"Congress Shall Make no Law Where One's Income is Used Against Him or Her"

The following was in response to this article from Dennis Kucinich, called "Why I Voted No," which was his explanation as to why he was one of only two sometimes progressive Democratic Representatives who voted no for the house health legislation, known as House bill 3962, which will be reconciled with what the Senate passes in this continuing horror show.

Well if unconstitutional garbage like this is going to be the new standard, than a new constitutional amendment is needed: Congress shall make no law where one's income is used against him or her.

Because the way it is now, if your income is low but not near or below the poverty line (if specifically it is from about 133% to 500% of poverty especially, which is many millions of people and families) you are going to be taken to the barnyard for a good fleecing of what little you have by your government and by the insurance company fat cats. Whereas if your income is ultra low, below 133% of poverty, you are off the hook: no new requirements to buy something you can't afford, and no new taxes for you.

So between this new abomination and the fact that you can't get a decent job if you don't already have one anyway, have we gone around in one big circle in the last 30 years and will we now see the return of the non or slightly working, extremely low income, but Cadillac driving, mink coat wearing, welfare drawing, food stamp drawing, heating assistance drawing, rent assistance drawing, lots of leisure time enjoying, and now no health insurance mandate Queens that Reagan spoke about? Probably so, since avoiding the health insurance mandate will be more than enough incentive for their return, laugh out loud.

Silly Americans, health care economics is for the serious and the successful, not for you.

[That boy got really nasty at the end, laugh out loud.]

This guy was annoyed with your humble host...

Broadway Carl November 8th, 2009 3:12 pm
"...Cadillac driving, mink coat wearing, welfare drawing, food stamp drawing, heating assistance drawing, rent assistance drawing, lots of leisure time enjoying, and now no health insurance mandate Queens that Reagan spoke about"

Way to go on expanding the debate. Yes, I'm sure living on the dole in a crappy apartment in a dangerous neighborhood is the new American dream.

UNITY-PROGRESS RESPONSE
Esquire??? Obama accomplishments????? LOL!

Seriously, all of those "accomplishments" cited by the authoritative(???) Esquire Magazine (lol at "Esquire" again) don't amount to a bag of chips. Roughly half of them have not even happened, although it was announced that they were to happen, lol again.

And, the point was, in Obama's post apocalyptic America, it will be indisputably better to be dirt poor income wise, assuming of course you have enough wealth or enough in kind benefits to cover basic necessities, which is indeed doable, (more easily doable in small towns than in big cities incidentally, so the neighborhood may actually be quite nice) than to be simultaneously a lower income wage slave working the hind end off, and at the same time a slave to the multimillionaire insurance executives.

How sweet (no, how disgusting, actually) the irony that a "black man" brought us slavery to the ultra wealthy insurance execs. The wonders never cease, lol.