Awesome pic.
Do the girls get drunk and show their tits at Dressage events?

the only way i am watching dressage is if the owners give the horses a happy ending.

Same shit, different day. Though I did see a very apropos cartoon by Jeff Danziger…”Justice Scalia Acts Out”. I fully expect Fat Tony to produce another masterpiece of jurisprudence in which he demonstrates that up is down, right is wrong, and anybody who makes less that seven figures a year can go fuck themselves, and do it today, please.

Better health care? Better drugs, anyway.

Why is it so easy to picture Fat Tony sitting in a ratty walkup Brooklyn apartment in his easy chair, wearing a wifebeater, listening to Rush and Hannity all day?

Not to poop all over the dressage horse thing, but the Romneys only got a $50 deduction from the $77,000 in expenses:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/19/clarifying_the_record_on_mitt_romney_s_77_000_losses_olympic_horse_rafalca.html

They can claim that $77,000 loss against any future earnings the horse makes (note that the corrected article is incorrect in that it refers to potential stud fees, and the horse is actually a mare), but it’s not a tax write-off.

That doesn’t change the point made above that the horse gets better health care than millions of Americans, of course, nor that the Romneys can lose more on a hobby than most Americans make in a year.

Is that a Diet Coke in Ann’s hand? Caffeine?! And Alcohol?! What in the holy peep stones is going on here?

Joseph Smith would be rolling in his grave if he hadn’t ascended corporeally to heaven (please note: my Mormon mythology may not be up to date).

Prediction: Scalia, following up on his Arizona immigration dissent based on the fact that Free Blacks were limited in their movements in the post-Civil War south, reinforces his strict originalist cred by ruling that poor people, being property of the banks, count as only 2/3 of a dressage horse, and thereby have no rights to health care.

So if I had set up my son as an LLC when he was born I could have off-set the expenses of raising him against his future earnings?

SCOTUS UPHOLDS MANDATE, OBAMACARE!!!!!!!!

Which is great news for John McCain…

Mandate upheld, Obama tells GOP, “suck it, bitchez.”

I can almost hear the rustling of papers in Issa’s office as he prepares the impeachment charges against Roberts for his treason against ‘Murika.

Hey, remember: Mitt says corporations are people, too — it must work both ways, then. So, once you’ve taken your kid public and leveraged your investment in him to the hilt with loans and the sale of futures on his potential income, you can simply cut your losses and resign as chairman of the board of him… Schweet.

You know, quite a lot of people predicted that Roberts would be the key.

Not to poop on the Romney defense, but it doesn’t even qualify as a passive business because it’s a hobby business. So while they’re not ‘getting the deduction today’ there’s a loophole in the passive loss rules that will allow them to take all the losses when they sell the horse or disinvest themselves of the business.

That looks like a can of Bud in Ann’s hand. More good news for John McCain.

I saw the same rumblings, though found it hard to believe. Countdown to “If only we had Harriet Myers” post from Malkin. 3…2…1..

Does this mean all the Republicans whose heads’ explode today are covered?

Cuz, shit!

Does this mean all the Republicans whose heads’ explode today are covered?

For the win so far, though this could be a 100+ thread, so it ain’t over till it’s over!

Hurrah! The US will soon have almost as good healthcare as Dominica!
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

How long before the Purity Trolls show up to us how screwed we really are?

RE: Tbogg’s update:

I hope Lil’ Ben is covered for carpal tunnel cuz’ he is tweeting up a red, white, and blue storm.

Minutes…maybe seconds.

Soon as I heard his vote on 1070 I knew he was going to back Affordable Care.

Now we can start on opening up those FEMA reeducation camps!

Wolverines!!!

Ben Shapiro says:
“As a lawyer, Obamacare is an abomination. As the husband of a future doctor, Obamacare is a disaster. As an American, Obamacare must go.”

So Obamacare is a lawyer, the husband of a future doctor, AND an American?
In other words, a person? Ben’s English usage is a little wanting even for Twitter.

And does anybody here really believe that the Roamney’s pay a Tax Accountant to document losses that they will never deduct?

Ben Shapiro:
“As a lawyer, Obamacare is an abomination. As the husband of a future doctor, Obmacare is a disaster. As and American, Obmacare must go.”

For some reason he thinks Obamacare is the name of a lawyer, who is a U.S. citizen, married to someone dreaming of being a doctor. Maybe his opposition has all been a case of mistaken identity.

Hmmm, I owe you one, I have diet Dr. Pepper and Root Beer.

The Rude One tweets

Man, I hope that Scalia wrote a dissent. It might be the first SCOTUS decision with the word “fuck” in it.
— @rudepundit via web

Romneycare is constitutional but not under the Commerce Clause. It seems to me that to hang this thing on the power of the Feds to tax is flirting with disaster. Which is really what Roberts did. A strong majority of Americans want the rich to be taxed more and the middle class and poor to be taxed less. Congress, being what it is, does the opposite every minute of their working day. Doesn’t this ruling make that outcome less probable by jiggering with the tax code or worse, going forward? The mandate may stop freeloading and medical bill dodgers but the people affected will use the bankruptcy court to do that, anyway. And one can hardly blame them since universal care, administered by the Feds, is really the best way to insure everyone gets some health care. Regardless of their ability to pay!

His value on the futures market will spike soon due to the release of his SAT scores.

So, I should take my gains now before anybody gets a look at his HS Grades.

Rand Paul – “Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court says something is constitutional doesn’t make it so.”

Okay then!

You seem to have misunderstood the Court’s decision. ‘Romneycare’?

I don’t think we should be so happy about this. This ruling puts the final nail in the coffin of single payer. It’s dead. Don’t get me wrong, I always take great joy in any opportunity to give a swift kick in the gut to right-wingers on any issue but I’m not celebrating.

I’m mourning.

‘I don’t think we should be so happy about this. ‘

First Site Scold tryout of the day!

Why? Explain why, now that the federal government has their nose in the tent, that single payer can never ever ever happen.

You people really need to get a grip.

Jerry B is first over the line, at 8:31am

Indeed, Ed Rogers at the WaPo makes that argument today.

Yes, since the ACA was modeled after the Mass. Law while he was Guv, no?

Because it’s a fatuous description.

It seems to me that to hang this thing on the power of the Feds to tax is flirting with disaster. Which is really what Roberts did.

x2

You right.

Because Republican’s would never attack an attempt at implementing single payer as another massive entitlement program. Nope. They wouldn’t do that at all. It would never occur to them. They would be flummoxed. Baffled as to how to make that a campaign issue.

Why is Ben Shapiro so bummed out that a Republican Chief Justice upheld a law that’s essentially Romneycare writ large and was crafted by a WellPoint executive?

No way was Roberts going to dump the mandate — that would have ticked off the insurance companies who have until the last couple of cycles donated almost exclusively to the GOP. But he did succeed in screwing Medicare somewhat and possibly making it harder to pass more social-welfare legislation, per Lyle Dennison of SCOTUSblog:

“The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.”

However, Greg Sargent thinks it actually enhances Federal (and by implication Cognressional) authority to do such things.

Take yer pick.

“I don’t think we should be so happy about this.”

At least 30 million Americans disagree.

I see the Obama Adm. argue this all the time against the Romney plan (non plan ). And I self insure and am not fat at all, so there!

It asserts that the federal government can promote the general welfare, including health. It can do that through taxation. That decision doesn’t at all preclude any future increase in the governement’s role and responsibility. That doesn’t change the fact that we may never overcome Citizens United and other factors to stop the swirling down the drain. Nevertheless, this at least is a victory.

Damn, I had $50 across the board on mitchell freedman. Maybe I can still get a piece of that place and show money.

The virgin Ben is about to have the first-ever live coronary on Twitter.

Why?

I disagree with your assessment that it doesn’t restrict use of the commerce clause. But YMMV.

But only for 140 characters, right?

Ask yourself why it wasn’t argued that way — publicly, at least.

I would give half of my record collection to give Ben Shapiro a swirly.

To the extent that it might, that only takes a future court with a different balance to change.

The insurance companies now own health care in America. That means a profit driven mentality when it comes to providing coverage. We will continue to be held hostage to the drive for more profits and higher compensation for “c” class corporate officers. As for the Government having it’s “nose” in the tent now. That’s all they will ever get in the tent. Those forces for de-regulation are, I’m sure, already devising strategies for pushing that nose right back out of the tent. Over the next couple of decades they will slowly chip away at any provisions in the ACA that cuts into profits. In twenty years or so we will be right back were we started and we won’t be able to fix the problem by then since we will have become the Corporate States of America.

And don’t tell me I need to get my shit together, T. I’m 52 years old, pal. I’ve seen this country as it was and I see it as it is. I’m a veteran, self employed, a grandfather and a solid fucking liberal and I don’t need to be talked down to by you or anyone else.

Damn, I was in a pretty good mood, too.

Lyle Denniston:

“The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.” This is a big deal. Congress in the future may have to use far more of the taxing power than they are comfortable with. This is still a conservative ruling in many respects.”

YMMV

Wow.

I give it a 7, tops. There’s a certain saveur de frustration that’s endearing, and a good level of self-aggrandisement, but the pattern is far too familiar to give any better ranking. Still, if it’s really 52, there’s time to acquire better skills.

Dear Ben…GO F*CK YOURSELF! Sincerely, Carl

Even more so, that the “tax” money must go to a private corporation is incredibly scarey. This has far reaching implications. It won’t be long before your “Social Security taxes” go straight to Wall Street. The precedent has already been set. This has been a goal of Wall Street since 1920s but they never dreamed of a government mandate to force savings… or maybe they did..

You forget about the state-run plans, many of which are turning out to be pretty good. It’s not that hard, considering that state employees aren’t paying themselves $10 million or more (often a lot more) a year in salary and benefits the way CEOs and board members typically do.

Ye, Virginia Thomas, there is a Sharia Clause.

Um, no. Not even close, sorry.

Greg Sargent takes the opposite view:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/scotus-sides-with-federal-power/2012/06/28/gJQAkEpB9V_blog.html

I always enjoy declarative statements couched in the subjunctive. Particularly good at creating a certain ominous threat against the future.

Let’s go to the source!
“4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may beupheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibilitypayment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.
(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.
(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as atax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like acapitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population. Pp. 40–41.”
(Syllabus NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11–393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012*)

You don’t actually read, do you?

Shenanigans

Or, alternatively, people discover that government funded health care isn’t death panels and leeches and incrementally more programs are developed to bring more people on-board.

And I wasn’t talking down to you. But a general progressive response today has been “Because we didn’t get everything that we wanted, this is a bad thing.” Millions of people who will now be covered may disagree…

Well yes, but mostly drivel lately.

It’s true there are a handful of states that have a good system. Vermont comes to mind. I just don’t have any faith that they will lead to a better national system. Don’t get me wrong. I am happy about many of the provisions in the law. I just don’t have any faith that they will stay in place for very long. The next Republican President with Republican majorities in congress will gut this law.

Is there anybody here who thinks this is a liberal solution to the problem?

Anybody?

SCOTUSblog’s Kevin Russell on the Medicaid issue:

The Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is divided and complicated.  The bottom line is that: (1) Congress acted constitutionally in offering states funds to expand coverage to millions of new individuals; (2) So states can agree to expand coverage in exchange for those new funds; (3) If the state accepts the expansion funds, it must obey by the new rules and expand coverage; (4) but a state can refuse to participate in the expansion without losing all of its Medicaid funds; instead the state will have the option of continue the its current, unexpanded plan as is.

[...]

The consequence was a bottom line of 7 Justices – the Chief, Breyer, Kagan and the four dissenters – finding the expansion unconstitutional.  But a different majority – the Chief, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan – held that the remedy for the violation was to strike down only the provision allowing the federal government to withhold all Medicaid funds unless a state agrees to the expansion.

So this just means that Tea Party GOP governors can try to reject Medicaid expansion without financial penalty. But, as David Dayen reminds us, when Medicaid was first announced, governors who tried to resist it in any way got their butts kicked by the hospital lobby — which still has clout when it comes to Medicaid.

AFAIK, nobody here is saying that it’s a “liberal solution”. We’re talking about a law that was drafted by a WellPoint VP and which Romney in essence test-drove in Massachusetts. But it’s also not the end of the world as we know it. See also this.

T, I hope your right. I really do but considering the idealogical divide in this country, congresses inability to move any legislation that doesn’t have an anti abortion amendment and the powerful corporate forces that are intent on political domination it just doesn’t seem possible for anything that is good in the law to survive.

Be interesting to see how “shenanigans” could result from a ruling that, as one observer notes, may not in essence have created a legal precedent from which “shenanigans” could be launched.

How to ensure that what is good in this law survives:

1. Hold your nose if necessary and vote Democrat.
2. Work like hell to reelect Obama (for the Supreme Court appointments and the power of veto, if nothing else)
3. Spend 4 years explaining the benefits of this particular law.
4. And spend 4 years explaining how to make this law better (by mutating toward single payer, in my view).

There is a decent chance that will work.

If one were to use your logic then:

By issuing the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln made it impossible to ever pass the 13th Amendment.

As to your other points, if you view this decision as the end of the fight and decide to wallow in self-pity, then you are right.

If you view the decision as a step in the right direction, and get back to work to push for the next improvement, realizing that it will probably be a long hard fight that never ends, then you are wrong.

I think it is so archetypically USian it makes my ears hurt. This is -exactly- the sort of thing the US does when it reacts to public need. My G_d! We used to even finance wars with taxes! And people paid up individually for them as well!

You make the mistake of thinking that business entities present a united front with no exploitable cracks or fissures. They don’t.

For instance: Want to know who are among the most vocal opponents of corn ethanol, linked in common cause with people they otherwise see as dirty hippies? Folks in the meat production industry. Ethanol production drives up feed costs, even for non-corn feed, because it makes corn quite expensive. (Of course, the corn farmers don’t see it that way — in their view, corn prices are finally high enough for them to turn a decent profit.)

As you suggest, Lyle Denniston is entitled to his opinion, but I’m unimpressed by this particular one. I don’t give Roberts any credit for reasonableness and I would have preferred that he made no comment regarding the commerce clause. But, I don’t think his comment in this case will have any unique effect on future cases, giving the huge number of prior rulings regarding the power of the Federal Government to regualte interstate commerce. If he or other justices rule in the future on some matter related to the commerce clause, his statement in this case will not change what they intend to do. They have proven that they will act as they choose, regardless of precident. I have no greater faith in this Supreme Court, but on this one matter, he apparently worried about his/its legacy. We have enough tooth paste out of the tube without thinking we can redo healthcare from the ground up right now.

Providing for the general welfare seems to say, ” here’s the least we can do for you and keep the insurance companies whole. ” Since we must pay SS Taxes, Medicare Taxes, and now the ACA Tax there’s so much to celebrate today. Not really, I’d say. But I’ll bet the power to tax, here reaffirmed, will allow the rich to game the system and dry up the well ( of funding ) going forward. There are a lot of good parts to this ACA but, given its’ track record, Congress will having us middle class nobodies fighting each other rather than pointing out that there’s plenty of money in the U.S. to pay for the things we all need, like healthcare. But the rich need more tax breaks, too. ( Just ask them. ) Not really, I’d say.

I have spent my whole life wanting to be present on the day we liberals managed to kill America, and finally it has come! If only someone would bottle Ben Shapiro’s sweet, sweet tears and sell them at my local organic foods co-op, this would be perfect.

Now to get back to the War on Christmas! Victory, my comrades!

Believe me, fellow pups. I hope you are right and I am wrong. It would make me very happy to be wrong about this. I just don’t think I am.

Oh and hunt, we live in a new reality now. Past is no longer prologue. We used to live in a sane, reality based world. Well, for the most part. That’s no longer true, as we all know and have repeatedly discussed here. Don’t look to the past for answers about the future.

;-)

Indeed. This writer thinks the Commerce Clause is gutted, but many of his commenters beg to differ and suggest that Roberts’ comments on it and the N&P are just dicta.

Interesting to note that insurance stocks are down this morning following the ruling.

That is interesting.

That’s definitely a D.C. There’s another image from that photoshoot (found searching google images) that clearly shows it.

According to the Church of Latter Day Saints, that’s a big no-no.

That is interesting.

Which is richly ironic, considering they really wanted this law so much that Baucus’ good friend and WellPoint VP Liz Fowler wrote it. Yet more proof that even rich and well-oiled lobbies aren’t infallible or invincible.

I was surprised and pleased to hear it. Then my next reaction was, “I guess this shows it wasn’t such a good thing after all.”

But I’ll take what I can get. I wonder if this will make my sister’s life easier. She’s self-employed, in debt, can’t afford insurance, and had cancer last year.

Bottom line: Watching Shapiro Agnew’s Freudenschade over the thought that some poor bastard might be able to get a major illness without having to sell the kids — priceless.

Buzzfeed has a collection of tweets from right-wingers who want to move to Canada now.

For the single payer healthcare, right?

Canada’s way too decent to deserve those asshats.

A point that was always well known to anybody who has either worked for a Fortune 500 Company or is a regular follower of the Dilbert Comic Strip.

Here are two possible explainations for why Health Insurance Stocks are down:

1) Wall Street analysts have determined that the ACA will cut into future profits despite the additional customers (for examle: the pre-existing condition clauses will cut into future profits because you can’t collect premiums on people that will be dumped when they need their insurance).

2) Wall Street analysts have no clue what’s going to happen and are afraid of future risk.

Yes, really not a complete package there.

Alas, no. You’re thinking of undressage.

One of the various outcomes to this SCOTUS decision is watching rightwing heads explode… right on cue… just like Pavlov’s dogs…. arf arf arf bow WOW (appologies to various bassets in the know).

Excellent — the win doesn’t stop.

As a teabagging friend of mine posted this morning: “A sad sad day for Americans. There goes freedom.”

Do they realise that Canada won’t have them unless they can either produce a nice chunk of investment income or have actual skills? Or do they imagine they can just sneak across the border, illegally, and start taking advantage of the precious Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

The thought of a right wing exodus to Canada is intriguing. I assume they would go to get the benefit of single payer?

But if these are the people who would otherwise evade a mandate, even if called a tax, then we would be losing people who make no contribution to the overall costs of health care, but who would be covered in Canada, and have to pay Canadian taxes to cover it! Our costs would be lower, and we’d have fewer cranks.

This looks like a win win we should encourage. I would contribute to gas for the caravan.

Canada better build themselves a big-ass border wall to keep those freeloading illegal Teabag-Americans from stealing all the good healthcare up there.

I’m sure that most of the Teabag-Americans will likely just ride their bass boats up the St. Lawrence River, where they’ll be met by the not-as-friendly-as-they-used-to-be Canadian border guards. They think US bureaucrats are inefficient?

It’s a pretty stiff fine to go into Canada without reporting your whereabouts to the proper authorities, also too.

They can infiltrate Canada and do all those jobs Canadians won’t do and start dropping anchor babies. Ha!

Either in English or French.

I do remember one incident not so long ago, a couple of Mexicans trying to get across their northern border into the States by hiding on a boat going up the coast. Unfortunately, the boat did not dock before Vancouver (or so), the Mexicans left and started to make their way north – to Yellowknife. By the time they got to Yellowknife they were pretty much beat and were an easy pick-up by the local RCMP – but were invited to apply for residency on the grounds of being exactly the kind of perservering, adventurous sort of chaps the frontier needed. But I doubt if this current crop of teabaggers would be similarly invited.

Anchor Baby = Jonah Goldberg’s childhood nickname…

That same teabagging friend of mine who posted about our freedoms being lost today also told us a few years ago that there was no health care problem because “you can just go to the emergency room.”

For the single payer healthcare, right?

Right, and I can’t wait to watch them blend.

Great comment over there: “I’m moving to Ethiopia! It’s too hot here!” :)

They, in effect, believe the mandate has been overturned, PW.

Bass boats sailing around New Brunswick? That I’ve got to see!

Maybe they could resurect the Underground Railroad.

RNC has a video out.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/republicans-launch-fullrepeal-campaign/

I visit Dead Andy’s blog.

First advertisement to appear?

Irish Spring’s “New Deep Action Scrub” Body Wash.

Good call!

UNH (United Health) started the day down and ended the day UP and other major health-care “providers” (Aetna, Wellpoint) all recovered about halfway from their lows.

As I posted in my nonanonymous life:

I’m always bemused by the conventional wisdom reasons finance writers come up with to explain each day’s stock market move. The day started out with a big move down ascribed to worries about Europe and the health-care ruling. The day ends with the market barely changed to the down side. What happened? Maybe a collective realization that “Oh, yeah, duh, the individual mandate means millions of new customers for insurance companies.”

I never tire of wing-nuts losing their shit.

Which is like, thrice a day.

No, but at least he’d be assured of legal personhood under Repuke assministrations.

“We are all slaves now and America is destroyed”.

The trouble with absolutist rhetoric is that you can only announce the end of the world so many times before the non-retarded start to catch on.

I thought America was destroyed, or “turned communist” when Medicare was introduced back in the 60s, at least according to statements at the time by Ronald Reagan and the political ancestors of the teatards, the John Birch Society.

The disconnect is amazing- a friend of mine- a disabled vet like me, is spittle-barking crazy to ‘petition for repeal!!!’ Dude doesn’t have a dog in the fight- hasn’t had private health care ever- he’s from a military family! Of course, he always makes a point of differentiating between ‘the good ones’ and ‘the niggers’.
He went right for the TEAbagger schtick, as soon as it sprang up. He’s been getting all worked up ever since ‘the lying SOB stole the election!!!’ I am waiting for the call when he’s in the VA hospital, nursing his next heart attack. I’ll send flowers, ’cause he’s a friend.

Great comment over there: “I’m moving to Ethiopia! It’s too hot here!”

I call troll! And a good one.

Supreme Surprise
Today a Gooper pet hate
Was spared a partisan fate
After all their best bait
It’s now too late
Oh curse that chief obstructionist
He proved no zombie constructionist
Barry’s labor will stand
While Mittens flips are panned
They say it’s an evil tax
Whynot leave care lax
Get Christianity off our backs
Their walkover was dashed
Now their memes are all smashed
Righties will gnash, Obama must fry
Lefties will no longer sigh
No more grandmas have to die
And America’s next poke in the eye
Big Insurance coffers will fill sky high

Conster rage – so inspiring.

They have exactly the same “vanilla” video (nice white homeowners, relatively well-off-looking white seniors, etc.) in a Spanish version, which is hilarious, because it points up exactly how out of touch the Romney campaign is with regard to the people in this country who actually need healthcare, but who have difficulty paying for it.