who are the "majority of americans"?

The fear mongering is what bothers me the most. The irony is that the two groups used most as examples for fear tactics are doctors and retirees. Yet they are represented by the two organizations that have done the best job of dispelling the myths. The AMA and AARP both have excellent web sites trying to combat the myths about the bill both organizations support. I know they are saying that all seniors and all doctors do not support the stand of these groups. But come on, they are lobbies and we can be pretty sure they represnt the majority of their base. There's no such thing as a lobby that acts against it's own best interests. What I keep seeing is people taking one personal statistic and blowing it out of proportion to become some kind of demographic. I never knew so many people to have a Catholic friend (sister in law, neighbor etc.) It's like everybody has their own little token Catholic and that is supposed to be indicative of a major change. But the demographic is still that Catholics voted for Obama to a larger degree than the general population and I don't think one friend (cousin, sister in law etc) changes that.

The fear mongering and spread of misinformation continues today, and will continue for a long time unfortunately.

You are so correct ladybug...fear mongering is nothing new and is very effective because most people don't take the time to learn what the issues are. They'd rather be spoon fed soundbites and let others dictate what they think. It's so evident today with all the bs I keep seeing that is allegedly in the bill, yet isn't even though the OP states it as hard fact. I remember during the civil rights movement...I was a kid so I had an excuse for being stupid...people played on fear. End segregation and before you know it the black man will be stealing your job, moving in nextdoor to you and the value of your home will fall to the basement. They have diseases so you'll catch something from them! They'll rape your daughters and attack your sons in the streets. It was ugly...as ugly as it is right now. Meanwhile, black Americans marched with Dr. King and held rallies...while the white folks who were against them screamed. I am so, so ashamed of my Party right now and of so many people who are a part of it...and I've never felt this way in the 30+ years that I've been a Republican. I have no intention of backing down. The bill is not perfect but it's better than the alternative in my opinion...which was nothing.

Absolutely, we can all come up with a poll that supports our own arguments and I admit I like the ones that support my stand. BUT I think there is a huge difference between what a poll says and what the majority of the American population thinks. I don't think a smattering of 100 people in a polarized country counts for much and I really have problems with the folks that have a friend or acquaintence of a certain persuasion and think they can project that one person's personal opinion into a demographic. Unfortunately, right now that one person is often a Catholic acquaintence who hates healthcare reform and Obama because of abortion. I've heard so many of these stories and they sound so similar that I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't the same Catholic rattling around all over the place. If that were to be the case I know a Catholic that can wipe out that demographic - ME!

"The fact is that groups who oppose ANYTHING that Obama says can hire firms to conduct surveys with questions that they know the answer to." Just like the firms you referred to cherry-picked parts of the bill to sell people instead of giving them more specific details. The bill is over 2400 pages. Naming 3 "key parts" is an easy way to make a complete piece of garbage sound good. Would you buy a 4 bedroom house if the person selling it only showed you how pretty the front door was?

Ah, that's it then. They have a loose interpretation of "majority". lol I live in a very liberal part of a very blue state but even here I could go for a short walk and find enough Republican conservatives to slant a poll. But that still wouldn't change the demagraphic for the area. It would still be a very liberal area in a blue state.

I'm going to hop in here and talk off the top of my head a bit. You will probably have your argument worked and thought out well, X. I haven't but off the top of my head I like a loose interpretation of the General Welfare clause although I expect the pols are going to try to slip it through as similar to taxation. that does do it for me. At least not right now. I also don't think the states rights argument is a good one because I think this may very well go to the Supreme Court and I don't think that argument will be a big hit there. I want to say it will probably go through the same way that Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and welfare went through. I don't belief any of those things are specifically mentioned in the constitution. (Have to check to see if there was an amendment for SSA) This is a bit different because it requires payment and those programs do not (Again, SSA might be considered paid). At this point, I'd like to read what a good constitutional lawyer has to say about this but it would probably make my head spin. I'm still trying to plod through the damn bill and I've been cheating even there. I adnit I've been reading the web sites of AARP and AMA as if they were crib notes. Beeekie, I also think our healthcare system is a disgrace and I think the fact that this bill allows for people with pre-existing conditions to purchase healthcare is a major step forward. Frankly, I wish there were still a public clause but even without that I think it's a long overdue step in the right direction.

ok...maybe you can asnwer this, since you seem to be a pretty strong supporter of this bill. Tell me what it is you like about this bill, what it does to fix healthcare and cite the relevent text from the bill to support your beliefs. Also, please cite the relevent text in the constitution that allows the federal government to mandate each citizen purchase health insurance.

Massachusetts (my state, lovingly nicknamed Taxachusetts sometimes) mandated that everyone has health insurance a few years ago, or there will be tax penalties. THAT should have caused a large uproar. I mean, the average person simply cannot afford it if not through their job, and to get the MassHealth public care, you have to jump through hoop after hoop. Socialized health care is going to save a lot of lives, period.

I see. I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist although I have a good friend who is just that. He says I'm naive and I say he is paranoid. Probably we are both half right.lol To be honest with you I'm struggling to read through this bill and it is tough going. I've found a lot of reassurance on web sites for the AARP and the AMA. Allegedly doctors and retirees arethe most scared and will be the most hurt by this bill. But their powerful lobbies are supporting and explaining it and they seem to me to be doing a pretty good job of dispelling the myths and scare tactics out there. I do know that misconception abounds and in almost every case the reality is not so bad. In fact in some it's a pretty good bill as far as I can see. I live in a blue state (Pennsylvania) and we are pro healthcare reform in general. Especially those of us who live around Philadelphia and have seen huge increases in healthcare premiums to foot the bill for ER healthcare in teaching hospitsls for those without healthcare. (Most everybody gets sick sometimes). If Idaho is a red state that may play into how you view this but if you do take a look at the actual bill, I don't think you will feel that it is inconsistent with a democracy. The major problem people have is the forced payment by those who can afford to pay but I think that anybody who has seen ER bills for minor ailments in teaching hospitals might view that differently. We have not had a general hospital in the metropolitan area here for over 30 years and the hospitals we have are all state of the art and super expensive. Great for neurosurgery but not so great when the bill is $2,000 to pull a splinter and give an antibiotic.

You thought it would go through but you did not support it. What has you the most bummed out? If you can vocalize a little bit here. I'd be sincerely interested in what you have to say and what you think would be the best thing for your state. (Idaho, I believe) You are the first person I've come in contact with who was against the bill but has not tried to convince me that it was passing in spite of the wishes of the majority of Americans.

I do not listen to the news as much as I should. I have been hearing alot here and there about this new healthcare bill and it scares me! I am a strong advocate of the ongoing 'conspiracy theory'. I don't necessarily know specifics that I would be against in this bill just the fact that government has too much control over us as it is and i am very opposed to too much control. This is supposed to be a democracy.

I'm going to repeat myself here but I sort of have to. I know that a lot of people could not afford to go to Washington this weekend and I understand that. But a lot of people did not attend the rallies and marches of the 1960's and 70's for the same reason and there was still enough of a gathering to send a strong statement. I didn't see that here and if 75% of America is stronggly against this bill, it should be reflected. Also, I know there have been a number of pols and one of them was the NY times pol that found 66% of the population still supported the bill. If I raise that pol's results all I'll hear is how the Times is a left wing media paper and you can't believe anything they print. Still, I'm expected to take the statistics of the opposition as gossple truth when I don't see anything substantiating those pols. Let's face it, the country is polarized right now and those pols will be different everywhere you take them. X said that he found 4 out of 5 people where he is to be against this bill. It's a very different story in my area where many people have yard signs that say "Healthcare Reform Now" and they are supporting the Obama bill. It might be an entirely different story where you live. Bottom line to me is that Barack Obama was elected by a solid margin. No hanging chads. No recount.) I don't see where millions of those voters have suddenly jumped ship and abandonned him and frankly without that happening, I don't see how there can be a huge shift against this bill.

Whoa there. lol I know they are not anything like the protesters of the sixties becuause I was one of the protesters of the 60's (Maybe early 70"s). I think we had a tremendous impact on American society and we influenced the demographics of this country. That is exactly what I do not see in this opposition. I see people taking one Catholic vote or one small vocal protest and projecting it into a seismic change within society. When it comes to protest, I don't believe you can lay claim to to reflecting a major segment of America until you get past 500,000. Twenty five thousand people just doesn't do it. Close to 2 million people went to DC to watch the inaguration of the man the majority of those people voted for. Now, we are being asked to believe that a protest of 25,000 in the same city is indicative of a major rejection of that candidate. I just don't buy that.

It's how the pollster stated the questions. If you asked me am I in favor of health-care reform, I would have stated yes. If you asked me am I in favor of Obama Care, my answer would have been no. The majority who oppose the bill passed last night aren't anything like the protesters of the 60s. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Annie, Can't you just see Barack and Michelle peeking out of a White House window at the 25,000 protestors? Do you suppose they compare it to the crowds on Inauguration Day? When we marched against the war, I always used to look in the direction of the White House and wonder if the size of the crowd registered. To me numbers are important for protests and for elections. Not so much for Polls, especially when there are polls going both ways.

You know what, Mystic, normally I find the actual process of potitics distasteful (sometimes downright dirty in fact) but on the healthcare issue, I don't care how it got thru so long as it got thru. There has been too much suffering for way too long by too many Americans on this. The country that has the best medicine on the face of this earth has for the first time recognized the fact that it should serve its own people because THIS president was willing to risk his popularity and stake his entire presidency on one issue - healthcare reform.

For the record, they didn't end of using the "deem and pass" technique and the bill WAS passed by a majority of 60, it was just the few minor fixes that weren't. I'm with Irish - this was the right and the moral thing to do no matter how it was done! Annie

The way our current system works is that if a person making $75,000 per year has a prexisting condition, he or she CANNOT buy healthcare coverage. If that person requires somewhee in the vicinity of $70,000 in hospital care, they most definitely do qualify for medicaid. Under the new bill that person will no longer qualify for medicaid because they cannot be turned down because of a preexisting condition. Thus, the new bill will eliminate the taxpayer footing the bill for people who can afford to pay for their own coverage. How's that work for you?

Taskr, the only way a huge majority of the Amerian population would be not supporting this bill would be if a large chunk of the people who voted for Barack Obama crossed to the other side and I do NOT see that that has happened. The AARP is a powerful lobby and as such it would make no sense whatsoever to lobby against themselves for a meagre $18,000. Are you saying that ONLT\Y 17% of doctors have a lobby? Who speaks for the rest of them and are they fighting against this bill? If they are I haven't heard about them and it would certainly give credence to your argument so where are they? You are a very vague here as far as I'm concerned. The majority of Americans are "those of us that believe in and respect the constitution and don't want a government forcing us to buy health care" What are your numbers and who are you? This tells me absolutely nothing. You are claiming to represent the majority of the population of this country and I'm supposed to accept that on your word with no demographic support whatsoever. I've heard a lot about that Rasmussen poll but I don't accept that it is the end all and every newspaper poll that says different is liberal media crap because itdoes not support your argument.

I don't know what you mean by "crossed to the other side". In case you missed it, a fair number of democrats oppose this bill. Some people who like Obama disagree with his policies. "The AARP is a powerful lobby and as such it would make no sense whatsoever to lobby against themselves for a meagre $18,000." It's $18 MILLION, not thousand and they will profit directly from this bill as they profit from insurance sales and the unconstitutional mandate guarantees an increase in sales. The $18 million was more of a down payment for their support. Why else would they get stimulus dollars, meant to create jobs, when they didn't create a single job with $18 million? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/29/ginny-brown-waite/aarp-insurance-health-reform-conflict/ "Who speaks for the rest of them and are they fighting against this bill? If they are I haven't heard about them and it would certainly give credence to your argument so where are they?" Here are some, reportedly a third may quit due to the passage of this bill. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/62812 "I've heard a lot about that Rasmussen poll but I don't accept that it is the end all" Well it is consistently the most accurate poll, but if you'd like a second and third poll than here you go. Quinnipac and Gallup have never been accused of being biased against democrats to my knowledge. Both are actually more favorable to democrats most of the time. http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Favor-Oppose-Obama-Healthcare-Plan.aspx http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1413 You asked who the masses were that opposed this bill. I can't name and describe every individual that opposes this crap so I gave you an example of people who oppose it. People who believe in and respect the constitution support the 10th amendment and acknowledge that this violates it.

"a majority actually support the key features of the legislation" Yeah, by "key features" they mean the good parts. You show them a few lines out of a 2400+ page bill, leave out the bribes, unconstitutional mandates, tax hikes, etc. and all is good right? That's like telling someone they could get a free scooter without telling them they'd have to be a paraplegic. A free scooter sounds great!

Actually, X it may depend on where you and are are talking to people about this. You may be from an area of the country that is against the bil lbut I am from an area that supports it and my personal experience is that almost everybody is for it here. But the question remains, where do most people stand? It seems to me that Obama's election is an indicator that at one time most Americans wanted healthcare reform because we elected a president who promised it. And now I'm hearing that as many as 75% of Americans are against it. That means there was a huge exodus to the other side and I see no indication of that personally or in the media. You say that people who are for the bill speak in generalities. I think people who are against the bill use fear tactics and untruths to bolster their side. I make no claims to have read the whole thing yet but I'm taking stabs at it and I know for certain that there was never a threat of euthanasia or 50% loss of senior benefits. People won't have healthcare rationed any more than they now do by carriers. In fact millions who are now forced to go without coverage because of prexisting conditions will now have coverage. He's doing what I elected him to do. I was just pointing out how odd it is for this babyboomer to now be a part of a silent majority. It seems weird but I don't really mind too much because I don't have anything much to protest. I supported this bill (Like to see a public clause but can't get everything I guess), my area of the country supported it and all of our congressmen and senators seem to be voting the way we want them to vote.

"He's doing what I elected him to do" So, are you saying you elected him to assume powers not enumerated in the constitution? Including continuing many of the unconstitutional things Bush did? You elected him to transform our libertarian republic in to a centralized empire with subserviant states? Im totaly serious in asking this, is this really what you wanted him to do?

I'm not a liberatarian but that doesn't exactly make me a socialist. I don't think he is usurping powers from the states. I think the federal mandates supercede state mandates on a number of issues. I could point to taxes but I have a feeling you are not in favor of that federal right either. At any right, I hear that a numerber of states are planning a law suit reegarding states right vs federal supremacy. I think most constitutional lawyers would label it a nuisance lawsuit without a chance of holding up but we'll have to see. Isn't this an issue that we fought a civil war over and didn't Lincoln save the union and insure the supremacy of federal law?

I don't doubt it and agree with everybody on this thread who thinks (as I do) that you can get a poll to support anything. Unfortunately, some folks take them as gospel truth. I admit that I prefer the ones that support my arguments but I don't believe any of them actually prove anything conclusively.

Of course you can get a poll to say anything you want it to. That's why I actually talk to the people themselves. Since I'm relatively new in the area - been here six months - I do not know beforehand what the people around here support. I talk to people at the local post office, grocery store, or since it's getting to be spring, at the greenhouse near us. So far, out of the folks I've encountered, about two out of ten are for the healthcare bill.

I'm not sorry, I'm glad that I voted for him. More than ever I feel, it was the right choice. The polls have now changed dramatically. Why is that? I expect it has something to do with people actually reading the bll. I did. Inspite of the scare tactic that it was unreadable - spread by it's opponents. It is something ANY American of average intellegience can get through just fine (Was easy for me sincece I used to be a Commonwealth of PA caseworker and I've seen a lot sorse)Many people have read througn that bill and now know that the oppositition has been spreading a real load of BS. When have I known the gov to take over a business a run it well? When they took over the post office which in spite of all the recent problems is STILL the best run and cheapest wa yt to ship in this country. How do I know? I'm a small business person and I've used them all but I swear by USPS. Furthermore, my uncle's family at one point owned most of the post offices in souther NJ before the gov take over and I STILL believe that the government has done a better jog of it.

You are just one person who's for Obama. That's hardly a majority. How can you say the post office is successful when it's operating in the red?

I've never heard anyone say Obama's health care bill is unreadable. What I'm hearing is that no one is making the effort to read it and thus have no idea what they've voted for or against. That's being irresponsible, particularly when everyone in the nation will be affected by the bill. At least the Republicans read enough of the bill to know it was unacceptable based on most people's values. I'm proud of them for voting against the bill. What polls are you looking at. There was a small increase on Sunday, but Obama's numbers have been going down since then. Besides that, since the bill has already been made law, why is Obama still campaigning for it? You mentioned scare tactics; well, you should be scared now that Congress has passed this bill. I'm really hoping someone other than Democrats win in the November elections so Congress can revisit this bill and try to come up with something that's fair for everyone.

How am I putting people into boxes? Catholics DID vote for Obama by a higher percentage than the general population. the AARP DDOES support this bill as does the AMA. That's not putting people in boxes. It's just stating facts. The fact that ALL of the people in those groups didn't support the bill or Obama's election doesn't change those facts. My major point here is that I don't see where Mylots are coming up with statements that 75% (or even a substantial majority) of the population is aginst this bill. I could say that the NY Times ran a poll that indicated 66% of their test group still supported healthcare reform but everyody would start lecturing me about how the NY Times is nothing but left wing media and can't be counted. Well, why should I count these figures I'm hearing on Mylot when I look out and get an entirely different picture. You say a lot of people couldn't afford to attend the weekend rallies. Of course they couldn't and I understand that but the truth is a lot of people couldn't afford to attend the rallies of the 70's and did not attend them for that very reason. There was still attendence huge enough to send a powerful message and I just don't see that here.

I saw a lot of polls from a lot of different place. They were all over the place. Most I saw were 55%-60% against. some as high as 75%. I saw very few that shows the majority were for it. You have to take polls with a grain of salt. It depends on who they call and in what areas. People can be completely in favor of health reform....but not like the bill that congress puts out. And that is what you saw. They want....just not the way congress wants to do it. Some that were against the bill thought the government was going too far...some against it did not think it went far enough. But they were still against it. 38 states are now filing lawsuits over it....so that tells you something right there.

Oh X, I'm really dissappointed in this reponse. You're basing your opposition to my oppinion on a Wall Street Journal interview? Wow, I would definitely have expected better from you. Especially since I can think of reporters that went to jail during the Vietnam era to save our basic freedoms. The damn Wall street Journal was definitely not theiremployer. How very sad that a person who is a strict consittutionalist would base his entire argument on a Wall Street Journal interview. Please tell me this was just a temporary lapse on your part.

Irisheyes, there is something I think you should read. the Wallstreet Journal interviewed Col. Bui Tin, a commander in the North Vietnamese army a number of years after the war. A couple key questions asked and the answer's given are pretty chilling. I think it is important you read them. Here are the most relevent form the interview.... WSJ: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?Col. tin: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us. WSJ: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits? Col. Tin: Keenly. WSJ: Why? Col. tin: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win. and at the end of the interview he solidifies the idea that the protesters affected the congressional control over the war which led to our disasterous and bloody defeat... WSJ: What else? Col. Tin: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

These kind of comments always bug me. What relevance does the fact it was a WSJ interview have? None. Everything that Col. Bui Tin said in the interview can be substantiated from other sources. It's not a big secret. Yet you are claiming what exactly? Since the WSJ did the interview, he must be wrong? Here's a thought. Let's debate the substance, not the source. Can you, or can you not, prove the statements by Col. Bui Tin false? If not, then I suggest the statements are true. If they are therefore true, then what relevance does the fact WSJ did the interview have? The CDEC cover sheet of the "Directive" indicates it was "acquired" on May 12, 1971. The cover sheet itself is dated June 30, 1971, and is entitled "VC Efforts to Back Antiwar Demonstrations in the United States." It shows a detailed knowledge of such VVAW activities as the Dewey Canyon demonstration on the Mall in Washington in April 1971, mentioning the "return of their medals." And the Saigon American military intelligence cover sheet dates the information in that document as being assembled in Vietnam only a week after the Washington VVAW demonstration had taken place. http://www.nysun.com/national/hanoi-approved-of-role-played-by-anti-war-vets/3756/ So documents captured in Vietnam, translated to English, specifically talk about VC efforts to support anti-war morons in the US. Do you need more sources? The documents are held at Texas Tech University at Lubbock, and have been authenticated. So with all due respect, either prove the capture documents, and the testimony from those in the VC, are all wrong, or spare us the "WSJ oh no!" stuff. Debate the facts, or accept them.

You've made some excellent points, Bob. I would agree that there are some folks who are opposed to the bill as proposed but not necessarily against healthcare reform. However, I don't think that most of them were the people who voted for Barack Obama and he did get the majority of the vote. I would also agree that some people were turned off by the politics of it. I'm almost always turned off by the deal making. But again, I don't think many of the people who voted for Barack Obama were turned off enough to form a mass exodus to the other side. I don't see where that is reflected other then in the polls being circulated here on Mylot. Frankly, if my New York Times poll doesn't count for anything here because of where it comes from, I don't see why all these anonymous polls should count for anything. This country is so polarized right now that is is easier than ever to trend anything with a poll. If it looks funny, smells funny and acts funny, it's probably just politics and unfortunatly, that's the way it works.

ah yes but maybe us shapeshifters will make it into the voting booth in November...

I think it's a little iffy on the doctors. Taskr has already established the fact that 17,000 or so of them support the bill and I'm not sure about the rest. Also don't the tea party folks, the Republicans and some of the Independents overlap? and some of the Independents are on the other side. Where were you shapeshifters two Novembers ago? If you were a majority then, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yeah, but you're not real and neither is the rest of those people you mentioned because we all know that the majority supports this bill regardless of a complete lack of facts to back that up.

A recent poll from newsweek claims that people are only against this bill when they do not know what is actually in it. When they learn what's there, most of them realize that they actually support it. Scare tatics worked up to a point but they are now not working so well.

Depends what you mean by "cherry pick parts." If you mean plodding through the bill and finding good things and more important NOT finding anything that substantiates fear mongering then that's what I mean by learning what's there. If you mean finding parts while cherrypicking like the prohibition of pre-existing clauses and the medical loss ratio rebates that make sense to a lot of us, that also what I mean by learning what's there. It's a long bill and not a page turner but a lot of those pages are indexes and can be leaed through and the pages are small. I worked for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for almost ten years so I'm used to those set ups and so are a lot of other people. We can get through the bill with some perserverance and make some sense of it. so can a lot of congressmen. I don't think anybody who has read through the bill fears it. Just for the record, I'm almost through it and I still support it.

By "learn what's there" you mean cherry-picked parts of the bill that make it seem good. I don't know one person who has actually combed through that bill and read it that supports it.

No argument here, Ambie. Maybe we should all sit back and cool our heels a bit at this point and see what changes are made. Unfortunately, I have a sneaky feeling that the Health insurers and their lobbies might do away with or change my favorite section of the bill.

Well, I seem to have pretty good company here in LALA Land. Don't I? The American doctors represented by the AMA and all the senior citizens represented by the AARP are here with me. As are most of the Democratic party and the folks who voted for Barack Obama who were and as far as I can tell still are the majority of Americans. Do you even know what rationed care is? It's what every private provider in this country now gives and the only major change coming is that those unfortunate souls with a pre existing condition can no longer be rationed into a grave. That actually makes me very happy.

Oh, lookie...another fear tactic! It really says something when folks have to resort to lies and deception. What part of the bill covers rationing care Fortunata?

I said "personally" (about firing), and yes that is an small exaggeration. But we really need to let all of our representatives from the president to the local arena that "We the people" no longer will allow this type of behavior. Don't tell me we don't have the right to expect some moral and honest behavior from them. They are NOT elected for life, so for the few years that they are in a representative position of our nation with all the perks and power that goes with it, they should be able to at least fake it. You say it isn't democratic or constitutional. Actually it is. Our constitution is the only one on this planet that allows us to do just that without overthrowing the government. Read it, it tells all of us that it is OUR duty to do just that. I like parts of the bill, most of us do. It is the parts in it that I, and others, dislike is why I am against this particular bill passing. It needed a lot more work on it! I especially do not like the "How" this particular bill got where it is, plus some of the things that are in it (and if you read previous writing you know a few of those). How will it impact me personally? In some ways favorably. I had a heart attack with no medical coverage, so I can personally attest to that side of it. But it doesn't matter. I love this country. As a woman I have rights here that I wouldn't get anywhere else in the world. I believe we have a lot to fix, starting with dishonest politicians at all levels. I believe that part of it could be improved greatly if "We the people" do as our Constitution directs us to do, and that by doing so would greatly cut back on politicians being synonymous with lying, thieving, bribe taking, being unduly influenced by big business .. etc. We cannot get something good for the country as a whole if it is unduly being slanted to where the money is. You say there is nothing to "scare" anyone about the bill and that is why those of us opposed are "focusing on the Constitutionality of forced healthcare. Besides the concept that it might destroy the Constitution (I do consider that scary), you don't think that 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of benefits plus new taxes and penalty's don't bother you? That actually nothing is done to actually decrease the cost of health insurance premiums (people cannot afford them as it is or would have, what makes you think a fine at a time when jobs are hard to get, people are still losing their homes, still laid off but their unemployment ran out, the cost of getting an education skyrocketed, the outlook for our kids having anywhere near what we have when they grow up is not going to happen, etc .. that list is a whole different "blog"). That nothing is in there that addresses the cost of health care delivery .. and much more .. this stuff doesn't bother you? Summarizing, there is a lot too wrong with this to just pass without more work on it. The way it was passed was WRONG and disgraceful. Bribery (be it water, money, etc), being written behind closed doors, and much more. Plus the added concept that it might just break our Constitution worries me greatly. (Another personal note, how can anyone NOT have lost any respect for Pres. Obama and the rest for the way this was passed?)