Thank you for sharing this post.

You forget that, without this law, what will wage earners do when they can't afford insurance premiums because premiums get jacked up 20 points each year by insurance companies with multi-billion dollar profits. Or what about the wage earners who PAY for a product and then are denied use of said product by these corporations that find any excuse to deny offering health care coverage. In short, the Governor is stepping in between wage earners and their ability to ensure that their health care stays affordable, and they will actually be able to receive the health care they've paid for. Never mind the fact that an ever-increasing percentage of the population is self-employed and barely getting by (you know, a good chunk of that 48% that's living large off the rest of us), they have no employers to cover any health care costs. But that's cool, those of us who are employed get a 20% annual raise in income to match health care costs anyway, right? Those who are starting those own business are fricking idiots, and should be looked down upon with utter, complete contempt. Or, you know, be granted amount to the lifting of a ridiculous financial burden that this health care bill epitomizes. (After all, as your Queen Sarah says, America's small business owners drive our country's economy. We should just make sure that sky-rocketing health care costs stifle their ability to invest in themselves.)

In short, if the Governor succeeds, he will only succeed in the continual bankruptcy of the American middle class, and even the country as a whole. And for some reason, this is a conclusion you're going “rah rah” for?

This is why your side lost this debate. You stick to these series of talking points which basically boils down to the fearful notion of “other people are taking stuff from us” never realizing that protections have been signed into law to prevent things being TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU- either through premiums being financially out of your reach, or having some nurse's note being provided as reasons to deny you cancer coverage even though you've paid out the nose in premiums for years. And if you attempt to argue otherwise- stating that you will pay a nominal fee for the benefit of not having insurance- here's a news flash for you: You do not have a constitutional right to be uninsured. Nothing was “taken.” If anyone is going to be irresponsible, they should pay it- and not me.

Now, how about the fact that no constitutional professor has been able to offer a reasonable defense of these lawsuits, or explain how they are anything else but a waste of taxpayer money for partisan gain. For some reason, Republicans now support frivolous lawsuits and are rushing to trial lawyers with open arms. (But only the good kind of trial lawyers, I guess.) Some how I missed that memo. If you'd care to explain how there is a constitutional defense for these frivolous lawsuits, we're all ears…

Still, blind squirrels and broken clocks come to mind….