The Big Lie About Deficit Reduction and Taxing the Rich

Following up on my post about Health Insurance Companies and Executive pay, I thought I would take a look at another liberal meme related to “the rich” and the budget deficit. This takes one of three forms: the rich are tax dodgers who use loopholes and other “tricks” to get out of paying taxes, the rich do not pay their “fair share” and can afford to pay more, or the Bush tax cuts, especially for the rich, are what are causing our large deficits. I’ll tackle each of these in turn.

Refer to the chart below. It gives revenue data from the IRS for 2009 (the most current year available). I have broken the data up into three income classes: poor, middle, and rich. The “rich” are classified as making $200k and above in adjusted gross income (AGI). The poor are classified as making $25k or less and the middle making everything in between. (Click on the chart to see it full size.)


The first complaint about “the rich” is that they use accounting tricks, loopholes, and down right criminal actions to dodge paying their taxes. Actual IRS reporting of the taxes paid by people making over $200k AGI shows this to be completely false. Let’s look at two concrete proofs.

Look at the column under Income Tax labeled “As Percent of AGI”. This is the actual tax paid as a percent of AGI. Note that EVERY income bracket pays less in actual tax percent of AGI than the tax bracket they are in. But “the rich” pay far more than any other class overall. Moreover, when looking at the gap between actual percent of tax paid versus tax bracket, “the rich” are much less “tricky” in reducing their tax liability than any other income group. Clearly, “the rich” are not evading paying taxes.

Even more conclusive is the column under Taxable Returns labeled “As Percent of Returns in AGI Category”. This is the actual returns that had payable tax as a percent of all returns filed in the income bracket. EVERY “rich” income bracket has payable tax on greater than 99% of the tax returns filed. The percentages drop dramatically from there. Clearly, the rich are not using accounting tricks to avoid having any tax on their income.

So, it is a lie to say that “the rich” are avoiding paying their taxes. But are they paying their fair share of taxes? We turn to that charge next.

As noted above, “the rich” pay between 19 and 26% of their AIG in taxes – far more than any other income bracket. But what is their overall contribution? Just because they pay a “larger” share of income doesn’t mean it is a proportional share compared to the revenue burden carried by the other classes?

Look at the following columns. Under Total Returns, look at “As Percent of Total Returns”. Under Income Tax, look at “As Percent of Total Revenue”.

The first column shows what percent the tax filers are in a particular income bracket or class of the total tax filing population. “The rich” make up roughly 3% of all tax filers.

The second column shows what percent the taxes paid are of total revenue. “The rich” paid roughly 50% of all taxes (actually, just over 50%).

The standard way of putting this is “the rich” make up only 3% of the tax payers but pay over 50% of the taxes. Put another way, a very small minority of tax payers bear more than 50% of the tax burden. Is that fair? It is a very subjective question. But by any measure, it is very clear that “the rich” pay a significant “share” of taxes. Their “share” of the tax burden is enormous. In fact, their “share” constitutes “most” of the taxes paid.

Conversely, the poor make up 42% of tax payers but their “share” of the tax burden is only 1%. Is that fair? Again, it is a subjective question.

Moving on to those evil Bush tax cuts. Another claim is that the ballooning deficit is due primarily to these reductions in tax rates for middle and upper income tax payers. We will see in a moment exactly what that impact is, but let’s deal with the cuts first.

The tax cuts provided a 5% reduction for most low income earners, a 3% reduction for most middle income earners, and a 4.6% reduction for most upper income earners. In theory, these cuts were to be offset by increased economic activity and therefore, essentially, they would pay for themselves. This is classic supply side economics. There is no direct way to really measure if they did in fact pay for themselves, although general income tax revenues went up each year from 2003-2007. At best, we can probably say only that the impact, if negative at all, was only slightly so.

In general, it is at best unfair and at worst a complete lie to say that “the rich” are avoiding paying taxes, don’t pay their fair share of taxes, or benefited to the detriment of the country from the Bush tax cuts. Even still, our annual budget deficits are out of control. Surely if the rich (and to a lesser extent all other tax payers) were taxed more we would be able to bring our budget into balance, wouldn’t we? Let’s see. Please refer to the last three columns in the chart where I analyze the impact of two revenue increase scenarios on the budget deficit.

The column labeled “Eliminate Bush Tax Cuts” looks at the revenue increase if we adopted Presidents Obama’s approach during the budget debates of 2010 and eliminated the bush tax cuts for the middle and upper income brackets. What I have done is increased revenue in the “middle” class by 3% and the “rich” class by 4.6% to approximate the effect. The total reduction in the deficit brought about by this increase in revenue would be $400B. That is a pretty big number, until you realize the deficit in 2009 was $1.41T. So, the Presidents proposal would only cut the deficit by apx. 28%.

The next column labeled “All Pay ‘Fair Share’” takes an even more drastic approach, at least for the lower and upper classes.

For the lower class, I increased their tax rate another 1%. Considering the majority of “the poor” pay zero in taxes (only 25% percent of filers have any tax payable) and the most any of them pay of AGI is about 1%, I think this is only fair. After all, how can $0 be considered a “share” of anything, let alone a fair share.

For “the rich”, I doubled what they pay. That means that most people earning over $200k AGI would be paying just under HALF of every dollar they make to the government (and getting little to nothing in return for it). Is that fair? I certainly don’t think so, but, after all, they can afford it so why not.

What is the impact of this “fair” revenue collection? The total reduction in the deficit brought about by this increase in revenue would be $758B. Now we’re talking! Yet that still only reduces the deficit by a little more than half. In fact, in order to eliminate the deficit through revenues, you would have to increase tax rates on the rich by more than 3 times their current level to roughly 77% of AGI, a level that even socialist, nanny state Sweden would be ashamed of.

What is the moral of this story? Our deficit is NOT A REVENUE PROBLEM. The reason the deficit is out of control is we are spending way too much. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts won’t solve it. Heck, even imposing ridiculous tax rates on “the rich” and making “the poor” pay way more than they ever have won’t do it. Unless we significantly reduce our spending, we will never have a balanced budget in this country and each year we will get closer and closer to being the Greece of the Western Hemisphere.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">Following up on my post about Health Insurance Companies and Executive pay, I thought I would take a look at another liberal meme related to “the rich” and the budget deficit. This takes one of three forms: the rich are tax dodgers who use loopholes and other “tricks” to get out of paying taxes, the rich do not pay their “fair share” and can afford to pay more, or the Bush tax cuts, especially for the rich, are what are causing our large deficits. I’ll tackle each of these in turn. <br /><span class="fullpost"> <br />Refer to the chart below. It gives revenue data from the IRS for 2009 (the most current year available). I have broken the data up into three income classes: poor, middle, and rich. The “rich” are classified as making $200k and above in adjusted gross income (AGI). The poor are classified as making $25k or less and the middle making everything in between. (Click on the chart to see it full size.) <br /> <br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz97Ua1PBdN-HLpB__qzNN502w_L9GObh8Yan8PDQHqmRciIDiIil6MYelbW0MzUvh3vrtiTdjwW7Y2qEl0dDlQ8Cn8gIzdSU7RaCezrDYep7D11hD0-8Yh_IsT2TvWMTJpoAKawMgwz8H/s1600/Tax+By+AGI.GIF" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" target="_blank"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5642256808693742258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz97Ua1PBdN-HLpB__qzNN502w_L9GObh8Yan8PDQHqmRciIDiIil6MYelbW0MzUvh3vrtiTdjwW7Y2qEl0dDlQ8Cn8gIzdSU7RaCezrDYep7D11hD0-8Yh_IsT2TvWMTJpoAKawMgwz8H/s400/Tax+By+AGI.GIF" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" /></a> <br />The first complaint about “the rich” is that they use accounting tricks, loopholes, and down right criminal actions to dodge paying their taxes. Actual IRS reporting of the taxes paid by people making over $200k AGI shows this to be completely false. Let’s look at two concrete proofs. <br /> <br />Look at the column under Income Tax labeled “As Percent of AGI”. This is the actual tax paid as a percent of AGI. Note that EVERY income bracket pays less in actual tax percent of AGI than the tax bracket they are in. But “the rich” pay far more than any other class overall. Moreover, when looking at the gap between actual percent of tax paid versus tax bracket, “the rich” are much less “tricky” in reducing their tax liability than any other income group. Clearly, “the rich” are not evading paying taxes. <br /> <br />Even more conclusive is the column under Taxable Returns labeled “As Percent of Returns in AGI Category”. This is the actual returns that had payable tax as a percent of all returns filed in the income bracket. EVERY “rich” income bracket has payable tax on greater than 99% of the tax returns filed. The percentages drop dramatically from there. Clearly, the rich are not using accounting tricks to avoid having any tax on their income. <br /> <br />So, it is a lie to say that “the rich” are avoiding paying their taxes. But are they paying their fair share of taxes? We turn to that charge next. <br /> <br />As noted above, “the rich” pay between 19 and 26% of their AIG in taxes – far more than any other income bracket. But what is their overall contribution? Just because they pay a “larger” share of income doesn’t mean it is a proportional share compared to the revenue burden carried by the other classes? <br /> <br />Look at the following columns. Under Total Returns, look at “As Percent of Total Returns”. Under Income Tax, look at “As Percent of Total Revenue”. <br /> <br />The first column shows what percent the tax filers are in a particular income bracket or class of the total tax filing population. “The rich” make up roughly 3% of all tax filers. <br /> <br />The second column shows what percent the taxes paid are of total revenue. “The rich” paid roughly 50% of all taxes (actually, just over 50%). <br /> <br />The standard way of putting this is “the rich” make up only 3% of the tax payers but pay over 50% of the taxes. Put another way, a very small minority of tax payers bear more than 50% of the tax burden. Is that fair? It is a very subjective question. But by any measure, it is very clear that “the rich” pay a significant “share” of taxes. Their “share” of the tax burden is enormous. In fact, their “share” constitutes “most” of the taxes paid. <br /> <br />Conversely, the poor make up 42% of tax payers but their “share” of the tax burden is only 1%. Is that fair? Again, it is a subjective question. <br /> <br />Moving on to those evil Bush tax cuts. Another claim is that the ballooning deficit is due primarily to these reductions in tax rates for middle and upper income tax payers. We will see in a moment exactly what that impact is, but let’s deal with the cuts first. <br /> <br />The tax cuts provided a 5% reduction for most low income earners, a 3% reduction for most middle income earners, and a 4.6% reduction for most upper income earners. In theory, these cuts were to be offset by increased economic activity and therefore, essentially, they would pay for themselves. This is classic supply side economics. There is no direct way to really measure if they did in fact pay for themselves, although general income tax revenues went up each year from 2003-2007. At best, we can probably say only that the impact, if negative at all, was only slightly so. <br /> <br />In general, it is at best unfair and at worst a complete lie to say that “the rich” are avoiding paying taxes, don’t pay their fair share of taxes, or benefited to the detriment of the country from the Bush tax cuts. Even still, our annual budget deficits are out of control. Surely if the rich (and to a lesser extent all other tax payers) were taxed more we would be able to bring our budget into balance, wouldn’t we? Let’s see. Please refer to the last three columns in the chart where I analyze the impact of two revenue increase scenarios on the budget deficit. <br /> <br />The column labeled “Eliminate Bush Tax Cuts” looks at the revenue increase if we adopted Presidents Obama’s approach during the budget debates of 2010 and eliminated the bush tax cuts for the middle and upper income brackets. What I have done is increased revenue in the “middle” class by 3% and the “rich” class by 4.6% to approximate the effect. The total reduction in the deficit brought about by this increase in revenue would be $400B. That is a pretty big number, until you realize the deficit in 2009 was $1.41T. So, the Presidents proposal would only cut the deficit by apx. 28%. <br /> <br />The next column labeled “All Pay ‘Fair Share’” takes an even more drastic approach, at least for the lower and upper classes. <br /> <br />For the lower class, I increased their tax rate another 1%. Considering the majority of “the poor” pay zero in taxes (only 25% percent of filers have any tax payable) and the most any of them pay of AGI is about 1%, I think this is only fair. After all, how can $0 be considered a “share” of anything, let alone a fair share. <br /> <br />For “the rich”, I doubled what they pay. That means that most people earning over $200k AGI would be paying just under HALF of every dollar they make to the government (and getting little to nothing in return for it). Is that fair? I certainly don’t think so, but, after all, they can afford it so why not. <br /> <br />What is the impact of this “fair” revenue collection? The total reduction in the deficit brought about by this increase in revenue would be $758B. Now we’re talking! Yet that still only reduces the deficit by a little more than half. In fact, in order to eliminate the deficit through revenues, you would have to increase tax rates on the rich by more than 3 times their current level to roughly 77% of AGI, a level that even socialist, nanny state Sweden would be ashamed of. <br /> <br />What is the moral of this story? Our deficit is NOT A REVENUE PROBLEM. The reason the deficit is out of control is we are spending way too much. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts won’t solve it. Heck, even imposing ridiculous tax rates on “the rich” and making “the poor” pay way more than they ever have won’t do it. Unless we significantly reduce our spending, we will never have a balanced budget in this country and each year we will get closer and closer to being the Greece of the Western Hemisphere. <br /></span></span>

The Big Lie About Health Insurance Companies and Executive Compensation

We were visited this week by my wife's brother and his wife and in the course of the many conversations we have had we were at one point subjected to the classic "health insurance companies are evil and their executives are greedy crooks who raise premiums to line their pockets" meme. My brother-in-law, of course, knows that my wife and I work for the biggest, baddest, most evil healthcare company of them all. And I know, of course, that he is just repeating what he has been told by the liberal media and elites without actually doing the math. But still, he believes it, and neither my wife nor I had a chance to offer a rebuttal. So I thought I would do it here.

Now, before I start, I want to lay some groundwork. I know that executives in healthcare companies, like many industries, make a boat load of money. Our chief executive last year earned $1.3M in salary, $3.5M in bonuses, and $6.0M in stock and option grants, for a total 2010 compensation of $10.8M. That is a LOT of money. We can debate whether or not his and other executive's compensation is deserved. (We could have the same debate about athletes, movies stars, most of the members of congress, of course the President, and, oh, btw, tv news anchors(1).) But that isn't the accusation being leveled by my BiL. The specific charge is that health insurance company greed in general, and executive compensation in particular, are a DIRECT cause of premium increases.

So, I set out to determine exactly what contribution executive compensation makes to premium cost. I looked at the top executives of our employer because, as mentioned before, we are the biggest healthcare company of them all in terms of revenue and therefore, presumably, are the biggest crooks of all when it comes to compensating our executives on the backs of the little people we insure. I also looked at the general financials of our company to see if we really are gouging our customers to pad our bottom line. Below are the results. (Click on the chart to see it full size.)


As you can see in the chart above, if we were to completely eliminate the compensation of our top 5 executives and use that savings to reduce premiums, we would be able to reduce premiums by only 4/100ths of a penny per dollar of premium or roughly 4 cents per hundred dollars.

But total compensation doesn't paint the correct picture. Stock and Option grants are not taken out of revenue and therefore have zero impact on premiums charged. The correct analysis involves only salary and cash compensation, i.e. executive "pay". If we take this metric against revenue, we see that eliminating all executive "pay" would amount to only a 1/100th of a penny reduction per dollar of premium or 1 cent per $100 dollars, or even more dramatic, just a dime per $1,000 of premium. The fact is, the money we pay to our executives is a very small fraction of a percent of premium dollars and in no way influences premium increases.

Of course, I know this to be true already. I work in finance and see exactly how premium dollars are spent. Look at the item in the chart labelled Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). This is the amount of premium dollars that goes directly out to paying members' medical bills. It is around 80%, and has remained consistently in that range year over year(2). When we do analysis to support rate renewals, this is the item that we focus on. Premium increases (or decreases) are directly proportional to the movement of MLR year over year. The fact is that any increases in premiums that we issue are A DIRECT RESULT of increases in medical costs that we must pay out.

And what of the charge that we hoard all those premium dollars to increase our profits? Well, as again can be seen in the chart, our profit margin for 2010 was 5.4%. I think anyone would agree that this is a very modest profit. In fact, profit margins in the 4-6% range are the norm across the entire health insurance industry. The fact is that the health insurance industry is one of the most competitive, least profitable industries(3) in this country. We simply can't raise premiums to pad our profits for if we did, we would get outbid for business.

The liberal media love to throw out whole dollar amounts to shock people into thinking that health insurance companies and their executives are robber barons. I'm sure if ALL you ever heard was that United collected $85 BILLION in premiums or made $4.6 BILLION in profit, or that its chief executive made $10.8 MILLION in compensation, you would be shocked. And without being told what those dollar amounts were as a percent of revenue, you would be inclined to think that my employer is indeed the epitome of evil "big business" greed. But I implore you, before you jump to conclusions based on the slanted stories you read and see: "do the math". Yes, those are large dollar amounts. But are they a result of gouging our customers? Absolutely not.

Notes:
(1) Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann made apx the same amount in 2010 as Steve Hemsley, President and CEO of UnitedHealth Group. The next time one of these "news" anchors goes on a rant about evil greedy corporate executives, ask yourself who has earned their salary more: some bloviating tv talking head or the head of a multi billion dollar international company responsible not only for helping manage and deliver care to 75 million Americans but also watching over and guiding the 80,000+ employees who serve those Americans.

(2) The federally mandated MLR in ObamaCare is 85% for large group insurance, and 80% for small group and individual insurance, and we are currently restructuring our products to meet that guideline. Still, this increased MLR over the 80% "norm" in the industry will cause many, many people to actually LOSE their insurance coverage because, frankly, companies can't remain profitable at an 85% MLR. We are big enough to survive and absorb the increased hit to our finances. But this change will cause some health insurance companies to go out of business (it has begun already) and others to terminate some plans and members.

(3) In the most recent data available, the Accident and Health Insurance industrial group ranked 96th , and the Health Care Plans group ranked 144th, out of 216 Industries on the Yahoo Business ranking of profitability.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">We were visited this week by my wife's brother and his wife and in the course of the many conversations we have had we were at one point subjected to the classic "health insurance companies are evil and their executives are greedy crooks who raise premiums to line their pockets" meme. My brother-in-law, of course, knows that my wife and I work for the biggest, baddest, most evil healthcare company of them all. And I know, of course, that he is just repeating what he has been told by the liberal media and elites without actually doing the math. But still, he believes it, and neither my wife nor I had a chance to offer a rebuttal. So I thought I would do it here.<span class="fullpost"http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif> <br /> <br />Now, before I start, I want to lay some groundwork. I know that executives in healthcare companies, like many industries, make a boat load of money. Our chief executive last year earned $1.3M in salary, $3.5M in bonuses, and $6.0M in stock and option grants, for a total 2010 compensation of $10.8M. That is a LOT of money. We can debate whether or not his and other executive's compensation is deserved. (We could have the same debate about athletes, movies stars, most of the members of congress, of course the President, and, oh, btw, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/matt-lauer-makes-17-million-topping-annual-tv-150858412.html"><u>tv news anchors</u></a>(1).) But that isn't the accusation being leveled by my BiL. The specific charge is that health insurance company greed in general, and executive compensation in particular, are a DIRECT cause of premium increases. <br /> <br />So, I set out to determine exactly what contribution executive compensation makes to premium cost. I looked at the top executives of our employer because, as mentioned before, we are the biggest healthcare company of them all in terms of revenue and therefore, presumably, are the biggest crooks of all when it comes to compensating our executives on the backs of the little people we insure. I also looked at the general financials of our company to see if we really are gouging our customers to pad our bottom line. Below are the results. (Click on the chart to see it full size.) <br /> <br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2PcaQ1DmCwIoHMT9yRfqOLMJ0SxpM6hTjKvxXyKF0V6fxXSF3y5KhuKazqbWDiPiduwx-1F0GORqxgr3TdpG-Ro_7PsbkRHelfPiMlHbxGVJmusWfmFoTARVSv_94qKDt5wEl38le4vQa/s1600/uhgfinance.bmp" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" target="_blank"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5639257972312410434" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2PcaQ1DmCwIoHMT9yRfqOLMJ0SxpM6hTjKvxXyKF0V6fxXSF3y5KhuKazqbWDiPiduwx-1F0GORqxgr3TdpG-Ro_7PsbkRHelfPiMlHbxGVJmusWfmFoTARVSv_94qKDt5wEl38le4vQa/s400/uhgfinance.bmp" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" /></a> <br />As you can see in the chart above, if we were to completely eliminate the compensation of our top 5 executives and use that savings to reduce premiums, we would be able to reduce premiums by only 4/100ths of a penny per dollar of premium or roughly 4 cents per hundred dollars. <br /> <br />But total compensation doesn't paint the correct picture. Stock and Option grants are not taken out of revenue and therefore have zero impact on premiums charged. The correct analysis involves only salary and cash compensation, i.e. executive "pay". If we take this metric against revenue, we see that eliminating all executive "pay" would amount to only a 1/100th of a penny reduction per dollar of premium or 1 cent per $100 dollars, or even more dramatic, just a dime per $1,000 of premium. The fact is, the money we pay to our executives is a very small fraction of a percent of premium dollars and in no way influences premium increases. <br /> <br />Of course, I know this to be true already. I work in finance and see exactly how premium dollars are spent. Look at the item in the chart labelled Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). This is the amount of premium dollars that goes directly out to paying members' medical bills. It is around 80%, and has remained consistently in that range year over year(2). When we do analysis to support rate renewals, this is the item that we focus on. Premium increases (or decreases) are directly proportional to the movement of MLR year over year. The fact is that any increases in premiums that we issue are A DIRECT RESULT of increases in medical costs that we must pay out. <br /> <br />And what of the charge that we hoard all those premium dollars to increase our profits? Well, as again can be seen in the chart, our profit margin for 2010 was 5.4%. I think anyone would agree that this is a very modest profit. In fact, profit margins in the 4-6% range are the norm across the entire health insurance industry. The fact is that the health insurance industry is one of the most competitive, <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html"><u>least profitable industries</u></a>(3) in this country. We simply can't raise premiums to pad our profits for if we did, we would get outbid for business. <br /> <br />The liberal media love to throw out whole dollar amounts to shock people into thinking that health insurance companies and their executives are robber barons. I'm sure if ALL you ever heard was that United collected $85 BILLION in premiums or made $4.6 BILLION in profit, or that its chief executive made $10.8 MILLION in compensation, you would be shocked. And without being told what those dollar amounts were as a percent of revenue, you would be inclined to think that my employer is indeed the epitome of evil "big business" greed. But I implore you, before you jump to conclusions based on the slanted stories you read and see: "do the math". Yes, those are large dollar amounts. But are they a result of gouging our customers? Absolutely not. <br /> <br />Notes: <br />(1) Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann made apx the same amount in 2010 as Steve Hemsley, President and CEO of UnitedHealth Group. The next time one of these "news" anchors goes on a rant about evil greedy corporate executives, ask yourself who has earned their salary more: some bloviating tv talking head or the head of a multi billion dollar international company responsible not only for helping manage and deliver care to 75 million Americans but also watching over and guiding the 80,000+ employees who serve those Americans. <br /> <br />(2) The federally mandated MLR in ObamaCare is 85% for large group insurance, and 80% for small group and individual insurance, and we are currently restructuring our products to meet that guideline. Still, this increased MLR over the 80% "norm" in the industry will cause many, many people to actually LOSE their insurance coverage because, frankly, companies can't remain profitable at an 85% MLR. We are big enough to survive and absorb the increased hit to our finances. But this change will cause some health insurance companies to go out of business (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/health-reform-business-healthcare-obamacare-wellpoint-cigna.html"><u>it has begun already</u></a>) and others to terminate some plans and members. <br /> <br />(3) In the most recent data available, the Accident and Health Insurance industrial group ranked 96th , and the Health Care Plans group ranked 144th, out of 216 Industries on the Yahoo Business ranking of profitability. <br /></span></span>

Sharks and Jets on Swing Night at Famous Dave’s

No, there were no star crossed lovers or gang rumbles on the dance floor last night at Famous Dave’s in the Uptown area of Minneapolis. But there was a clash of cultures. West Side Story features the irreconcilable differences between two Ethnic cultures. Last night I observed the much less violent and even somewhat humorous intersection of two dance cultures – salsa and swing.

A little background is in order. The Uptown Famous Dave’s restaurant at Hennepin and Lake in southwest Minneapolis doubles as a live music hot spot. Although mostly a blues club, on Monday and Tuesday nights they offer music and dancing in arguably the two most popular dance genres for young people today: Monday night is swing night; Tuesday is salsa night.

My wife and I love to dance. Although we dabble in a variety of dance styles in the general social/ballroom repertoire, we are primarily swing dancers. Now, we won’t pretend to be able to keep up with the 20 something’s who tear up the floor on a typical Monday swing night, but for 50 something’s we hold our own. What I’m trying to say is that in terms of dance culture, we are clearly Jets…er…swingers.

This was painfully clear one of the nights we tagged along with our daughters to a Tuesday salsa night at Famous Dave’s. Although I can do the steps and execute the figures involved in salsa dancing, I am no salsa dancer. I don’t get it; I don’t feel it; I don’t live it. One of my daughters succinctly summed up my effort at the end of the night: “Dad, it’s just too ‘swingy’”.

Well, last night I saw the other side of the mirror. I don’t know if the guy just got his calendar wrong and thought it was Tuesday, or if he truly just loves to dance so much he is willing to step out of his Sharks' territory and cross over to Jet turf, but he clearly was in culture shock. To paraphrase my darling daughter, his dancing was just too “salsa-y”. Don’t get me wrong, he was a really good dancer. I could see he had all the steps down and all the right moves, but there was something noticeably “off” about his dancing. It just was not swing.

“What”, you may ask, “could possibly be so different that you can tell someone is steeped in one style while dancing the other?” Well let me tell you.

Salsa and swing styles[1] are polar opposites. They are the ying and yang, the north and south pole, the Sharks and Jets of up tempo social dancing. One might think it is just because the musical basis is different – African/Latin American for salsa vs. jazz/blues/rag time for swing. But it goes far beyond that. At the core, the difference is in the physics of the dances themselves.

Salsa is smooth where swing is bouncy. In salsa the woman is continually drawn in where in swing she is constantly being cast out. Salsa is a face to face rendezvous; swing is two ships passing in the night. Salsa is a paper clip; swing is a rubber band. Salsa is a chili pepper roasting; swing is popcorn popping. Salsa is controlled; swing is frenetic. Salsa is all hips and arms; swing is all elbows and feet. Salsa can make you blush. Swing can make you bruise. Salsa is intimate where swing is anything but. Salsa is sexy! Swing is sassy!

So, why do I even care? Two reasons. First, I would like to become a better salsa dancer. Although embarrassing my kids is one of the few pure pleasures I have in life (and just compensation for the teen years), I prefer to do it without embarrassing myself at the same time. I think salsa proficiency is within my grasp.

Of course, the mirror has two faces. We are travelling to CA next month to visit our daughters and our older daughter would like us to teach her Latino boyfriend how to swing dance. He is a very good salsa dancer, and I’m sure he will have no problem with the steps. It is more a physics problem. After last night’s Shark-Jet encounter, I think I know where to start.

Notes
[1] For the dance virgins out there - salsa and swing are not just specific dances, they are families of dance. Salsa encompasses salsa, cumbia, bachata, merengue, and others. Swing includes east coast swing, lindy hop, jive, charleston, and others. Here I am referring far more to the families than the individual named dances, as most accomplished dancers in either style shift seamlessly (almost magically) between different dances in the family even within the same song.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZelcdSLgxfQ0_dZm_rLLm6oyMrishajVm6KY01qKmCuziLwi7JedOen4f6UxupysOmxalh1pbMHEpwBo9m865laf8QRMIS1ThBMnZrki6H-VcdfioZL0eRnXcfLHzMjae68vbDg88JHFo/s1600/0.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5594712779628408530" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZelcdSLgxfQ0_dZm_rLLm6oyMrishajVm6KY01qKmCuziLwi7JedOen4f6UxupysOmxalh1pbMHEpwBo9m865laf8QRMIS1ThBMnZrki6H-VcdfioZL0eRnXcfLHzMjae68vbDg88JHFo/s320/0.jpg" style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" /></a><br />No, there were no star crossed lovers or gang rumbles on the dance floor last night at Famous Dave’s in the Uptown area of Minneapolis. But there was a clash of cultures. West Side Story features the irreconcilable differences between two Ethnic cultures. Last night I observed the much less violent and even somewhat humorous intersection of two dance cultures – salsa and swing.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />A little background is in order. The Uptown Famous Dave’s restaurant at Hennepin and Lake in southwest Minneapolis doubles as a live music hot spot. Although mostly a blues club, on Monday and Tuesday nights they offer music and dancing in arguably the two most popular dance genres for young people today: Monday night is swing night; Tuesday is salsa night.<br /><br />My wife and I love to dance. Although we dabble in a variety of dance styles in the general social/ballroom repertoire, we are primarily swing dancers. Now, we won’t pretend to be able to keep up with the 20 something’s who tear up the floor on a typical Monday swing night, but for 50 something’s we hold our own. What I’m trying to say is that in terms of dance culture, we are clearly Jets…er…swingers. <br /><br />This was painfully clear one of the nights we tagged along with our daughters to a Tuesday salsa night at Famous Dave’s. Although I can do the steps and execute the figures involved in salsa dancing, I am no salsa dancer. I don’t get it; I don’t feel it; I don’t live it. One of my daughters succinctly summed up my effort at the end of the night: “Dad, it’s just too ‘swingy’”.<br /><br />Well, last night I saw the other side of the mirror. I don’t know if the guy just got his calendar wrong and thought it was Tuesday, or if he truly just loves to dance so much he is willing to step out of his Sharks' territory and cross over to Jet turf, but he clearly was in culture shock. To paraphrase my darling daughter, his dancing was just too “salsa-y”. Don’t get me wrong, he was a really good dancer. I could see he had all the steps down and all the right moves, but there was something noticeably “off” about his dancing. It just was not swing.<br /><br />“What”, you may ask, “could possibly be so different that you can tell someone is steeped in one style while dancing the other?” Well let me tell you.<br /><br />Salsa and swing styles[1] are polar opposites. They are the ying and yang, the north and south pole, the Sharks and Jets of up tempo social dancing. One might think it is just because the musical basis is different – African/Latin American for salsa vs. jazz/blues/rag time for swing. But it goes far beyond that. At the core, the difference is in the physics of the dances themselves.<br /><br />Salsa is smooth where swing is bouncy. In salsa the woman is continually drawn in where in swing she is constantly being cast out. Salsa is a face to face rendezvous; swing is two ships passing in the night. Salsa is a paper clip; swing is a rubber band. Salsa is a chili pepper roasting; swing is popcorn popping. Salsa is controlled; swing is frenetic. Salsa is all hips and arms; swing is all elbows and feet. Salsa can make you blush. Swing can make you bruise. Salsa is intimate where swing is anything but. Salsa is sexy! Swing is sassy!<br /><br />So, why do I even care? Two reasons. First, I would like to become a better salsa dancer. Although embarrassing my kids is one of the few pure pleasures I have in life (and just compensation for the teen years), I prefer to do it without embarrassing myself at the same time. I think salsa proficiency is within my grasp. <br /><br />Of course, the mirror has two faces. We are travelling to CA next month to visit our daughters and our older daughter would like us to teach her Latino boyfriend how to swing dance. He is a very good salsa dancer, and I’m sure he will have no problem with the steps. It is more a physics problem. After last night’s Shark-Jet encounter, I think I know where to start.<br /><br />Notes<br />[1] For the dance virgins out there - salsa and swing are not just specific dances, they are families of dance. Salsa encompasses salsa, cumbia, bachata, merengue, and others. Swing includes east coast swing, lindy hop, jive, charleston, and others. Here I am referring far more to the families than the individual named dances, as most accomplished dancers in either style shift seamlessly (almost magically) between different dances in the family even within the same song.<br /></span></span>

Eve the "Helper" - The Complete Picture

In my last post, I dug deep into the Biblical use of the Hebrew word ezer as it relates to God, and subsequently, Eve. But God's intent in his provision for Adam is not fully described by this one word. Now I would like to expand the inquiry to the full phrase that describes what exactly Eve will be for Adam.

For this post I will be using, for purposes of comparison and contrast, two translations of ezer k-neged-u from Genesis 2:18.

King James Version
And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (ezer k-neged-u) for him.

NIV
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable (ezer k-neged-u) for him.”

“help meet” vs. “helper suitable” - there is quite a disparity between the two translations. The King James sounds strange to our contemporary minds. It may surprise the reader that “help meet” is actually a far more literal, and accurate, translation than “helper suitable”.

Let's begin with ezer again. There is a subtle difference between the English words “help” and “helper”. The latter is part of the solution to a problem but the former is the solution in and of itself. We see that when the word is used for God. In most cases, God isn't a “helper” per se, leaving it up to us to help ourselves to some degree. No, God is the all inclusive “help”, without which we would be completely helpless.

Which state did Adam find himself in, one where he needed a little assistance or one where he was completely hopeless. Remember that Adam did not need help with any domestic tasks. That is not what Eve was created for. Genesis 2:18 is crystal clear that the only condition that was not good and therefore required a help was Adam's state of being alone. In fact, Adam was hopelessly alone and could do nothing on his own to remedy that situation. This became even more stark of a reality when God had him name the animals and he found none that could cure his alone state. So, did Adam need a helper to fix what was “not good”, or did he need an all encompassing “help”. To me, it is clearly the latter. Eve was Adam's “help”.

This seems like a nit picky semantic exercise to go through but it is important because of the subtle differences between the English words. To an English speaking mind, helper immediately brings to mind synonyms like “assistant” which leads easily to “subordinate”. It is this very thought process, coupled with the tendency to think Adam needed help with the gardening or something, that leads people very easily to believe that Eve was made to be under Adam's authority. Using “help” instead of “helper”, while a little clumsy linguistically, fits much better with the context and reality of Adam's need.

Now on to this other word, neged that translates as “meet” vs. “suitable” in our two example verses. Beginning again with the NIV. To me, “suitable” is a terrible word to describe a person. It makes Eve in the context of the passage sound like some kind of tool. After all, if you need help with domestic chores, the most suitable helper is a domestic servant is it not? Again, it is nit picky, but I really think there are better words than “suitable”, and indeed many translations use alternatives that don't sound quite as domesticating. More on that in a minute.

Turning to the King James, a contemporary English speaker is initially quite stumped. What in the world does “meet” mean? Often we jump to a conclusion: “Well, 'meet' must mean that Eve 'meets' Adam's needs”. While that isn't the worst thought in the world, it really misses the true meaning of this word. Often too, people who have just heard the verse without reading it erroneously translate this as “helpmate” (although one translation – Darby – makes the same mistake). This is going in the wrong direction all together.

The Hebrew word neged actually means “in front of”, as in “standing face to face”. In negative contexts, it means to “oppose”. In positive contexts, it means one thing compliments or corresponds to another thing. So, literally, the King James translation of “meet” is very accurate. Eve is a “help” that “meets” Adam face to face.

Putting that together, can we find a better translation of ezer k-neged-u that removes all aspects of hierarchy and shows the true purpose behind Eve's creation for Adam? I think there are several good candidates.

The New Living Testament phrases it “a companion who will help him”. I certainly agree with the companion part, but I think we can do better.

The New King James has “helper comparable”. That's a little better. And even better still...

Young's Literal translation renders it “helper -- as his counterpart”. That isn't too bad. It certainly removes any thought that Adam was the boss of Eve. “counterpart” and “partner” are very similar words and they really get the sense of neged. Which leads to...

The New American Bible has “suitable partner”. I like “partner”, but as stated before I'm not so keen on “suitable”

The New English Translation gets a little wordy with “a companion for him who corresponds to him”. Seems “corresponding companion” would have done just as well. Never-the-less, I like this. “Companion” focuses on the correct context for the help Eve provides and “corresponding” gets the correct sense of neged. All things considered, this is my favorite.

Eve was indeed Adam's companion, not his helper. This is the correct understanding of ezer in the context, for the problem Adam needed help with was his alone state. A companion was the very “help” that fixed Adam's “not good” state. And she indeed corresponded to him. She was not his clone, but instead was his “standing in front of him” compliment. <span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">In my last post, I dug deep into the Biblical use of the Hebrew word <em>ezer</em> as it relates to God, and subsequently, Eve. But God's intent in his provision for Adam is not fully described by this one word. Now I would like to expand the inquiry to the full phrase that describes what exactly Eve will be for Adam.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />For this post I will be using, for purposes of comparison and contrast, two translations of <em>ezer k-neged-u</em> from Genesis 2:18.<br /><br />King James Version<br />And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">help meet</span></strong> (<em>ezer k-neged-u</em>) for him.<br /><br />NIV<br />The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">helper suitable</span></strong> (<em>ezer k-neged-u</em>) for him.”<br /><br />“help meet” vs. “helper suitable” - there is quite a disparity between the two translations. The King James sounds strange to our contemporary minds. It may surprise the reader that “help meet” is actually a far more literal, and accurate, translation than “helper suitable”.<br /><br />Let's begin with <em>ezer</em> again. There is a subtle difference between the English words “help” and “helper”. The latter is <em>part</em> of the solution to a problem but the former is the solution in and of itself. We see that when the word is used for God. In most cases, God isn't a “helper” per se, leaving it up to us to help ourselves to some degree. No, God is the all inclusive “help”, without which we would be completely helpless.<br /><br />Which state did Adam find himself in, one where he needed a little assistance or one where he was completely hopeless. Remember that Adam did not need help with any domestic tasks. That is not what Eve was created for. Genesis 2:18 is crystal clear that the only condition that was not good and therefore required a help was Adam's state of being alone. In fact, Adam was hopelessly alone and could do nothing on his own to remedy that situation. This became even more stark of a reality when God had him name the animals and he found none that could cure his alone state. So, did Adam need a helper to fix what was “not good”, or did he need an all encompassing “help”. To me, it is clearly the latter. Eve was Adam's “help”.<br /><br />This seems like a nit picky semantic exercise to go through but it is important because of the subtle differences between the English words. To an English speaking mind, helper immediately brings to mind synonyms like “assistant” which leads easily to “subordinate”. It is this very thought process, coupled with the tendency to think Adam needed help with the gardening or something, that leads people very easily to believe that Eve was made to be under Adam's authority. Using “help” instead of “helper”, while a little clumsy linguistically, fits much better with the context and reality of Adam's need.<br /><br />Now on to this other word, <em>neged</em> that translates as “meet” vs. “suitable” in our two example verses. Beginning again with the NIV. To me, “suitable” is a terrible word to describe a person. It makes Eve in the context of the passage sound like some kind of tool. After all, if you need help with domestic chores, the most suitable helper is a domestic servant is it not? Again, it is nit picky, but I really think there are better words than “suitable”, and indeed many translations use alternatives that don't sound quite as domesticating. More on that in a minute.<br /><br />Turning to the King James, a contemporary English speaker is initially quite stumped. What in the world does “meet” mean? Often we jump to a conclusion: “Well, 'meet' must mean that Eve 'meets' Adam's needs”. While that isn't the worst thought in the world, it really misses the true meaning of this word. Often too, people who have just heard the verse without reading it erroneously translate this as “helpmate” (although one translation – Darby – makes the same mistake). This is going in the wrong direction all together.<br /><br />The Hebrew word <em>neged</em> actually means “in front of”, as in “standing face to face”. In negative contexts, it means to “oppose”. In positive contexts, it means one thing compliments or corresponds to another thing. So, literally, the King James translation of “meet” is very accurate. Eve is a “help” that “meets” Adam face to face.<br /><br />Putting that together, can we find a better translation of <em>ezer k-neged-u</em> that removes all aspects of hierarchy and shows the true purpose behind Eve's creation for Adam? I think there are several good candidates.<br /><br />The New Living Testament phrases it “a companion who will help him”. I certainly agree with the companion part, but I think we can do better.<br /><br />The New King James has “helper comparable”. That's a little better. And even better still...<br /><br />Young's Literal translation renders it “helper -- as his counterpart”. That isn't too bad. It certainly removes any thought that Adam was the boss of Eve. “counterpart” and “partner” are very similar words and they really get the sense of <em>neged</em>. Which leads to...<br /><br />The New American Bible has “suitable partner”. I like “partner”, but as stated before I'm not so keen on “suitable”<br /><br />The New English Translation gets a little wordy with “a companion for him who corresponds to him”. Seems “corresponding companion” would have done just as well. Never-the-less, I like this. “Companion” focuses on the correct context for the help Eve provides and “corresponding” gets the correct sense of <em>neged</em>. All things considered, this is my favorite.<br /><br />Eve was indeed Adam's companion, not his helper. This is the correct understanding of <em>ezer</em> in the context, for the problem Adam needed help with was his alone state. A companion was the very “help” that fixed Adam's “not good” state. And she indeed corresponded to him. She was not his clone, but instead was his “standing in front of him” compliment.</span></span>

Eve the "Helper" - The Wit and Irony of God's Word Choices

Much has been made of the designation of Eve as “helper” for Adam in Genesis 2:18;20. Some claim that it means Eve was designed to provide Adam some domestic aid as he went about his preeminent job of tending the garden. Kind of a “maid with benefits”, if you will. On the other end of the spectrum (where I fall), some point out that the word often translated as “helper” is a word in Scripture that is almost universally used for God. If God is not subordinate to us, how could Eve be subordinate to Adam. Those positions have been long discussed, including here, and I do not intend in this post to resurrect that tired debate (especially since it is clearly settled in my mind). Instead, I want to share a small but significant new irony that I have discovered about this little Hebrew word - ezer.

As mentioned above, the word ezer more often than not is used of God in scripture. In fact, of the 19 occurrences outside of Genesis 2, all but three are in reference to God. But what does this word say about God? And how is that ironic in terms of how we view both Genesis 1-3 and marital relationships in general? Let’s look.

In 5 of the 16 God-reference verses[1], God is spoken of as a “shield of…help” or “help and…shield”. In these verses, God is clearly identified as a protector. He both fights off foes and shields His people from their attacks. One legitimate interpretation of ezer, then, is clearly “protector”.

In 7 more of the 16 verses[2], God is spoken of as a provider or supporter. Phrases such as “may he send you help (ezer)…and support”, and “my help (ezer) comes from the LORD” are examples. So, “provider” is another prominent (in fact, the most prominent) general interpretation of ezer.

“Provider” and “protector” - there is something very familiar about those two words. When do we often hear them in connection with marriage? It is, of course, almost exclusively in reference to husbands. Culture (and many Christian philosophies) tells us that the males are the sole providers and protectors in the marriage and the females are the sole nurturers. Isn’t it ironic that the bible tells us the exact opposite.

Now, to be fair, the translation of ezer as it relates to God that best describes Eve in relation to Adam is “rescuer”, as in “you are my help (ezer) and deliverer”. That occurs in 3 of the 16 verses[3]. The “help” that Eve provides is actually to rescue Adam from his “not good” state of being alone by being an equal partner[4] with him. Still, I can’t help but chuckle that God in His infinite wisdom also turns the concept of gender “roles” on its ear in His provision of Eve for Adam.

Notes
1. Deu 33:29, Psa 33:20, Psa 115:9-11
2. Psa 20:2, Psa 89:19, Psa 121:1-2, Psa 124:8, Psa 146:5, Hsa 13:9
3. Exd 18:4, Deu 33:26, Psa 70:5
4. The final verse with ezer referring to God - Deu 33:7 - shows God as a fellow warrior, standing side by side as an equal with His people.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">Much has been made of the designation of Eve as “helper” for Adam in Genesis 2:18;20. Some claim that it means Eve was designed to provide Adam some domestic aid as he went about his preeminent job of tending the garden. Kind of a “maid with benefits”, if you will. On the other end of the spectrum (where I fall), some point out that the word often translated as “helper” is a word in Scripture that is almost universally used for God. If God is not subordinate to us, how could Eve be subordinate to Adam. Those positions have been long discussed, including here, and I do not intend in this post to resurrect that tired debate (especially since it is clearly settled in my mind). Instead, I want to share a small but significant new irony that I have discovered about this little Hebrew word - <em>ezer</em>.<br /><br /><span class="fullpost">As mentioned above, the word <em>ezer</em> more often than not is used of God in scripture. In fact, of the 19 occurrences outside of Genesis 2, all but three are in reference to God. But what does this word say about God? And how is that ironic in terms of how we view both Genesis 1-3 and marital relationships in general? Let’s look.<br /><br />In 5 of the 16 God-reference verses[1], God is spoken of as a “shield of…help” or “help and…shield”. In these verses, God is clearly identified as a protector. He both fights off foes and shields His people from their attacks. One legitimate interpretation of <em>ezer</em>, then, is clearly “protector”.<br /><br />In 7 more of the 16 verses[2], God is spoken of as a provider or supporter. Phrases such as “may he send you help (<em>ezer</em>)…and support”, and “my help (<em>ezer</em>) comes from the LORD” are examples. So, “provider” is another prominent (in fact, the most prominent) general interpretation of <em>ezer</em>.<br /><br />“Provider” and “protector” - there is something very familiar about those two words. When do we often hear them in connection with marriage? It is, of course, almost exclusively in reference to husbands. Culture (and many Christian philosophies) tells us that the males are the sole providers and protectors in the marriage and the females are the sole nurturers. Isn’t it ironic that the bible tells us the exact opposite.<br /><br />Now, to be fair, the translation of <em>ezer</em> as it relates to God that <em>best</em> describes Eve in relation to Adam is “rescuer”, as in “you are my help (<em>ezer</em>) and deliverer”. That occurs in 3 of the 16 verses[3]. The “help” that Eve provides is actually to rescue Adam from his “not good” state of being alone by being an equal partner[4] with him. Still, I can’t help but chuckle that God in His infinite wisdom <em>also</em> turns the concept of gender “roles” on its ear in His provision of Eve for Adam.<br /><br />Notes<br />1. Deu 33:29, Psa 33:20, Psa 115:9-11<br />2. Psa 20:2, Psa 89:19, Psa 121:1-2, Psa 124:8, Psa 146:5, Hsa 13:9<br />3. Exd 18:4, Deu 33:26, Psa 70:5<br />4. The final verse with <em>ezer</em> referring to God - Deu 33:7 - shows God as a fellow warrior, standing side by side <em>as an equal</em> with His people.<br /></span></span>

What Will They Be Singing Come Wednesday

So, I was thinking about the quintessential song for the day after the election.
...

• I suppose "It's The End of the World As We Know It" would be fitting, especially for Republicans who will crow the tag with glee: "...and I feel fine".


• Democrats may be more inclined to sing "There's Got To Be A Morning After" from The Poseidon Adventure. Certainly they will feel like their ship has been flipped by a Republican tidal wave.


• And Independents will probably be belting out "I Did It My Way", considering they have been the determining group for both the Democratic waves in '06 and '08 and now the Republican über-tsunami in 2010.


• Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will surely be crying on each other's shoulder as they moan "Nobody Knows the Trouble I Seen".


• But most sorrowful will probably be the President's song. I can hear it now, softly wafting over the grounds of the White House, that Grandpa Jones classic: "Nobody Loves Me Anymore"

<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">So, I was thinking about the quintessential song for the day after the election. <br />...<span class="fullpost"><br /><ul><li>I suppose "It's The End of the World As We Know It" would be fitting, especially for Republicans who will crow the tag with glee: "...and I feel fine".</li><br /><li>Democrats may be more inclined to sing "There's Got To Be A Morning After" from The Poseidon Adventure. Certainly they will feel like their ship has been flipped by a Republican tidal wave.</li><br /><li>And Independents will probably be belting out "I Did It My Way", considering they have been the determining group for both the Democratic waves in '06 and '08 and now the Republican <em>über</em>-tsunami in 2010.</li><br /><li>Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will surely be crying on each other's shoulder as they moan "Nobody Knows the Trouble I Seen".</li><br /><li>But most sorrowful will probably be the President's song. I can hear it now, softly wafting over the grounds of the White House, that Grandpa Jones classic: "Nobody Loves Me Anymore"</li></ul></span></span>

Let's See, Where Was I...

I think I'm out of my Obamacare funk and ready to post on non-political matters again. I know, I know, it's about time. Anyway, expect some more marriage posting soon. Considering I just had a nephew get married and will walk my daughter down the aisle in less than a couple of months, I think I am in the right frame of mind for it. <span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">I think I'm out of my Obamacare funk and ready to post on non-political matters again. I know, I know, it's about time. Anyway, expect some more marriage posting soon. Considering I just had a nephew get married and will walk my daughter down the aisle in less than a couple of months, I think I am in the right frame of mind for it.</span>

Health Care Reform Lawsuits

I will keep an updated list of lawsuits against the new healthcare reform law in this post with comments on progress.

last updated 11/14/2011
Breaking News - Supreme Court Agrees To Hear ObamaCare Cases.

The Score Card

Total number of lawsuits - 28
Active - 21
    Undecided - 7
    Decided with Appeals - 11
    Decided pending appeal - 3
Decided-Closed - 7

Decided - 21
    Dismissed/Judgement for Defendant - 18
    Judgement for Plaintiff - 3

Decided Appeals - Circuit Court - 5
    Upheld/Overturned or Dismissed for Defendant - 4
    Upheld or Overturned for Plaintiff - 1

States that are actively or about to sue (29):
(FL et al) AK, AL, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, LA, MI, ME, MS, ND, NE, NV, OH, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY (individual suits) VA, MO, OK

States that will not (as of today) sue (22):
AR, CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, KY, MA, MD, MN, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, TN, VT, WV

State Lawsuits

State of FL et al v. US DHHS et al
3:2010-cv-00091 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/2010 filed - Current plaintiff states (26): FL, SC, NE, TX, UT, LA, AL, MI, CO, PA, WA, ID, SD, IN, ND, MS, AZ, NV, GA, AK, IA, KS, ME, OH, WI, WY
National Federation of Independent Business also added
Additional interested state parties via briefs
For the plaintiffs
Govenors: MN, RI
For the defendants
States' Attorneys General: OR, IA, VT
Govenors: CO, MI, PA, WA (in conflict with their AG's)
10/14/2010 Motion to Dismiss denied on counts 1 (individual mandate - Commerce Clause) and 4 (medicaid impacts - 10th Amendment)
12/16/2010 Hearing on motion(s) for summary judgement
1/18/2010 GA AG Joins (Govenor was part of original states), IA Govenor Joins (in conflict with AG). KS, ME, OH, WI, WY Join.
1/31/2011 Summary Judgement for Plaintiffs on count 1 (individual mandate) - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional
2/28/2011 Appealed to 11th Circuit by non-party petitioner. 11-10894-H
3/2/2011 Judge stays order......contingent on the defendants submitting a motion for expedited appeal with the appelate court or SCOTUS within 7 days.
3/8/2011 Appealed to 11th Circuit by defendants. 11-11021.
6/8/2011 11th Circuit: oral arguments
8/12/2011 Upheld in Favor of Plaintiff

Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius
3:2010-cv-00188 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/201 filed
8/2/2010 Motion to dismiss denied
10/18/2010 Hearing on motions for summary judgement
12/13/2010 Summary judgement for Plaintiffs - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional
1/19/2011 Both parties appeal to the 4th Circuit (11-1057, 11-1058)
1/20/2011 Appeals case consolidated into 11-1057
1/26/2011 Expedited briefing granted and oral argument scheduled for May 10-13, 2011. Case will be argued in conjunction with Liberty University, Inc. et al v. Geithner et al
2/9/2011 Petition to SCOTUS by Plaintiff 10-1014
4/25/2011 Petition to SCOTUS denied
9/8/2011 4th Circuit: Dissmissed - Standing

Kinder et al v. Department of Treasury et al
1:2010-cv-00101 (PACER Locator - login required)
7/7/2010 Filed - suit by MO Lt Gov Kinder and others both as a private citizen and in his official capacity of Lt. Gov. as the government advocate for the state's elderly.
7/9/2010 Motion to intervene and for partial dismissal filed by MO AG claiming only he can advocate legally for the MO state government.
8/20/2010 Motion to intervene withdrawn
1/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss
4/26/2011 Dismissed - Jurisdiction
4/29/2011 Appealed to the 8th Circuit 11-1973
10/17-10/21/2011 8th Circuit: oral arguments

Pruit v. Sebelius et al
6:2011-cv-00030 (PACER Locator - login required)
Oklahoma suit
1/7/2011 Announced
1/24/2011 Filed
3/28/2011 Motion to Dismiss

Individual Lawsuits

Thomas More Law Center, et al v. POTUS et al
2:2010-cv-11156 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/2010 Filed
10/21/2010 Dismissed
12/15/2010 Appealed to 6th Circuit 10-2388
6/29/2011 Upheld in Favor of Defendant
7/27/2011 Appealed to SCOTUS 11-117

Liberty University, Inc. et al v. Geithner et al
6:2010-cv-00015 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/201 Filed
10/22/2010 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
11/30/2010 Dismissed
12/3/2010 Appealed to 4th Circuit 10-2347
1/26/2011 Oral argument scheduled for May 10-13, 2011. Case will be argued in conjunction with Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius
9/8/2011 4th Circuit: Dissmissed - Standing

New Jersey Physicians, Inc. et al v. Obama et al
2:2010-cv-01489 (PACER Locator - login required)
3/24/2010 Filed
7/28/2010 Motion to dismiss
12/7/2010 Dismissed
12/14/2010 Appealed to 3rd Circuit 10-4600
6/22/2011 3rd Circuit: oral arguments
8/3/2011 Upheld in Favor of Defendant

Baldwin et al v. Sebelius et al
3:2010-cv-01033 (PACER Locator - login required)
5/14/2010 Filed
8/27/2010 Dismissed
9/1/2010 Appealed to 9th Circuit 10-56374
9/17/2010 Petition to SCOTUS 10-369
11/8/2010 Petition to SCOTUS denied

Mead et al v. Holder et al
1:2010-cv-00950 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
6/9/2010 Filed - suit by the American Center for Law and Justice
8/10/2010 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement
8/20/2010 Motion to Dismiss
1/31/2011 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
2/22/2011 Dismissed
2/25/2011 Appealed to DC Circuit 11-5047
9/23/2011 DC Circuit: oral arguments

Physician Hospitals of America, et al v. Sebelius
6:2010-cv-00277(PACER Locator - login required)
6/3/2010 Filed - Another provider initiated lawsuit
8/17/2010 Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Motion for Summary Judgement
9/29/2010 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and (defendant) Motion for Summary Judgement
11/24/2010 Bench Trial Cancelled.
2/15/2011 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement
2/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss denied (jurisdiction issue only)
3/31/2010 Summary Judgement for Defendant
6/9/2011 Appealed to the 5th Circuit 11-40631

Purpura et al v. Sebelius et al
3:2010-cv-04814 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
9/20/2010 Filed
10/7/2010 Case reassigned
12/9/2010 Motion for summary judgement (plaintiffs)
1/17/2011 Cross Motion to Dismiss
1/18/2011 (postponed) Motion for summary judgement to be decided
2/22/2011 (sched) Motion for summary judgement and any motion to dismiss to be decided
4/22/2011 Dismissed - Standing
5/12/2011 Appealed to 3rd Circuit 11-2303

U.S. Citizens Association et al v. Obama et al
5:2010-cv-01065 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
5/12/2010 Filed
8/12/2010 Motion to Dimiss
9/1/2010 Ammended Complaint
9/16/2010 Second Amended Complaint
10/8/2010 Motion to Dismiss
11/23/2010 Motion to Dismiss count 1 (Individual Mandate unconstitutional) denied. Counts 2-4 dismissed.
1/24/2010 Cross Motions for Summary Judgement
2/28/2011 Court issues final judgement on counts 2-4 so that they may be immediately appeal, if desired. Count 1 remains open.
3/18/2011 Dismissal of counts 2-4 appealed to 6th circuit. Count 1, Individual Mandate, still remains before district court.
4/27/2011 Case suspended "pending a ruling by the Sixth Circuit in Thomas Moore Law Center vs. Obama"
7/1/2011 Summary Judgement for Defendant per precedent of 6th Circuit decision in Thomas Moore Law Center vs. Obama
7/27/2011 Appealed to 6th Circuit 11-3798

Peterson v. USA et al
1:2010-cv-00170 (PACER Locator - login required)
5/4/2010 Filed - Claims assumed reductions in Medicare benefits and increased costs are unconstitutional.
8/16/2010 Motion to dismiss
12/20/2010 Ammended Complaint
3/10/2011 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
3/30/2011 Dismissed - subject matter jurisdiction

Bellow v. US DHHS et al
1:2010-cv-00165 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/24/2010 Filed - First private citizen lawsuit
11/29/2010 Motion to Dismiss
12/20/2010 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement
3/21/2011 Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal
6/20/2011 Dismissed - subject matter jurisdiction

Goudy-Bachman et al v. US DHHS et al
1:2010-cvs-00763 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/9/2010 Filed - 2 Pennsylvania residents
6/14/2010 Motion to Dismiss
1/24/2011 Motion to Dismiss denied as to jurisdiction, standing, and ripeness of the plaintiff's financial burden claims. Separate opinion on Motion to Dismiss as to constitutionality of the Individual Mandate forthcoming.
6/21/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Defendants
7/6/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Plaintiffs
9/13/2011 Summary judgement for Plaintiffs - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional

Walters et al v. Holder, Jr. et al
2:2010-cv-00076 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
4/2/2010 Filed - Three Mississippi residents
8/1/2010 Motion to dismiss
2/3/2011 Dismissed as to standing with a 30 day leave to ammend the complaint
3/4/2011 Amended complaint
4/12/2011 Motion to dismiss in part and for jurisdictional discovery

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Sebelius et al
1:2010-cv-00499 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/26/2010 Filed
6/11/2010 Case Reassigned
7/29/2010 Motion to Dismiss
8/23/2010 Ammended Complaint
9/13/2010 Second Amended Complaint
11/12/2010 Motion to Dismiss
11/22/2010 Amended Motion to Dismiss
3/30/2011 Case reassigned

Calvey et al v. Obama et al
5:2010-cv-00353 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/7/2010 Filed - 16 Oklahoma residents
4/8/2010 Case Reassigned
8/6/2010 Ammended suit to allow class action (currently 1,162 plaintiffs)
2/15/2011 Motion to Dismiss
4/26/2011 Dismissed in part. Only some claims (related to mandate) for only the uninsured plaintiffs remain to be adjudicated.

Sissel v. US DHHS et al
1:2010-cv-01263 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
7/26/2010 Filed - suit by the Pacific Legal Foundation
11/15/2010 Motion to Dismiss
6/3/2011 Case Reassigned
8/9/2011 Case suspended pending a ruling by the DC Circuit in Mead vs. Holder

Coons et al v. Geithner et al
2:2010-cv-01714 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
8/12/2010 Filed - suit by the Goldwater Institute
11/15/2010 Motion for Preliminary Injunction
3/10/2011 Motion for Preliminary Injunction withdrawn
3/11/2011 Amended Complaint
4/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss
5/10/2011 Ammended Complaint
5/31/2011 Motion to Dismiss
6/13/2011 Motion to Dismiss found moot
6/20/2011 Motion for Partial Summary Judgement by Plaintiffs
8/10/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Defendants

Enloe et al v. Obama et al
5:2011-cv-00026 (PACER Locator - login required)
2/11/2011 Filed. This is basically the Shreeve case refiled in another district
5/31/2011 Motion to Dismiss

Potential Lawsuits

Closed Lawsuits

Taitz v. Obama
1:2010-cv-00151 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint (applicable amended section begins page 5))
Amended filing to a "birther" lawsuit.
Motion filed to consolidate suit with St of FL et al.
4/8/2010 Motion denied
4/14/2010 Amended suit dismissed

Shreeve v. Obama et al
1:2010-cv-00071 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/8/2010 Filed - 10th Amendment case brought by an individual - interesting. Names Reid and Pelosi as defendants. (This is the suit from the TN State Rep Candidate Van Irion, who is acting as the plaintiff's attorney)
7/19/2010 Motion for peliminary injunction
7/19/2010 Suit becomes national class action w/ 25,000+ plaintiffs (including my daughter)
8/27/2010 Motion to dismiss
11/4/2010 Dismissed

Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots, L.L.C. v. Sebelius et al
2:2010-cv-00893 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/22/2010 Filed - The Tea Party joins the fight
6/17/2010 Dismissed

Burlsworth et al v. Department of Justice et al
4:2010-cv-00258 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
4/27/2010 Filed - This is the Secure Arkansas suit
8/3/2010 Motion to dismiss
9/8/2010 Plaintiffs withdraw complaint

Independent American Party of NV et al v. Obama et al
2:2010-cv-01477 (PACER Locator - login required)
8/31/2010 Filed
1/19/2011 Case Reassigned
3/7/2011 Dismissed - no proof of service

Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10. This was a complaint against "the cornhusker kickback". Case was dismissed because plaintiff did not pay fee.

Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10. This was a suit originally filed in county court in New Hampshire and then moved to Federal District Court, which claims denial of plaintiff's due process rights by his elected representatives in relation to the "unfair means" in which the ObamaCare bill was written, debated, and voted upon. Dismissed as defendants, the plaintiff's US Senator and Congresspersons, have "legislative immunity from suit based upon legitimate legislative activities".

Additional suits listed on m.whitehouse.gov blog. I do not include any of these in the totals because I either can find no record of them or they are not ObamaCare cases.
Sollars v. Reid - dismissed 4/2/10. I find no record of this case on PACER
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10. I find no record of this case on PACER
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10. This is a case against the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity
Act of 2008, not ObamaCare.

Other News

10/26/2011 Health cases set for Nov. 10 SCOTUS Conference
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">I will keep an updated list of lawsuits against the new healthcare reform law in this post with comments on progress.<br /><br /><em><span style="color:#cc0000;">last updated 11/14/2011</span><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;">Breaking News</span> - Supreme Court Agrees To Hear ObamaCare Cases.</em><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:130%;color:#006600;"><strong><u>The Score Card</u></strong></span><br /><br />Total number of lawsuits - 28<br />Active - 21<br />    Undecided - 7<br />    <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Decided with Appeals - 11</strong></span><br />    Decided pending appeal - 3<br /><span style="color:#999999;"><strong>Decided-Closed - 7</strong></span><br /><br />Decided - 21<br />    <span style="color:#cc6666;"><strong>Dismissed/Judgement for Defendant - 18</strong></span><br />    <span style="color:#66cc66;"><strong>Judgement for Plaintiff - 3</strong></span><br /><br />Decided Appeals - Circuit Court - 5<br />    <span style="color:#cc6666;"><strong>Upheld/Overturned or Dismissed for Defendant - 4</strong></span><br />    <span style="color:#66cc66;"><strong>Upheld or Overturned for Plaintiff - 1</strong></span><br /><br />States that are actively or about to sue (29):<br />(FL et al) AK, AL, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, LA, MI, ME, MS, ND, NE, NV, OH, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY (individual suits) VA, MO, OK<br /><br />States that will not (as of today) sue (22):<br />AR, CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, KY, MA, MD, MN, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, TN, VT, WV<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><b><u><span style="font-size:130%;color:#006600;">State Lawsuits</span></u></b><br /><br /><b>State of FL et al v. US DHHS et al</b><br />3:2010-cv-00091 <a href="https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?57507">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/healthcare.pdf">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />3/23/2010 filed - Current plaintiff states (26): FL, SC, NE, TX, UT, LA, AL, MI, CO, PA, WA, ID, SD, IN, ND, MS, AZ, NV, GA, AK, IA, KS, ME, OH, WI, WY<br />National Federation of Independent Business also added<br />Additional interested state parties via briefs<br />For the plaintiffs<br />Govenors: MN, RI<br />For the defendants<br />States' Attorneys General: OR, IA, VT<br />Govenors: CO, MI, PA, WA (in conflict with their AG's)<br />10/14/2010 Motion to Dismiss denied on counts 1 (individual mandate - Commerce Clause) and 4 (medicaid impacts - 10th Amendment)<br />12/16/2010 Hearing on motion(s) for summary judgement<br />1/18/2010 GA AG Joins (Govenor was part of original states), IA Govenor Joins (in conflict with AG). KS, ME, OH, WI, WY Join.<br />1/31/2011 <span style="color:#66cc66;"><b>Summary Judgement for Plaintiffs on count 1 (individual mandate) - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional</b></span><br />2/28/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to 11th Circuit by non-party petitioner.</strong></span> <a href="http://ecf.ca11.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=11-10894&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">11-10894-H</a><br />3/2/2011 Judge stays order......contingent on the defendants submitting a motion for expedited appeal with the appelate court or SCOTUS within 7 days.<br />3/8/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to 11th Circuit by defendants.</strong></span> <a href="http://ecf.ca11.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=11-11021&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">11-11021</a>. <br />6/8/2011 11th Circuit: oral arguments<br />8/12/2011 <span style="color:#66cc66;"><strong>Upheld in Favor of Plaintiff</strong></span><br /><br /><b>Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius</b><br />3:2010-cv-00188 <a href="https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?252045">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Comm%20v.%20Sebelius%20-%20Complaint%20filed%20with%20Court%20_323_10.pdf">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />3/23/201 filed<br />8/2/2010 Motion to dismiss denied<br />10/18/2010 Hearing on motions for summary judgement<br />12/13/2010 <span style="color:#66cc66;"><b>Summary judgement for Plaintiffs - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional</b></span><br />1/19/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Both parties appeal to the 4th Circuit</strong></span> (<a href="http://ecf.ca4.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=11-1057&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">11-1057</a>, <a href="https://ecf.ca4.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=DocketReportFilter.jsp&caseNum=11-1058">11-1058</a>)<br />1/20/2011 Appeals case consolidated into <a href="http://ecf.ca4.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=11-1057&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">11-1057</a><br />1/26/2011 Expedited briefing granted and oral argument scheduled for May 10-13, 2011. Case will be argued in conjunction with Liberty University, Inc. et al v. Geithner et al<br />2/9/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Petition to SCOTUS by Plaintiff</strong></span> <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1014.htm">10-1014</a><br />4/25/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Petition to SCOTUS denied</span><br />9/8/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">4th Circuit: Dissmissed - Standing</span><br /><br /><b>Kinder et al v. Department of Treasury et al</b><br />1:2010-cv-00101 <a href="https://ecf.moed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?107528">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />7/7/2010 Filed - suit by MO Lt Gov Kinder and others both as a private citizen and in his official capacity of Lt. Gov. as the government advocate for the state's elderly.<br />7/9/2010 Motion to intervene and for partial dismissal filed by MO AG claiming only he can advocate legally for the MO state government.<br />8/20/2010 Motion to intervene withdrawn<br />1/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss<br />4/26/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed</span> - Jurisdiction<br />4/29/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to the 8th Circuit</strong></span> <a href="https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=11-1973&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">11-1973</a><br />10/17-10/21/2011 8th Circuit: oral arguments<br /><br /><b>Pruit v. Sebelius et al</b><br />6:2011-cv-00030 <a href="https://ecf.oked.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?20111">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />Oklahoma suit<br />1/7/2011 Announced<br />1/24/2011 Filed<br />3/28/2011 Motion to Dismiss<br /><br /><span style="color:#006600;"><b><u><span style="font-size:130%;">Individual Lawsuits</span></u></b></span><br /><br /><b>Thomas More Law Center, et al v. POTUS et al</b><br />2:2010-cv-11156 <a href="https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?247295">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/TMLCFilesCourtChallengeMomentsAfterObamaHealt.pdf">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />3/23/2010 Filed<br />10/21/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed</span><br />12/15/2010 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to 6th Circuit</strong></span> <a href="http://ecf.ca6.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=10-2388&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">10-2388</a><br />6/29/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Upheld in Favor of Defendant</span><br />7/27/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to SCOTUS</strong></span> <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-117.htm">11-117</a><br /><br /><b>Liberty University, Inc. et al v. Geithner et al</b><br />6:2010-cv-00015 <a href="https://ecf.vawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?76425">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/complaint_healthcare.pdf">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />3/23/201 Filed<br />10/22/2010 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss<br />11/30/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed</span><br />12/3/2010 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to 4th Circuit</strong></span> <a href="http://ecf.ca4.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=10-2347&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">10-2347</a><br />1/26/2011 Oral argument scheduled for May 10-13, 2011. Case will be argued in conjunction with Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius<br />9/8/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">4th Circuit: Dissmissed - Standing</span><br /><br /><b>New Jersey Physicians, Inc. et al v. Obama et al</b><br />2:2010-cv-01489 <a href="https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?239337">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />3/24/2010 Filed<br />7/28/2010 Motion to dismiss<br />12/7/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed</span><br />12/14/2010 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to 3rd Circuit</strong></span> <a href="http://ecf.ca3.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=10-4600&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">10-4600</a><br />6/22/2011 3rd Circuit: oral arguments<br />8/3/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Upheld in Favor of Defendant</span><br /><br /><b>Baldwin et al v. Sebelius et al</b><br />3:2010-cv-01033 <a href="https://ecf.casd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?323433">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />5/14/2010 Filed<br />8/27/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed </span><br />9/1/2010 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to 9th Circuit</strong></span> <a href="http://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=10-56374&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">10-56374</a><br />9/17/2010 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Petition to SCOTUS</strong></span> <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-369.htm">10-369</a><br />11/8/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Petition to SCOTUS denied</span><br /><br /><b>Mead et al v. Holder et al</b><br />1:2010-cv-00950 <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?142530">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/HC-DCT-Complaint_20100609.pdf">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />6/9/2010 Filed - suit by the <a href="http://www.aclj.org/">American Center for Law and Justice</a><br />8/10/2010 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement<br />8/20/2010 Motion to Dismiss<br />1/31/2011 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss<br />2/22/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed</span><br />2/25/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to DC Circuit</strong></span> <a href="http://ecf.cadc.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=11-5047&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">11-5047</a><br />9/23/2011 DC Circuit: oral arguments<br /><br /><b>Physician Hospitals of America, et al v. Sebelius</b><br />6:2010-cv-00277<a href="https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?123207">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />6/3/2010 Filed - Another provider initiated lawsuit<br />8/17/2010 Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Motion for Summary Judgement<br />9/29/2010 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and (defendant) Motion for Summary Judgement<br />11/24/2010 Bench Trial Cancelled.<br />2/15/2011 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement<br />2/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss denied (jurisdiction issue only)<br />3/31/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Summary Judgement for Defendant</span><br />6/9/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to the 5th Circuit</strong></span> <a href="http://ecf.ca5.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=11-40631&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">11-40631</a><br /><br /><b>Purpura et al v. Sebelius et al</b><br />3:2010-cv-04814 <a href="https://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?246791">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2268339/jstp-occff-healthcare-litigation-1-pdf-september-28-2010-9-42-am-484k?da=y">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />9/20/2010 Filed<br />10/7/2010 Case reassigned<br />12/9/2010 Motion for summary judgement (plaintiffs)<br />1/17/2011 Cross Motion to Dismiss<br />1/18/2011 (postponed) Motion for summary judgement to be decided<br />2/22/2011 (sched) Motion for summary judgement and any motion to dismiss to be decided<br />4/22/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed</span> - Standing<br />5/12/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to 3rd Circuit</strong></span> <a href="http://ecf.ca3.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=11-2303&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">11-2303</a><br /><br /><b>U.S. Citizens Association et al v. Obama et al</b><br />5:2010-cv-01065 <a href="https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?166037">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/pdfs/USCA%20Lawsuit%20Final.pdf">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />5/12/2010 Filed<br />8/12/2010 Motion to Dimiss<br />9/1/2010 Ammended Complaint<br />9/16/2010 Second Amended Complaint<br />10/8/2010 Motion to Dismiss<br />11/23/2010 Motion to Dismiss count 1 (Individual Mandate unconstitutional) denied. Counts 2-4 dismissed.<br />1/24/2010 Cross Motions for Summary Judgement<br />2/28/2011 Court issues final judgement on counts 2-4 so that they may be immediately appeal, if desired. Count 1 remains open.<br />3/18/2011 Dismissal of counts 2-4 appealed to 6th circuit. Count 1, Individual Mandate, still remains before district court.<br />4/27/2011 Case suspended "pending a ruling by the Sixth Circuit in Thomas Moore Law Center vs. Obama" <br />7/1/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Summary Judgement for Defendant per precedent of 6th Circuit decision in Thomas Moore Law Center vs. Obama</span><br />7/27/2011 <span style="color:#6666cc;"><strong>Appealed to 6th Circuit</strong></span> <a href="https://ecf.ca6.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp?caseNum=11-3798&dktType=dktPublic&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y">11-3798</a><br /><br /><b>Peterson v. USA et al</b><br />1:2010-cv-00170 <a href="https://ecf.nhd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?35242">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />5/4/2010 Filed - Claims assumed reductions in Medicare benefits and increased costs are unconstitutional.<br />8/16/2010 Motion to dismiss<br />12/20/2010 Ammended Complaint<br />3/10/2011 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss<br />3/30/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed - subject matter jurisdiction</span><br /><br /><b>Bellow v. US DHHS et al</b><br />1:2010-cv-00165 <a href="https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?121795">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.davidbellow.com/DavidBellow.html#Lawsuit_Text">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />3/24/2010 Filed - First private citizen lawsuit<br />11/29/2010 Motion to Dismiss<br />12/20/2010 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement<br />3/21/2011 Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal<br />6/20/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed - subject matter jurisdiction</span><br /><br /><b>Goudy-Bachman et al v. US DHHS et al</b><br />1:2010-cvs-00763 <a href="https://ecf.pamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?80371">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />4/9/2010 Filed - 2 Pennsylvania residents<br />6/14/2010 Motion to Dismiss<br />1/24/2011 Motion to Dismiss denied as to jurisdiction, standing, and ripeness of the plaintiff's financial burden claims. Separate opinion on Motion to Dismiss as to constitutionality of the Individual Mandate forthcoming.<br />6/21/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Defendants<br />7/6/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Plaintiffs<br />9/13/2011 <span style="color:#66cc66;"><b>Summary judgement for Plaintiffs - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional</b></span><br /><br /><b>Walters et al v. Holder, Jr. et al</b><br />2:2010-cv-00076 <a href="https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?71766">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/29361133/HEALTCAREPETITIONFINALVERSION">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />4/2/2010 Filed - Three Mississippi residents<br />8/1/2010 Motion to dismiss<br />2/3/2011 Dismissed as to standing with a 30 day leave to ammend the complaint<br />3/4/2011 Amended complaint<br />4/12/2011 Motion to dismiss in part and for jurisdictional discovery<br /><br /><b>Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Sebelius et al</b><br />1:2010-cv-00499 <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?141409">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.aapsonline.org/hhslawsuit/aaps-v-sebelius-03-26-2010.pdf">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />3/26/2010 Filed<br />6/11/2010 Case Reassigned<br />7/29/2010 Motion to Dismiss<br />8/23/2010 Ammended Complaint<br />9/13/2010 Second Amended Complaint<br />11/12/2010 Motion to Dismiss<br />11/22/2010 Amended Motion to Dismiss<br />3/30/2011 Case reassigned<br /><br /><b>Calvey et al v. Obama et al</b><br />5:2010-cv-00353 <a href="https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?76610">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />4/7/2010 Filed - 16 Oklahoma residents<br />4/8/2010 Case Reassigned<br />8/6/2010 Ammended suit to allow class action (currently 1,162 plaintiffs)<br />2/15/2011 Motion to Dismiss<br />4/26/2011 Dismissed in part. Only some claims (related to mandate) for only the uninsured plaintiffs remain to be adjudicated.<br /><br /><b>Sissel v. US DHHS et al</b><br />1:2010-cv-01263 <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?143261">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://community.pacificlegal.org/Document.Doc?id=458">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />7/26/2010 Filed - suit by the <a href="http://community.pacificlegal.org/Page.aspx?pid=183">Pacific Legal Foundation</a><br />11/15/2010 Motion to Dismiss<br />6/3/2011 Case Reassigned<br />8/9/2011 Case suspended pending a ruling by the DC Circuit in Mead vs. Holder <br /><br /><b>Coons et al v. Geithner et al</b><br />2:2010-cv-01714 <a href="https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?544151">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/file/4929/download/4931">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />8/12/2010 Filed - suit by the <a href="http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4927">Goldwater Institute</a><br />11/15/2010 Motion for Preliminary Injunction<br />3/10/2011 Motion for Preliminary Injunction withdrawn<br />3/11/2011 Amended Complaint<br />4/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss<br />5/10/2011 Ammended Complaint<br />5/31/2011 Motion to Dismiss<br />6/13/2011 Motion to Dismiss found moot<br />6/20/2011 Motion for Partial Summary Judgement by Plaintiffs<br />8/10/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Defendants<br /><br /><b>Enloe et al v. Obama et al</b><br />5:2011-cv-00026 <a href="https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?203159">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />2/11/2011 Filed. This is basically the Shreeve case refiled in another district<br />5/31/2011 Motion to Dismiss<br /><br /><b><u><span style="font-size:130%;color:#006600;">Potential Lawsuits</span></u></b><br /><br /><b><u><span style="font-size:130%;color:#006600;">Closed Lawsuits</span></u></b><br /><br /><b><span style="color:#999999;">Taitz v. Obama</span></b><br />1:2010-cv-00151 <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?140567">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/AmendedComplaint3-20-2010.pdf">Link to Complaint</a> (applicable amended section begins page 5))<br />Amended filing to a "birther" lawsuit.<br />Motion filed to consolidate suit with St of FL et al.<br />4/8/2010 Motion denied<br />4/14/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Amended suit dismissed</span><br /><br /><b><span style="color:#999999;">Shreeve v. Obama et al</span></b><br />1:2010-cv-00071 <a href="https://ecf.tned.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?57021">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />4/8/2010 Filed - 10th Amendment case brought by an individual - interesting. Names Reid and Pelosi as defendants. (This is the suit from the TN State Rep Candidate Van Irion, who is acting as the plaintiff's attorney)<br />7/19/2010 Motion for peliminary injunction<br />7/19/2010 Suit becomes national class action w/ 25,000+ plaintiffs (including my daughter)<br />8/27/2010 Motion to dismiss<br />11/4/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed</span><br /><br /><b><span style="color:#999999;">Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots, L.L.C. v. Sebelius et al</span></b><br />2:2010-cv-00893 <a href="https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?517686">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />4/22/2010 Filed - The Tea Party joins the fight<br />6/17/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed</span><br /><br /><b><span style="color:#999999;">Burlsworth et al v. Department of Justice et al</span></b><br />4:2010-cv-00258 <a href="https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?81606">(PACER Locator - login required)</a> (<a href="http://www.securearkansas.com/Petition%20for%20Injunctive%20and%20Declaratory%20Relief.pdf">Link to Complaint</a>)<br />4/27/2010 Filed - This is the Secure Arkansas suit<br />8/3/2010 Motion to dismiss<br />9/8/2010 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Plaintiffs withdraw complaint</span><br /><br /><b><span style="color:#999999;">Independent American Party of NV et al v. Obama et al</span></b><br />2:2010-cv-01477 <a href="https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?75751">(PACER Locator - login required)</a><br />8/31/2010 Filed<br />1/19/2011 Case Reassigned<br />3/7/2011 <span style="color:#cc6666;">Dismissed - no proof of service</span><br /><br /><b><span style="color:#999999;">Archer v. U.S. Senate</span></b> - dismissed 4/12/10. This was a complaint against "the cornhusker kickback". Case was dismissed because plaintiff did not pay fee.<br /><br /><b><span style="color:#999999;">Mackenzie v. Shaheen</span></b> - dismissed 5/26/10. This was a suit originally filed in county court in New Hampshire and then moved to Federal District Court, which claims denial of plaintiff's due process rights by his elected representatives in relation to the "unfair means" in which the ObamaCare bill was written, debated, and voted upon. Dismissed as defendants, the plaintiff's US Senator and Congresspersons, have "legislative immunity from suit based upon legitimate legislative activities".<br /><br /><a href="http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/08/health-reform-wins-another-round-court">Additional suits listed</a> on m.whitehouse.gov blog. I do not include any of these in the totals because I either can find no record of them or they are not ObamaCare cases.<br />Sollars v. Reid - dismissed 4/2/10. I find no record of this case on PACER<br />Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10. I find no record of this case on PACER<br />Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10. This is a case against the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity<br />Act of 2008, not ObamaCare.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#006600;"><b><u>Other News</u></b></span><br /><br />10/26/2011 <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/10/health-cases-set/#more-130458">Health cases set for Nov. 10 SCOTUS Conference</a><br /></span></span>

I Feel Like Alice in Obamaland

Scotusblog opens commentary on pending healthcare reform lawsuits with this roundup

Commentators continue to speculate on the role of the Court in potential challenges to Congress’ passage of health care reform late Sunday. At the ACS blog, Simon Lazarus writes in an issue brief that mandating the purchase of health insurance is “lawful and clearly so” under the Commerce Clause and/or the General Welfare Clause. At Vanity Fair, Andrew Cohen predicts that in a possible 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Justice Kennedy and his swing vote would be “quite open and warm to the notion of federal intervention on health care.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost reviews relevant Supreme Court Commerce Clause jurisprudence and concludes that the bill is likely to survive potential legal challenges. Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog also weighs in on the subject.

News organizations concur with a unified chorus of: "Legal experts say they [the lawsuits] have little chance of succeeding". Who are these legal experts and what Constitution are they looking at? I feel like I have stepped into a rupture in the space/time continuum and have been instantly transported to a much darker parallel America where Joe Biden has a gotee and the Commerce Clause of the constitution now reads:

"[The Congress shall have power] To COMPEL Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"

Seriously, please, I beg of you, will some constitutional scholar come here to explain to my feeble mind how the individual mandate in Obamacare can be constitutional. I know you are out there because you keep telling everyone in the press that it is true. But I can't fathom it.

So what is next?

If the government decides that we need to emit fewer green house gases (a noble endeavor), can they now compel us to go out and buy wind generators, solar panels, and hybrid cars? I know they can incentivize us to make such purchases, but can they literally force us to? Apparently, according to the legal experts, that is simply "regulating" commerce. If the government decides that it is healthy to take some time off work each year (demonstrably true), can they now compel us to fly to Cancun for a week? I would love it if they would incentivize THAT but can they force it? It would appear so. And what if the government decides our population is too big (can you say china)? Can they compel us to purchase birth control, get sterilized, and have abortions for the general welfare? After all, those are simply different kinds of commerce.

I guess the founders had just such an exercise of federal power in mind when they wrote the commerce clause, because the legal experts all agree that such forced purchasing is in there somewhere. I can’t see it. But I’m no expert.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">Scotusblog opens commentary on pending healthcare reform lawsuits with this roundup<br /><br /><blockquote>Commentators continue to speculate on the role of the Court in potential challenges to Congress’ passage of health care reform late Sunday. At the ACS blog, Simon Lazarus writes in an issue brief that mandating the purchase of health insurance is “lawful and clearly so” under the Commerce Clause and/or the General Welfare Clause. At Vanity Fair, Andrew Cohen predicts that in a possible 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Justice Kennedy and his swing vote would be “quite open and warm to the notion of federal intervention on health care.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost reviews relevant Supreme Court Commerce Clause jurisprudence and concludes that the bill is likely to survive potential legal challenges. Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog also weighs in on the subject.</blockquote><br />News organizations concur with a unified chorus of: "Legal experts say they [the lawsuits] have little chance of succeeding". Who are these legal experts and what Constitution are they looking at? I feel like I have stepped into a rupture in the space/time continuum and have been instantly transported to a much darker parallel America where Joe Biden has a gotee and the Commerce Clause of the constitution now reads:<br /><br />"[The Congress shall have power] To <em><strong>COMPEL</strong></em> Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"<br /><br />Seriously, please, I beg of you, will some constitutional scholar come here to explain to my feeble mind how the individual mandate in Obamacare can be constitutional. I know you are out there because you keep telling everyone in the press that it is true. But I can't fathom it.<br /><br />So what is next? <br /><br />If the government decides that we need to emit fewer green house gases (a noble endeavor), can they now <em><strong>compel</strong></em> us to go out and buy wind generators, solar panels, and hybrid cars? I know they can incentivize us to make such purchases, but can they literally force us to? Apparently, according to the legal experts, that is simply "regulating" commerce. If the government decides that it is healthy to take some time off work each year (demonstrably true), can they now <em><strong>compel</strong></em> us to fly to Cancun for a week? I would love it if they would incentivize THAT but can they force it? It would appear so. And what if the government decides our population is too big (can you say china)? Can they <em><strong>compel</strong></em> us to purchase birth control, get sterilized, and have abortions for the general welfare? After all, those are simply different kinds of commerce. <br /><br />I guess the founders had just such an exercise of federal power in mind when they wrote the commerce clause, because the legal experts all agree that such forced purchasing is in there somewhere. I can’t see it. But I’m no expert.<br /></span>

Would You Like a Glass of Kool-Aide?

From the “have a nice glass of kool-aide” Dept: Ha! For all of you who cheered the President’s constant sniping at the health insurance industry and bought his promise that Obamacare will end “evil insurance company practices”, this just in from Wall Street.

“The major health insurance and provider stocks leaped upward on the open, as expected. (They just acquired 32 million new customers in the most ideal way: it’s now illegal not to buy their products.)” (Francis Cianfrocca - redstate.com)

Thank you Obamacare supporters. Since I work for the largest (and, I suppose, inherently most evil) of those insurance companies you have given me job security for the foreseeable future. Of course, I hate this unconstitutional and despicable bill, but thanks to Speaker Pelosi and her kool-aide drinking Reps., I at least will enjoy gainful employment for the rest of whatever.
<span style="font-family:arial,san-serif;">From the “have a nice glass of kool-aide” Dept: Ha! For all of you who cheered the President’s constant sniping at the health insurance industry and bought his promise that Obamacare will end “evil insurance company practices”, this just in from Wall Street.<br /><br />“The major health insurance and provider stocks leaped upward on the open, as expected. (They just acquired 32 million new customers in the most ideal way: it’s now illegal not to buy their products.)” (Francis Cianfrocca - redstate.com)<br /><br />Thank you Obamacare supporters. Since I work for the largest (and, I suppose, inherently most evil) of those insurance companies you have given me job security for the foreseeable future. Of course, I hate this unconstitutional and despicable bill, but thanks to Speaker Pelosi and her kool-aide drinking Reps., I at least will enjoy gainful employment for the rest of whatever. <br /></span>