Should Obamacare be repealed?

[patrickgeekhack]

Ask Californians how all that worked out for electricity.  One of the main reasons healthcare is cheaper overseas is that other countries regulate how much doctors and, more so, pharmaceutical companies can charge.  Since there is no regulation like that in the US, doctors and, more so, pharmaceutical companies rape the **** out of us.  There is a common misconception that free markets make everything work out for the consumer.  This wasn't the case for energy in CA, it wasn't the case for the financial market, and it is not the case for healthcare.  When an industry, as a whole, can rape consumers, they will even if there is competition amongst the players in the industry.

It's true that a market system can sometimes get out of hands or will not take care of some stuffs like street lightning or defence.

[EverythingIBM]

As far as I'm concerned, the federal government should be as small and unobtrusive as possible.  Stick to national defense and interstate commerce regulation.  Fund yourself through tariffs. Stay away from my paycheck and leave everything else to the states and individuals.  

Repeal the 17th ammendment so that senators actually represent the state governments again (which is their role).  Make Congress (again) part time and implement term limits.  Construct dorms in the capital and mandate that senators and congressmen stay there during their sessions (THAT will encourage them to not put down roots in DC).

The federal government was never intended to be our babysitters, retirement fund, and safety net.  Those things should be handled locally.  Both the republicans and democrats are worthless AFAIC.

iMav, that is one of the best things I've heard regarding politics. Reverting the government's operational characteristics to an older state, rather than creating "new" schemes to improve... when the answer lies in the past.

It's a good idea for states (and the individuals therein) to govern them, because, each state has different people with different cultures, and beliefs. If you don't like that state, then go to a different one.
But if all of this is abolished, and the United States becomes "the United State of America," freedom will greatly be reduced, and there won't be different options for those who want a state that suits their tastes more appropriately.

And yeah, the federal government shouldn't dress you in the morning or brush your teeth, that is left to the individual in the privacy of their home: which is why houses have walls...

Healthcare in Canada is greatly exaggerated, you still have to pay lots of costs (we did anyways, dental appointments costs hundreds of dollars). And often or not, doctors are just inclined to give you pills rather than diagnose a problem correctly (that happened to my grandma: doctor said she had arthritis, when in reality, the problem was a cyst in the knee and a torn ligament; she just stayed in the doctor's office refusing to leave until they did an MRI).

[patrickgeekhack]

Healthcare in Canada is greatly exaggerated, you still have to pay lots of costs (we did anyways, dental appointments costs hundreds of dollars). And often or not, doctors are just inclined to give you pills rather than diagnose a problem correctly (that happened to my grandma: doctor said she had arthritis, when in reality, the problem was a cyst in the knee and a torn ligament; she just stayed in the doctor's office refusing to leave until they did an MRI).

This was I agreed with Konrad in saying that the system is not perfect and it is indeed very hard to get a second opinion. This is why I think, we need both private and public healthcare to coexist in Canada. They are not mutually exclusive really. There are countries where both system coexist.

[patrickgeekhack]

Capitalism, in the long run, is by far the best economic system. However, its major downside is the fact that there are ups and downs. And the downs can be steep and extremely painful (I know very much about them as many of my relatives grew up on the low end during the Depression).
...
Now, if true capitalism were practiced, the law of supply and demand would eventually cripple the colleges and they would either collapse or make cost cuts. The problem is though, it might take 150 years. Or 50.


To sum it up: Politics is a dirty world.

You are right in saying that a true market system tends to self-corrects in the long run. But, that's the problem. It can take a long long time to self-correct. In the meantime, there can be a lot of suffering. Moreover, some--if not most--big corporations are not willing to play by the market system rules alone. They try to work the system to be sole benefits.

[EverythingIBM]

This was I agreed with Konrad in saying that the system is not perfect and it is indeed very hard to get a second opinion. This is why I think, we need both private and public healthcare to coexist in Canada. They are not mutually exclusive really. There are countries where both system coexist.

That would be an excellent idea; MINOR healthcare supported by the government (perhaps those with lower incomes), and also private healthcare: but strict guidelines imposed to avoid exploitation. Although there are many exploitations in federal healthcare, so, a better government that actually takes action for the benefit of the general public is needed.

And when I say minor healthcare, I mean that's what it already currently is. It's mostly government employees who get all of the benefits, or stuck up politicians who live for themselves and are ambassadors to arrogance.

Pensions are another thing, not everyone gets them, all of the good working people aren't getting any benefits: instead benefits are given to immigrants (who know nothing of western culture) or homeless individuals who waste their money on alcohol, drugs, and other physical stimulants.

[patrickgeekhack]

Pensions are another thing, not everyone gets them, all of the good working people aren't getting any benefits: instead benefits are given to immigrants (who know nothing of western culture) or homeless individuals who waste their money on alcohol, drugs, and other physical stimulants.

Mmmm...I am an immigrant who will be working for more than 30 years while contributing through taxes and to my pension. Does that mean that I should not be entitled to pension in Canada ? :-)

Make no mistake, most immigrants know a lot about Canada. After all, we are asked to study about Canada and pass a test before we are granted Canadian citizenship. For example, most of my Canadian born colleagues were surprised to learn that the head of state of Canada is the Queen of England.

[EverythingIBM]

Mmmm...I am an immigrant who will be working for more than 30 years while contributing through taxes and to my pension. Does that mean that I should not be entitled to pension in Canada ? :-)

Make no mistake, most immigrants know a lot about Canada. After all, we are asked to study about Canada and pass a test before we are granted Canadian citizenship. For example, most of my Canadian born colleagues were surprised to learn that the head of state of Canada is the Queen of England.

My definition of "immigrants" refers to those who come out of cultures based upon violence, and exploit the benefits given to them, rather than committing themselves to be hard working citizens.
You of course wouldn't fit in that category!

And if Canadians don't know the head of state is the QUEENE OF GREATE BRITAINNE, then there is a problem. You learn that in Social 30 -- but I sure hope you know it beforehand! Why do you think we have the queen on our money? Oh well...

[patrickgeekhack]

My definition of "immigrants" refers to those who come out of cultures based upon violence, and exploit the benefits given to them, rather than committing themselves to be hard working citizens.
You of course wouldn't fit in that category!

And if Canadians don't know the head of state is the QUEENE OF GREATE BRITAINNE, then there is a problem. You learn that in Social 30 -- but I sure hope you know it beforehand! Why do you think we have the queen on our money? Oh well...

You made me smile. I agree that there are some who come here to Canada to exploit the system. This exist is so many developed countries.

[ch_123]

It's a good idea for states (and the individuals therein) to govern them, because, each state has different people with different cultures, and beliefs. If you don't like that state, then go to a different one.

Why stop there? Even within a state there are different cultures and beliefs. Why don't we leave governance to the county level. In some places, nearby towns can be completely different. Why don't we leave it to the town level? Hell, I don't have an awful lot in common with my neighbors, why don't we just get rid of the government altogether!

Again, "Big Guv'munt" arguments are stupid because they ignore the validity of the underlying issue.

My definition of "immigrants" refers to those who come out of cultures based upon violence, and exploit the benefits given to them, rather than committing themselves to be hard working citizens.

That's a bit like - "Black people are poorly educated people who do drugs, and engage in gangland activity. But in order to try and mask my latent racism, I am going to retroactively define the term "black people" to mean something other than it's obvious intended purpose, and instead define it in terms of people who are poorly educated, do drugs and engage in gangland activity."

I've always maintained that the worst sort of racism is the one where people try to make it look reasonable.

[itlnstln]

Capitalism, in the long run, is by far the best economic system. However, its major downside is the fact that there are ups and downs. And the downs can be steep and extremely painful (I know very much about them as many of my relatives grew up on the low end during the Depression).

Probably one of the best examples of capitalism gone mad is colleges at least here in the US. They're one of the biggest scams in the country. What many universities do is "double-staff": having lavishly-paid professors, but teaching assistants who do much of the work. Even with government support (A violation of capitalist theory), college tuition has more than doubled in the last generation. And the education people are getting out of that hasn't changed too much in that generation either (It did however change very much in the generation before, and even more so in the one before that. A relative of mine went to U-Conn in the 1920's.). Today, professors are getting raises and bonuses while many others in true private companies and small businesses are stuggling just to make it). At U-Conn, they got a basketball coach paid $2 million a year. And their professors got 5% "Cost of living" raises even though the cost of living has decreased.

Many people these days are indirectly forced into going to college and often end up with over $30,000 in debt since more and more jobs are recommending degrees and folks in schools these days have the "You have to go to college" attitude even though 30% of Americans have degrees.

Now, if true capitalism were practiced, the law of supply and demand would eventually cripple the colleges and they would either collapse or make cost cuts. The problem is though, it might take 150 years. Or 50.

And many of you guys haven't heard of it. Why? Because many of these higher-level folks at the colleges lobbied for Democrats. And Obama's a loyal Democrat. Kind of like oil companies and Republicans. Obama's all talking about fixing up (But really hurting) the health care system, but he has hardly said a word about this crisis, which is far more severe than the made-up health care "crisis". Our system is not perfect, but it is by far not a "crisis".

To sum it up: Politics is a dirty world.

Check out what for-profit colleges are doing to people, then report back.  There's a Frontline episode that covers this in detail.  

Texas, for a long time had a great University system where all state schools had to have the same tuition costs (my total for 4.5 years at UT was $21,000 including room and board from 1996-2000).  Now, in Texas' infinite wisdom, they de-regulated the state school system, and now, the same education I paid $21K for is costing students well over $50K at the same University.  A lot of good that did for people.  

In the end, I got a great education, a great job at a liberal company, and I still make more money than you.

[ch_123]

Many people these days are indirectly forced into going to college and often end up with over $30,000 in debt since more and more jobs are recommending degrees and folks in schools these days have the "You have to go to college" attitude even though 30% of Americans have degrees.

Gosh darn them lib'ruls thinking that people should be educated...

[microsoft windows]

It's rude to make fun of others' accents.

[pex]

The question is

Should Obamacare be repealed?

and over 5 pages, there are 0 responses directly relating constitutions and federalism as prohibitions rather than suggestions, and no more than 5 posts about how government just shouldn't be big because oh wouldn't that be nice.

Again, "Big Guv'munt" arguments are stupid because they ignore the validity of the underlying issue.

This kind of response can only come from someone who thinks that governments or people in them have no rules to follow, that these people are truly overmen who can and should take power and use it as they will it.  How very weirdly Nietzsche of you.

The actual fact of the matter is that we can just look at Art. I, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution and see what Congress actually has the power to do, and no where can we surmise that it has the power to have passed what we call 'Obamacare'.  If it indeed lacks the power because there is no authority in the US Constituion, as the US Constitution is one of grants of power, "an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."   NORTON V. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U. S. 425, 442 (1886).  Unfortunately for us, we don't see the courts too often pronounce such strong language as in the above case, because that would not be good for tyranny.  Rule of law would seem to necessitate that the constitutions are the supreme law of the land and that there are the appropriate subordinate laws, controls which all three branches of government regularly subvert and often in concert.

So the FIRST concern actually ought to be the big government argument because that is THE underlying issue.  The congresspersons who take office go on to take an oath to take that office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter . . ."  I would suggest that there is there is an affirmative duty to support the constitution, and since each congress member is a piece of the legislative body, that duty includes making law that repeals unconstitutional law of current and past bodies who 'enacted' the unconstitutional law.

And so, 'Obamacare' must be repealed.  (Please look at the supreme law of the land and review US history before writing off the most important question about the act of a government in the future.)

[itlnstln]

The question is

and over 5 pages, there are 0 responses directly relating constitutions and federalism as prohibitions rather than suggestions, and no more than 5 posts about how government just shouldn't be big because oh wouldn't that be nice.



This kind of response can only come from someone who thinks that governments or people in them have no rules to follow, that these people are truly overmen who can and should take power and use it as they will it.  How very weirdly Nietzsche of you.

The actual fact of the matter is that we can just look at Art. I, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution and see what Congress actually has the power to do, and no where can we surmise that it has the power to have passed what we call 'Obamacare'.  If it indeed lacks the power because there is no authority in the US Constituion, as the US Constitution is one of grants of power, "an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."   NORTON V. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U. S. 425, 442 (1886).  Unfortunately for us, we don't see the courts too often pronounce such strong language as in the above case, because that would not be good for tyranny.  Rule of law would seem to necessitate that the constitutions are the supreme law of the land and that there are the appropriate subordinate laws, controls which all three branches of government regularly subvert and often in concert.

So the FIRST concern actually ought to be the big government argument because that is THE underlying issue.  The congresspersons who take office go on to take an oath to take that office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter . . ."  I would suggest that there is there is an affirmative duty to support the constitution, and since each congress member is a piece of the legislative body, that duty includes making law that repeals unconstitutional law of current and past bodies who 'enacted' the unconstitutional law.

And so, 'Obamacare' must be repealed.  (Please look at the supreme law of the land and review US history before writing off the most important question about the act of a government in the future.)

Then you would have to repeal Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  Looking at how those were passed and are not unconstitutional, I think a universal healthcare plan is fine.

[mike]

were surprised to learn that the head of state of Canada is the Queen of England.

That would be a surprise to the Queen of Canada (who exists) and the Queen of England (who doesn't). Technically Canada has had it's own queen since 1953, and England hasn't had a monarch of it's own since 1707 (we have a Queen of The United Kingdom).

Yes the titles Queen of Canada and the Queen of The United Kingdom are both possessed by the same person, but it's perfectly possible in theory for the current monarch to decide to pass the titles to different people (although the respected governments might have a thing or two to say about the head of state being "given away" to arbitrary people).

[keyboardlover]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see quite how Universal Healthcare is better:

Issues with America's current Healthcare system:
- High premiums
- Inadequate access to care

Issues with Universal Healthcare systems in other countries:
- High taxes
- Inadequate access to care

In both systems, care is still inadequate in many places (and especially depending on where you live). That's why you see watchdog organizations starting to pop up, like the UK Care Quality Commission.

Also, with Obama's plan, not only will premiums not go down for those who already have insurance through an employer, they will actually skyrocket (and already have). My company's went up 20% this year! As a result, we had to adjust with higher deductibles! And taxes -- they will obviously go up too, to support all the folks who don't work who will now get coverage on the dollar of those that do.

So...how is it better?

[itlnstln]

Typically, the tax increase is lower than the premium increase.  IMO, universal healthcare in the US is half-baked; it needs to be a system like Canada's or the UK's to work at it's best.  In the end, it just amounts to cost shifting; you take the money that you would pay into health insurance and put it to taxes.  With a universal system, though, the premiums don't really go up year-to-year, there is usually no deductible, and you don't typically have a problem dealing with the government on what gets covered or not.  The trade-off is that you have to see a primary care physician before you see a specialist and a few other things.  The other thing to consider is that government-run health plans usually comes with regulation on how much hospitals and pharmaceutical companies can charge, bringing costs down for everyone.  That's the main reason people from the US flock to Canada and Mexico to get prescription drugs.  Just ask Sarah Palin.

[microsoft windows]

people from the US flock to Canada and Mexico to get prescription drugs.

Did you know that folks from Canada and Mexico also flock to the USA for health care (The mexicans flock here for baby delivery primarily)?

In addition, due to changing demographics, the universal health care systems in Canada and Britain are going to lose lots of money within the next fifty years. Here in America, we're already in enough debt and we don't need more. When the government takes over something, it does a bad job in general. I don't get why some of you all want our government taking over 1/6 of the world's largest economy.

[keyboardlover]

Typically, the tax increase is lower than the premium increase.  IMO, universal healthcare in the US is half-baked; it needs to be a system like Canada's or the UK's to work at it's best.  In the end, it just amounts to cost shifting; you take the money that you would pay into health insurance and put it to taxes.  With a universal system, though, the premiums don't really go up year-to-year, there is usually no deductible, and you don't typically have a problem dealing with the government on what gets covered or not.  The trade-off is that you have to see a primary care physician before you see a specialist and a few other things.  The other thing to consider is that government-run health plans usually comes with regulation on how much hospitals and pharmaceutical companies can charge, bringing costs down for everyone.  That's the main reason people from the US flock to Canada and Mexico to get prescription drugs.  Just ask Sarah Palin.

Agreed - but a 20% increase is ridiculous. I agree with most of your other points though. IMHO I don't think incorporating a system like Canada's or the UK's would really work here, though. I think the government knows that's unrealistic, and they seem to prefer the half-baked approach.

[microsoft windows]

In a country as large as the US, we oughta keep our private health care system and work on fixing what we already got instead of adding more hastily-made laws passed by narrow partisan majorities.

[itlnstln]

Your 20% increase had nothing to do with universal healthcare.  That doesn't start until 2018.  That's just your insurance company bending you over like they're doing to all of us.

[keyboardlover]

Your 20% increase had nothing to do with universal healthcare.  That doesn't start until 2018.  That's just your insurance company bending you over like they're doing to all of us.

Not according to the state of Arizona. It's been linked; there are other sources out there.

[itlnstln]

That's just what your Republican government would want you to believe, Texas is saying the same.  Healthcare has been going up for years, and this is no different.  From your own article:

Yet, even as Gov. Jan Brewer's administration cited health reform as the chief reason for cost increases, the state's health-insurance premiums for employees have increased at even faster clips in the past.

In fact, employee premiums for five of eight plans next year will increase at a lower rate than they did this year.

Some lawmakers questioned the Brewer's administration's decision to send out a letter that blames health reform for the premium increases.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, who sat on President Barack Obama's health-reform task force, blasted the Department of Administration's letter as politically motivated.

"The Department of Administration is implying that entire increase is a result of the new health-care law," Sinema said. "It is clearly a politically motivated letter that is just not factually accurate."

Ecker, of the Department of Administration, denied any political motivation. He saw no political undertone in the letter, which was drafted by the Department of Administration's benefits-services staff and approved by the agency's director.

"It is simply designed to let members know that rate increases are coming and the reason for those increases," Ecker said in an e-mail.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/07/21/20100721arizona-workers-to-see-insurance-fees-increase.html#ixzz0x4mFjEu4

It's all politics.  When it's all said and done, you probably won't even notice the difference.  You'll just keep getting poked every year.

[microsoft windows]

But how has this monstrosity of a law the lawmakers didn't even read when they pass it reduced health care costs?

[itlnstln]

But how has this monstrosity of a law the lawmakers didn't even read when they pass it reduced health care costs?

Why don't you read it and find out?  You won't really know until 2018 anyway.  The majority of it is to help those that can't get insurance at all.

[microsoft windows]

Then why don't you tell me how you think it will help our nation and why?

[ch_123]

Did you know that folks from Canada and Mexico also flock to the USA for health care (The mexicans flock here for baby delivery primarily)?

America has the best healthcare system in the world...

...


...

If you have money.

If you don't, you're ****ed.

In addition, due to changing demographics, the universal health care systems in Canada and Britain are going to lose lots of money within the next fifty years.

Define "loss" in terms of a health system. Many leading experts postulate that having members of the working class keeling over and dying because they cannot afford anything more than the most basic healthcare is quite bad for the economy.

[microsoft windows]

America has the best healthcare system in the world...

...


...

If you have money.

If you don't, you're ****ed.

Really? Whether you're 5 or 105, or even if you're an illegal, you still have access to top-of-the-line health care. The only problem is coping with the bills. And in many cases, people hold fundraisers where the community chips in and helps out with excessive medical bills for those who can't afford them.

[itlnstln]

Well, a big portion will be that people that didn't have any insurance will now, and they won't be going to the hospitals having to run up bills they won't be able to pay which in turn means hospital won't increase cost for the rest of us (maybe), thus preventing insurance companies from raising our rates (probably not).

Or we could just use your health care plan, and have all those people get sick and die.

[microsoft windows]

Or we could just use your health care plan, and have all those people get sick and die.

I'm not North Korea.

[keyboardlover]

That's just what your Republican government would want you to believe, Texas is saying the same. It's all politics.  When it's all said and done, you probably won't even notice the difference.  You'll just keep getting poked every year.

Um...Republican government? Obama's a Democrat...

Anyway, I'm sure I'll notice a difference in my taxes (which are already too high)

[ch_123]

The only problem is coping with the bills.

As if paying money isn't an issue? And your solution - a bakesale?

Let them eat cake... ****ing hell...

[itlnstln]

Um...Republican government? Obama's a Democrat...

Anyway, I'm sure I'll notice a difference in my taxes (which are already too high)

Your Arizona government (assuming, anyway, since that's what you linked to in the article) is making that claim because Obama's a Democrat.

[microsoft windows]

Then why don't you tell me how you think it will help our nation and why?

You still haven't answered my question.

[itlnstln]

No, I pretty much have. kthxbai.

[microsoft windows]

You haven't backed it up with any valid information though.

[itlnstln]

OK.

[ch_123]

Deflecting the burden of proof is one of the most transparent and obviously wrong logical fallacies around.

[iMav]

Several states have been providing localized safety nets for residents that can't afford healthcare for years.  Two examples, BadgerCare and MinnesotaCare.  This is something that should be handled by the states.  The existence of a need does not mean that it is the federal government's place to fullfill that need.

[itlnstln]

Deflecting the burden of proof is one of the most transparent and obviously wrong logical fallacies around.

I don't know. There's like 6 other pages of proof on the discussion.  The plan isn't even in effect until 2018, so there's no measurable impact, yet.  It's time to stop feeding the trolls.  That, and it's no longer a dialogue.

[ch_123]

Several states have been providing localized safety nets for residents that can't afford healthcare for years.  Two examples, BadgerCare and MinnesotaCare.  This is something that should be handled by the states.

 

As I pointed out elsewhere, if everyone has their own version of the same thing, you have superfluous duplication of red tape that you would not get if you had a single unified element. Also, you have savings due to economies of scale whereby the one entity insures everyone, not just the population of a single state (where you will get serious waste due to overhead in smaller states).

[ricercar]

Are so many people that embarrassingly stupid, or just incredibly and embarrassingly ill-informed?

Yes.

[keyboardlover]

Your Arizona government (assuming, anyway, since that's what you linked to in the article) is making that claim because Obama's a Democrat.

Oh...I actually live in PA. The article was just an example; there are others in other states.

[pex]

Then you would have to repeal Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Ok? I don't see the problem with that (as if you thought the suggestion might give your counter-argument some sort of credence).  The question of the thread, however, is "Should Obamacare be repealed?"  A long period of subverting the law does not make the law 'more constitutional', because the purported law would be ineffective as if it had never been passed whether it was 90 days ago or 90 years ago.

[itlnstln]

Just sayin'.  You might be in the minority in what is considered Constitutional.  Obviously, the nation doesn't agree.

[pex]

Just sayin'.  You might be in the minority in what is considered Constitutional.  Obviously, the nation doesn't agree.

Why would the colonists throw off a singular central tyrant to create a representative central tyrant that would usurp nearly all the power of each colony-state which had been rather sovereign up to and through the Articles of Confederation, only to create a document which would go on to apparently either solidify that central tyrant with expansive powers or otherwise create a document that is binding on nobody?

It seems a little weird, based on history, that the federal government has amassed so much power today.  I wouldn't expect that was intended, and the whole point of writing a federal constitution was to strictly limit that power, and if it wasn't enough to tell that government once that it was limited the first time around, the end of the Bill of Rights told everyone a second time.  Would the states really have ratified away most of their power, if that was their understanding of the Constitution?  I doubt it.

I don't know what you are considering to be 'the nation'.  Obviously people with power are rarely going to have interest in changing the status quo, and people in general are going to be apathetic on the question until it's brought to their doors and in their faces.  Such widespread apathy existed even at the time the American Revolution.  You probably could then have said of that era that 'the nation' was 'just fine' with whatever King and his minions have done.

[Konrad]

Allow me to rip one off ...

 
He's unstoppable, mwoohahahahahaaaaa

[EverythingIBM]

There's a lot who think obama/bush are basically the same.

[Ekaros]

I have long pondered the issue with USA and specialy the second amendment, if they are taking your rights to hold guns away do what you should and go take power, but no... Just keeping *****ing about things on internet won't solve anything...

I'm somewhat in content to subdue to my goverment atleast untill I get free education out of them, of course I think things should change, but...

[Ekaros]

Repeal?

Hah, first Health Care Reform, then Financial Reform, then face to face Israel/Palestine talks.

Let's see what did Bush ever do...... oh yeah, tax cuts for the rich.  That IS getting repealed.

Bush did do two "minor" and "short" wars...