs that have a MSRP higher than $4 and you pay the higher number. People get around this by not claiming Medicare Part D and getting the $4 generic until they have hit the $295 and then changing stores and changing stores, filing the $295 with Medicare directly and getting paying only the 25% co-pay. This is actually a felony and you can go to prison for doing it.

Part D does not pay a single penny on the first $295 of each year's drug costs (effectively blowing your $4 generic theory) and then pays 75% until the "donut hole" where Part D stops paying completely for people whose meds exceed $896.25 per year until the yearly total hits $4,350.25 after which it pays 95% until the end of December when it starts all over again. Medical economists estimate that the donut hole kills about 160,000 Medicare recipients a year because they cannot afford prescriptions for some part of the year. (The GOP says that "drug rebound effect" is the actual culprit and that it is stopping the drugs that does the actual killing, not their drug plan.)

You obviously know nothing about the subject and have not done any real investigation of options since virtually everything you say is incorrect.

Personally, even with private insurance, I compare what a 90-day supply costs from Blue Cross with the mail-order price from Canada. I can pay full retail price from Canada with shipping and beat the co-pay alone from Blue Cross for about half my meds. And I am pretty typical. I have moderate to severe osteoarthritis (with one knee replacement already). I have high cholesterol and low HDL and a father who died of a heart attack at 34. I have hypertension consistent with age. So I take 2 meds for the arthritis, two for the hypertension, one for the cholesterol, none of which is available in generic form. In my case I have tried the generic products first and have gotten better results from newer drugs from which there is no generic equivalent. For example, I take Micardis. I can get it for $90 for a 90-day supply from Blue Cross or for $65 (including shipping) for 90-days from Canada. It is the same brand name drug made in the same plant in Indonesia. Under Part D, a 90-day supply would cost me $140 provided I was past the deductible and had not yet hit the donut hole. So there you have it.

There are state governments because someone needs to manage things on a local level. There are simply too many people in the country for Obama or Congress to care about how certain fertilizers are sold in Iowa.

Also, your question can be applied in reverse. If you take a libertarian stance you must be voting for someone who says "I don't think you should be governed by the feds, so vote for me to go the Washington to govern you." Why even bother having a federal government then?

Given your tone and language I may not be able to tell where you went to law school, but I know where you didn't go. Some schools still teach professionalism (to be applied even when you are on the internet with strangers).

Please ignore my thumbs up on your post, I was tired as I read it.

but congress and obama have to be concerned about the fertilizers sold in Iowa. you apply the fertilizer in iowa. it has chemicals in it, they run off into the mississippi river and will be swept into the shores of the river or into the gulf of mexico. if you are such a fan of local control, then what if say the people in Bemidji, MN (a real city) decided that they wanted to pour 1 million gallons of gasoline into the Mississippi River there. Is that OK?

Based upon the quality of the dialogue from some of the right wingers I have seen lately,as well as the outright lies spread about by that same group to try to sway public opinion, such as "Death Panels" from their darling Sarah Palin who only sees in black and white, your comment of " that means "listed" for you libs) is grossly misdirected. You are not the only individual commenting who graduated from law school, but obviously, you are well able to pay the rising costs of health insurance every year, (38% in one year thank you Blue Cross) with no problems. If you are as widely read and educated as you infer, then you know quite well we are ranked at #40 for health care in the world, and pay twice as much as others for the lesser quality product. Since these corporations answer to their shareholder, the Feds, which has an inherent interest in a healthy work force for the US to remain, or should I say once again become competitive in the world arena. Most people commenting against it are thinking only of themselves, as they have theirs, so why worry about others. $1200 a month at age 54 for an employee who has no employer funded policy, and who earns 8.00 an hour is an impossibility, but obviously, many right wingers fail to understand the consequences of their failed economic policies.

Bravo Rick, the Constitution was intended to do exactly that, protect the people from the tyranny of government. Human history is plagued with rulers who oppressed the people. The U.S. is unique in that it was founded on a document explicitly spelling out what the government CANNOT do to you. Thus your analogy of it being a ceiling is absolutely correct.

Unfortunately the precious document is being ignored more and more by those who crave power and know how we should live our lives.

Stevejg, if a city thinks it is a good idea to pollute the river with gas then they would most likely face an enormous lawsuit. No regulation is need to explicitly forbid it. Tort law resolves issues of negligence or malevolence. If the folks in the gulf can prove and quantify the harm caused by those further upstream then they certainly have a case.

ATC333,

One of the many good things about America is you have a choice to shop around for another insurance company. With a forced government insurance you are forced to pay whatever they want to tax you and you cant shop around for a better deal. Competition is great. It keeps quality up and prices down. This is another reason we should be able to shop for insurance across state lines. Oh and I don't believe anything the World Health Organization says.

Regulation and law suits drive the cost of health care up. Not just greed.

Marc, another note you seem to have missed. Have you heard of HMO's? They are well known to use unqualified people that look at graphic tables and decide if you need the proceedure. They often ignore doctors recommendations because the table doesn't agree. Try to change insurance companies and you can't due to pre existing conditions.

Anantisocialist, if they poured gas in the river and refused to pay your "fine" or abide by your law, what then? it is a local issue. there is noway to enforce your law except to go invade that town and take what they have. Is that what you want?

I am a Lawyer and I question your point of view.

Government subsidizing doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies? Isn't that what is going on now? I do not think that will curb the greed.

It puts the decisions on expenditures where it belongs with the patients. The $4000 per year from the government would not be limited to medical costs. People could use if for food, shelter, entertainment, what ever they wanted.

No one would be paying $100 for an asprin in my solution.

We can have a socialist society if we so choose. Which is what medicine has become. However, if we choose to be socialists we should provide food, clean water, clean air, and housing free to every citizen before we provide free medicine. People can live for 50+ years with no medical services, they cannot live a week without water. It makes no sense to socialize medicine before other more necessary requirements for life.

hahahahahaha about health care loans - people won't pay them back and the rich already set up trusts to avoid estate taxes - don't tell me those with the most money and good lawyesrs won't find a way to get the loans then use the trusts to pass on assets to their heirs while being able to avoid paying back the medical loans, even after they die.

I don't think health insurance should be illegal. People in similar risk pools should be free to set up a fund to be withdrawn due to an unforeseen emergency. I do think the government should be completely removed from funding health care. They shouldn't even be allowed to provide loans. Any loan should originate privately.

That argument makes no sense. It is the same as saying "don't tell me those with the most money and good lawyers won't find a way to get college loans then use the trusts to pass on asets to their heirs." I said the medical loans are based on need. No one that is rich would qualify for them.

Whynot, what about when my thumb was nearly removed a couple years ago? Since I didn't have the $50,000 my insurance paid I should have just let it go, get infected, get gangreen and die. Then my wifes sholder surgery this year worth another $25,000, should have skipped that too so she couldn't work. Boy, that $4,000 a year sure would have helped.

I am not sure why it would cost $50,000 to reattach your thumb, but if you could not pay for it then yes you should have lost your thumb. It should cost no where near $50,000 to have it amputated and coterized so it would not get infected. Your $4,000 payment from the government for just that year should have covered it. If you wanted to sign up for a medical loan you could have had it reattached and paid back the cost with your annual $4000 check from the government. Same for your wife's procedure. My solution puts the choice in the hands of the patient. If it is worth $50,000 to have your thumb you have the option to pay for it. Just don't make me pay for it.

My argument is not about freedom or tied to what these states are doing it is about common sense. It is about solving a problem that is crushing our society. Medical insurance is bad for our society. It should go away.

whynot, then I guess you're for a single payer system? Insurance goes away and everyone gets medical care. The rich can get better by paying for premium care.

A single payer system is insurance and would be illegal if I had my choice.

Medical services should be a comodity like everything else in our society. If you can pay for it you get it if you can't you don't. My idea for medical loans is the safety net that lets people pay back medical services over time that they cannot afford.

Medical services cannot be free! We as a society cannot affort to provide a very high cost service for free.

Hospitals should be able to turn away people that cannot pay. A grocery store does not have to provide free food to the starving. A hotel does not have to let someone stay there if they cannot pay. Why should a hospital or any other medical facility be required to provide their services for free? I do not understand why this is even a question.

I believe if you asked Americans if they want the U.S. to be a socialist socienty 80 to 90 percent would say of course not. Yet for some strange reason we expect medicine to be free. It is rediculous.

states require hospitals to treat those who cannot pay. this will allow them to opt out. for the people who do not want to be forced to buy health insurance, they need to be aware of this potential when they get sick - you wanted it, you got it.

whynot, I hope one day you end up in an emergency room bleeding to death and they can refuse to help you because you don't have your insurance card. How about someone who was in a accident and is unconsious. No card, let them die. What part of your body did you stick your head up? Don't go to the hospital you propose, they would be able to help you get it out.

As I said before, we do not provide food, shelter, water, or other requirements for life for free. Why should medical services be different. Use your brain man!

I have no intention of ever accepting social security or medicare payments or any other welfare from the State. Even if they still exist in 15 years when I retire. I am not interested in living off of someone else. I pay over $60,000 per year in taxes. I figure that covers me for the use of the roads, for police protection, the school system and other necessary systems that government should supply. Medical services is not one of those.

Wake up people if you think you are entitled to medical services you are selfish and you desire what you get.

I figure that covers me for the use of the roads, for police protection, the school system and other necessary systems that government should supply. Medical services is not one of those.

Roads, police, schools - each of these at times in the past have been wholy in the hands of private enterprise. We have decided some services - like schools - are properly the role of the government, whether local or country wide. There is no inherent reason why basic medical care, like elementary and secondary schooling, can't be considered a basic right and of great value to the people as a whole. It's a decision the country as a whole must make.

But if we make that decision then the insurance companies need to be cut out of that basic level. Let people opt, if they wish, to buy insurance or just put away money for that matter for care beyond the 'basic' level. This would be similar to funding college. Some go to college, some don't and it has a major effect on their lives.

And now, if you don't have insurance and go to the emergency room, I have to pay it either through additional taxes to support the hospital or my own hospital bill. Now, I don't have representation.

I agree they need to change the law so medical facilities do not have to provide their services for free.

I wish people would stop with all the Democrat Republican crap. Who cares about the political parties. Both are completely broken and useless at getting our country back on track. The same goes for the Tea Party. We need ideas based on common sense not on party affiliation. We need Americans to think for themselves and not just repeat what they hear on the news. Sound bites will not keep this country from collapsing. It does not matter who wins the elections today. American's need to stop being selfish and think about what is good for our society and our children and make tough choices for the benefit of the country rather than only what is easy and good for them at this momment.

What we need it a non party. Middle of the road people who believe in making common sense decisions instead of what is politically expediant.

Mandated car insurance is a state issue and it's a violation of our rights.

You are not mandated to have car insurance. You are mandated to show financial responsibility

well then why can't one be compelled to show responsibility for something like health care?

hlannah, because if you are dying and need medical treatment that is your problem. If I hit you with my car (and it is my fault) it is my problem. I am responsible for your medical expenses and damage to your property. Driving a car increases the probability of causing someone else harm so I need to show the ability to provide compensation.

Basically, you're not hurting anybody else by simply being alive. Therefore mandated health insurance is a violation of your rights.

You can choose whether to drive or not. The only choice you have if you do not want to have medical insurance under the new law is to pay a stubstantial fine or move out of the country. They are not the same at all.

Whynot, you're right! You have a choice in car insurance and can opt out by not driving. You don't have an option if your bleeding to death. So, health insurance is more important.

Joe,

What you committed was a non-sequitor (does not follow) logical fallacy. Just because driving is optional doesn't make health insurance more important. In fact I would argue the opposite. I would much rather you have auto insurance when you collide into my car. I couldn't care less if you have health insurance.

Who cares. if your not going to post something intelligent stay off the board.

That's what the voters are doing today!

Very good points! your right, in order to place a new government, it will have to come down to a destruction so great it will go up and down from highest to the smallest levels. The people in power forget that our women and men in uniform come from families all over the USA, I guarranty our soldiers will turn on them, and not the people when marshal law is applied. Maybe the Mayans really did know something????????

Calm down Louie, its called voting

Voting will not change anything. The political system and government in general is broken in the U.S. As long as American's can be lead around by their noses by whoever is willing to buy the most political adds this country is in big trouble.

Too many americans expect to be given things for free. Health care is the worst becasue everyone seems to thing that one of the most expensive services in the country, medical services, should be free without limits. It can't be. Health care will crush this country. We do not have the resources to pay for it. I do not see why that is not obvious to everyone.

Electing Rep's is not the same as replacing or creating a new goverment. It will be the same old thing all over again with corporate America running the show. Don't worry though, according to all of the polls, the American people LOVE to be trickled on.

What do you want with the Supreme Court selling the government to special interests. Now you can just spend your way to the candidate of choice.

No, I want decisions that have huge effects on the people of this country to be made using common sense and not by whoever can buy the most political adds and influence politicians the most.

Dude! get off the bandwagon and say something worth while. Like punish companies who hire undocumented people or outsource our jobs!

How do you know that he didn't complain about that too? I can see why they wanted the patriot act and why most Americans supported it. Out of fear of terrorists. I agree the patriot act went to far but I have nothing to hide so I really didn't care either way.

How do you know he supports the Tea Party? Is that what you refer to as him being a ''Tea Bagger''?

I don't have a problem helping people that cant help themselves but you have a large population of obese people who continue to not eat right and not exercise, smokers, drug addicts and others who just don't take care of themselves. Am I supposed to help pay for these peoples care too?

When social security was started it was intended to be voluntary. I wish it still was

I realize that you were being sarcastic when you said, "O sorry grandpa/grandma you didn't save enough money in your younger years, so now you are SOL! Yes, I know you had life issues and I know your health isn't as good as it was but you should have thought about that when you where younger!"

But the obvious answer is yes. Let grandpa die if the alternative is the colapse of our society.

"Grampa" had a good life and it is not a benefit to society for the tax payers to carry him for decades to come. Expecting taxpayers to pay for you is selfish. If someone cannot pay for medical services he should not get them.

When social security was created, very few people lived much past 65 years of age. Now the majority do and many for decades past 65. Society has changed our support systems need to change also. American's need to be responsbile for themselves. We can have saftey nets to help the few that fall through the cracks but social security and now health care are not safety nets they are the huge burdens on our society that cannot be maintained.

Really?!-2587589 - Thank You, as for "whynot-2284594" man you are one COLD SOB! Why even call ourselves human beings anymore??? Lets just call ourselves ANIMALS!

I was wondering if someone would call me anti-social or a COLD SOB. That is quite hummorous to me. I am saying that we need to change the way we think about health care to save our society. American's are selfish SOBs and if they do not change our society is in jepordy.

Does trying to save our society make me a COLD SOB? If so I sure wish we had a whole lot more COLD SOBs in this country.

See my earlier comment. Auto insurance is not mandatory. All you have to do is show proof of financial responsibility.

GOD gave you the responsibility for your brother, that is your responsibility. You have a very selective memory of the BIBLE, in your actions toward your fellow man. The same is true for YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. The document was meant to serve ALL the people, not just a few well placed fat cats. If you want your "rights" PAY FOR IT, LIKE THE CORPORATE PHLYSOPHY DEMANDS. NOTHING IS FREE IN THE WORLD YOU HAVE CREATED.