tell that to the folks still looking for a job

W put a down payment on the financial woes of this country in general. He ignored everything and everyone. Tossed out $600 checks to stimulate the economy. then got himself into not 1 but 2 endless wars. Wars that he refused to have financed by the normal annual means but by emergency spending every couple of months. making his annual budget look lean and mean. In reality it was just mean to try and fool us.

Article I Section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
That wasn't W.

yes it was. The request for the money comes in the form of the federal budget. WHen the executive dept intentionally fudges about what they need money for it most certainly is theri problem. But then I'd be arguing that the color orange is really not a color but a manifestation of light hitting the rods and cones coating the retina.

Emergency spending was requested quarterly from the W administration to support the war. Its nice to know how things financial start in congress. Its also nice to know that federal depts must request money from congress as part of the budget. Neglecting to ask for money was intentional and also made the budget look lean. The emergency spending is no more than what Obama is doing now. The only difference is that Obama doesnt expect Americans to be so easily fooled by past tactics. Its called being honest. He so far budget wise appears to be so

W put a down payment on the financial woes of this country in general. He ignored everything and everyone. Tossed out $600 checks to stimulate the economy. then got himself into not 1 but 2 endless wars. Wars that he refused to have financed by the normal annual means but by emergency spending every couple of months. making his annual budget look lean and mean. In reality it was just mean to try and fool us.

The results mean that workers at 11 plants representing 16,300 United Auto Workers union members have turned down the deal, compared with approvals at 4 facilities with 6,100 employees. Ford has 41,000 workers represented by the UAW, whose leaders negotiated the accord.

“This never happens. It’s a vote of no confidence in the bargaining committee and a vote of no confidence in Ford,” said Gary Chaison, a labor professor at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. “To reject a collective agreement at a time of economic difficulty is really a sign of desperation and anger.”

Ford, the only major U.S. automaker to avoid bankruptcy, is seeking concessions similar to those secured this year by General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC. The contract changes include a six-year ban on strikes over wages and benefits and freezing wages of new hires until 2015.

Ford has said it needs the concessions to ensure that it doesn’t have a labor-cost disadvantage against GM and Chrysler, which also unloaded debt and closed plants as part of their restructuring in court.

Chaison said Ford may consider dropping the no-strike clause as a sweetener or adding some other inducement to get a positive result in a new round of balloting.

The automaker’s other option is to punish the UAW by making promised products in Canada or Mexico instead of the U.S., said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“Where we will see the result of this failure is in a product announcement -- moving some business out that had been planned here,” he said.

when I calculated this out I found that the cost is abot $3000 a year which currently I pay 1/3 or so and the business I work for pays teh remainder. So basically I would have the same insurance as I had before. I want everyone to have at least what I have so lets do this. screw the numbers. We've thrown ourselves into Iraq without taking into account nor caring about the cost. It's about time we did something to level the playing field with the rest of the world on healthcare. American companies need this. We Need this.

"It's not free. ... Someone's going to have to pay for it and you bet it's going to be the taxpayer." --Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on the "public option"

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled an $894 billion health care takeover bill Thursday; the Congressional Budget Office puts the cost at $1.055 trillion. The bill, a combination of three separate committee bills, should be light reading for our nation's lawmakers, though -- it weighs in at a scant 1,990 pounds, er, pages.

there are several reasons for vaccines being in short supply.
1) very few Companies make the vaccine. making the vaccine is time consuming and expensive to produce. thereby making it not very cost effective(zero gain) for companies that do produce it.
2) didease control scientists making their best guess at which 3 viruses they should produce vaccine for. unfortunately, some years the scientists strikeout and the vaccine is useless Funny thing is that even though we had this happen a few years ago, there was a barrage of ads to get that shot. A shot that did nothing.

The Smashing Pumpkins suggests swine flu "is not a naturally occurring virus," and that "President Obama has declared a national emergency" when "there isn’t one"

After 30 years of destructive deregulation--
we NEED more goverment (re)involvment in MANY areas...

just remember that by owning it it means that we are taking control of it ourselves. Remember that we are the Gov't much to the folks in DC's dismay. So I'd rather have a universal health care as an option.
Honesty I just did my annual insurance renewal at work yesterday and they've increase the cost and reduced services again. the only thing that got better was the generic prescription cost which dropped from $10 to $5. unfortunately this becomes moot when you consider many pharmacies are selling major name generics at $4. My non generics went from $30 to $35. They also listened to my complaints about "non formalary drugs" drugs that are being used as intended but not what they want me to use. they changed the legal name to "non-Preferred"... Jerks.

The powers of congress are laid out in the constitution (article 1, section 8). All other powers are reserved to the states (Amendment X).

It could be argued that a national healthcare plan is a regulation of commerce between the States, Healthcare is a commercial enterprise afterall. Would that qualify such a proposal under the enumerated powers of Congress?

Regulate

to control or direct by a rule, principle, method

To control a commercial enterprise that spans the several states does appear to be implicit in the language of Article 1 Section 8, or am I willfully misreading it? "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;", surely the most control of commerce is achieved by owning the enterprise?

At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution. The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution? That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not." --George Mason economics professor Walter E. Williams

the reason they made so many things vague is that they were not able to see the future. They also knew that we'd have to have a bit of breathing room with the document. Had they not wanted people to have something it would have been enumerated.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
http://tinyurl.com/RepuglycansSuck

So you've made my point for me. Congress is allowed to create universal healthcare since it must be provided uniformly and the whole Universal health care arguement is to provide healthcare uniformly. Thanks for the help!!!