That's more or less the message that I believe this recent ruling sends. I believe it is anti-democratic, anti-republican and completely contrary to the political theory outlined in the Constitution.

The question I believe we should seek to answer is whether the United States is really a democracy or whether it is actually a plutocratic oligarchy masquerading as one. While I love this country and am a firm believer in the democratic vision set forth in our founding documents, I am deeply troubled by the direction we're heading. I believe that we need dramatic and fundamental change if we are to rescue our democratic republic from the hands of the special interests which are poisoning our politics and corroding our institutional structures.

In essence, then, the battle cry has transmogrified from being one of, "No taxation without representation!", to one of, "No representation without contribution!"

This does raise the question as to whether the US is actually a sovereign state any more; or just a loose melange of corporate state-lets and bought-n-paid-for special interest groups masquerading as government?

Viva la Cartels? Libre la Lobbyists?

Man, I can't wait until episode 8... O_O

"First of all, YOU do not define the difference between "government-run healthcare" and "government-run healthcare Insurance." If the government gets in the business of providing healthcare insurance - think Medicare - it is in the business of controlling healthcare, i.e. dictating reimbursements to healthcare providers. So, let's hear your distinction between the two terms."

I do define the difference between "government-run healthcare" and "government-run healthcare insurance." It was the entire point of the second half of the piece. You just don't believe there is a significant difference between the two. That's where you're wrong.

Government run healthcare is the administration of healthcare by government employees. This means the government administrates the hospital, hires doctors, decides treatment, manages the budget, etc. Dictating reimbursements is not government running healthcare. By your definition Aetna is running healthcare. Aetna decides whether or not to fund your treatment, but they do not administer care. That is the difference I'm making. Those who protest government run healthcare are yelling in a room alone. They think the government will start making decisions about their health (when to get checked, where, and by whom) -- "getting in between you and your doctor." Remember that line? Remember when FactCheck.org debunked it? The closest thing to government run healthcare outside of communism and the VHA is the single-payer system which is not in the bill.

"Second, yoohoo, in case you haven't heard, Medicare is BROKE, not to mention, and, perhaps, because it is riddled with fraud. The other government-run entitlement program, Social Security, is BROKE!"

I know. That's why we're trying to fix it.

"Did you know that when I was growing up, there was no such thing as The Dept. of Education?"

Ehh, I don't know... Sure, the Department of Education was creating in 1979, but before that it was compartmentalized in the Department of Health and Human Services (aptly named the "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare" prior to 1979). The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was founded in 1953 as part of the Reorganization Plan Number 1 of 1953. That's 56 years ago. Let's say you graduated high school when you were 18. That would mean you would have to be 74 in order to have not gone to school while there was a cabinet level education bureau. All of this is pointless, of course, because public schools in the U.S. started in the early 1800s.

"Name ONE thing the creation of this huge, bureaucratic agency, with all its mandates, has done to improve education. Dare you."

1) financial aid

"And now you want the feds to essentially take over healthcare, oh, excuse me, healtcare insurance??"

A public healthcare option is hardly taking over healthcare and it's only sufficient that the government plan runs the private industry out of business, not necessary. In other words, you're employing the slippery slope logical fallacy. Prove to me, without a doubt, that the government run option will run all other health insurance providers out of business. Your own argument works against this claim. If the government is only capable of providing shitty programs and services, then why would everyone jump ship and enroll in the new plan?

You seem displeased with the way government handles its bureaucracy. Guess what? I am too. But instead of dismissing it as lost, I'm looking for ways to fix. And although the American education system is far from perfect, I shiver at the thought of corporations administering all education in the country. By the way, Finland's primary and secondary education system is acclaimed as the best in the world and they're system is more socialized than ours. Do I want to eliminate private schools? No. Private enterprise is why we have the best university system in the world. Government is also why we have the best university system in the world as well. Tuition at public universities like OU and OSU is largely subsidized, thus granting more people access. It's the combination of both a public and private sector that makes America strong.

I don't want socialism. I don't want laissez-faire capitalism. I want a mix. Why? Because there are certain industries that contain an inherent conflict of interest. Healthcare insurance is one of them. Blue Cross Blue Shield is trying to make a profit. To do that, they must cut costs. This means finding out ways to weasel out of paying for claims. This is a large problem that can be solved by introducing a competitor that doesn't seek profits. There are other ways, but this is the best way to insure insurance companies operate ethically. Their survival depends on it.

I'll have to research the "War on Poverty" at a later time. This response post is too long as it is.

The thing that bugs me the most is all the earmarks and pork put into this. I thought this was some of the stuff that was supposed to stop with this group in congress? Where is the "transparency" we heard so much about? These are not the people we voted for. There is a reason that less than 40% of the country wants this mess.