The Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act

[WarriorMage]

Yeah, and the insurance companies dropped them, not Obama. People need to take a look at what is going on in this country and quit blaming Obama for everything.

But Obama is the one who said they could keep their current coverage. He has to take some (most?) of the responsibility for people losing coverage. Even he admitted this by apologizing.

Are you one of the people who is in the top tax bracket and make over 250,000 dollars a year? If you aren't, then you don't pay higher federal income tax. If you are, then most of the time you find a way to avoid paying taxes altogether.

I wish. More like $45,000. But your original statement was that people who make more should be taxed more to support those who don't make enough.

I'm going to break this into two responses because my responses keep getting deleted and I have to re-do them.

 

[PrisonerLizzie]

Obama knew as far back as 2010 at least that people would lose their health insurance yet he repeatedly lied to the American people about it right up until the insurance companies were forced to drop several million people. Why lie about it?

No, I don't believe that. I think he actually thought it was going to work out that way for people, but it didn't. Just like when the Bush administration went on faulty intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. People called him a liar too. I was one of the few liberals that didn't, because I recognized it to be media sensationalism. Blaming the presidents for everything is like blaming Canada for the U.S. economy. Presidents are just charismatic public speakers with ideas nowadays. It's up to Congress and the people whether we go along with those ideas. No law is going to be perfect. Obama admitted recently that it was on "him". He didn't even have to say that. I can't remember Clinton or Bush taking the blame for anything, and I loved Clinton.

You don't believe it even though I linked to a video of Obama in 2010 acknowledging that several million Americans would lose their health insurance?

 

[WarriorMage]

The government has to give back sometimes.

They do. The just need to do it more responsibly. Welfare was meant to help people out, not to support them. Too many people have decided to work the system and live off on Welfare and other assistance programs.

he real problem is that we have lost our manufacturing base to China.... 91% of the products Walmart sells are made in China. 91%.

True. Some of which is our own fault. The newest smartphones that everyone keeps buying just because their old ones are a year old aren't being made in the U.S. We need to stop buying all the cheap crap they put out.

 

[JoeReese]

It's because those policies were crap and didn't cover things in the mandates like ambulatory services, emergency services, maternity care, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services and pediatric services. The insurance companies knew that these policies were inadequate under the new laws. That's why they dropped customers. All the people who were dropped have to do is shop around and they will find a better policy now than they had before.

Define better, and at what price? I can sell the Isuzu and buy a Cadillac, but not for anywhere near what I paid for the Isuzu. This doesn't require a degree in economics, just a little attention and experience. For example, I'm a 43 year old man. Do I need maternity coverage??? Mandating just wholly screwed me out of the ability to determine what coverage I needed, and now I must pay based on what coverage a third party thinks fourth parties might need.

Also, I'm genuinely glad you didn't fall for the Bush Lied hype. I had the Clinton/Gore speeches about WMD in Iraq, from back in 1998, all cued up and ready to roll. It really was common knowledge then, openly discussed by the heads of many states and many media outlets.

As to whether it was faulty, think about it on a more local scale...
(Knock, knock, knock) "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT! We're coming in there...in about...oh...45 minutes..." What do you suppose they would find, except absolutely nothing illegal whatsoever, and the cleanest toilet on this continent? We (US, UN, the free world in general) fiddled around and stroked each other for how many months, before we finally went and looked?

 

[WarriorMage]

Also, I'm genuinely glad you didn't fall for the Bush Lied hype. I had the Clinton/Gore speeches about WMD in Iraq, from back in 1998, all cued up and ready to roll. It really was common knowledge then, openly discussed by the heads of many states and many media outlets.

Me, too. A lot of the Michael Moores of the country forgot that.

We (US, UN, the free world in general) fiddled around and stroked each other for how many months, before we finally went and looked?

Just trying to remember off the top of my head but I think it was something like 4 years. I could be wrong, though. Luckily we've learned our lesson. I'm sure the next time we suspect some Mid-East country is working on getting nukes or something like that we (US, UN, the free world in general) will move a lot quicker so they don't have time to hide everything or, worse, actually develop something. I feel safer already.

 

[JoeReese]

I wish I could feel safer already, but I've been around government enough to know that he, who closeth the barn door before the horse can escape, is too often accused of jumping the gun.

 

[Vorador]

Next, you talk about how wealthy people are generally "healthier" than the middle class. Ignoring the eugenics here... maybe it's because they have good health insurance? If a poor person gets a toothache he just waits for the tooth to fall out.

Well, you do kind of have a point there, except that health insurance doesn't make you "healthy" per say, it just helps you take care of problems that you may run in to. Which is why I'm a fan of catastrophe plans.

But anyways, when I say that the rich are generally healthier, it's that the poor are more likely to be obese or smoke, and have more of the effects from this, such as diabetes, heart problems etc. They are also more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, though the rich aren't immune to this of course, they just generally take care of themselves better, and that has nothing to do with having health insurance whatsoever.

Also, just to point out, having a tooth pulled isn't covered by health insurance, so I poor person would still have to do that.

I realize that it's hard for poor and middle class people, even under the ACA, to afford health insurance. It sucks. But I still think it's a step in the right direction. Lets' also not forget what Obama had in mind from the get-go: To give everyone FREE health insurance paid for by taxes and eliminating other government programs we don't need, as well as cutting down on military spending. But the republicans wouldn't have that.

I think that this would be ideal, but implementing it here in the U.S. would be a monumental talk.

You talk on about how we need to help the poor, without realizing that the ACA only hurts the poor. I have no idea how it only "hurts the rich" as you say, but then again, I care less about paying attention to the rich than I do my own life, and I know that I'm being hurt by the ACA and I'm not rich.

Do you know who supported the ACA? The insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and they still do, it's guaranteed income for them, and a way for them to collect more money. The whole "80% must be spent on medical care" is a joke", talk about loopholes.

 

[Vorador]

​

Why should those with the least have to tighten their belts while those who can afford way more keep getting fatter? It is not exactly beneficial to the rich class either. For instance: if you have less to spend and get to pay money you don't own, you are more likely to appeal for support like medicaid and welfare (which are payed by taxes) and will cost the rich eventually more.
People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the two richest men in the USA (correct me if I am wrong), think that people, and I quote, should "stop coddling the super-rich". Warren Buffet says that in 2010 he paid a federal tax bill of $6,938,744 - including the income tax as well as the payroll tax, which is only 17.4% of his taxable income and a lower percentage than was paid by the other people in his office whose tax burdens ranged from 33% to 41%. And Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett himself.

Yeah, the lower middle and poor get so many tax breaks it's not funny, if you have kids there isn't any chance that you're paying "any" federal taxes at middle class or below. More than llikely, you'll get back more than you payed in.

And I do agree with you on the Warren Buffett point, I'm all for a flat tax, let's make it 10% and drop all of these unnecessary federal programs (like the ACA) and let the states run the healthcare on a level where it's possible.

You have a point there, and I agree. But you specifically name services that are more beneficial to the poor than the wealthy. For instance: infrastructure, transportation, education, research & developments are examples of things that are more useful the more you have. Airports benefit more from business people and those who can afford to travel, than people who don't have the money to do this.
There are also people who compare the rich paying more taxes to people with a big car paying more insurance. You have more, you pay for more.

I made that point mainly to show that there are a lot of people in the upper middle and rich class that pay premiums without using the benefits, so they still subsidize everyone else through their provider.

And why are catastrophe plans a service that are just for the rich? Catastrophe plans are the real health insurance, and all that is needed really.

People should know how to take care of themselves by know, they don't need a doctor to tell them that smoking causes health problems, or that being obese can cause diabetes, heart disease or a myriad of other health problems. I suppose we'll just wait for the legislation to take care of that too, right.

 

[JoeReese]

There are also people who compare the rich paying more taxes to people with a big car paying more insurance. You have more, you pay for more.

Um...have you ever actually seen a US income tax chart? Here, for your general fund of knowledge, is the 2013 individual tax chart for estimating tax liability. You'll note this is linked directly from the irs.gov website. The meat and potatoes is found on page 7. Pay careful attention to how "have more, pay more" is being applied, in nothing less than a spectacular Robin Hood style.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf

Now, I'll also call your attention to the number of political activists who favor a flat tax, in which everyone would be responsible for the same percentage. 10% (for random example) of $25,000 is less than 10% of $250,000. Have more, pay more, but on a considerably more fair scale. The impact to all citizens is X% of their income, period.

Again, to boil it down to a more local application, since you're smarter than others, you should be required to do two or three times the amount of homework the rest do. Fair? Have more, pay more?

 

[Anouck]

Again, to boil it down to a more local application, since you're smarter than others, you should be required to do two or three times the amount of homework the rest do. Fair? Have more, pay more?

I used the phrase "there are also people" specifically to show that this was not an opinion of my own. In debates I spit out arguments on both sides. I used a few actual facts and subjective statements; what people do with it, is up to them.

 

[JoeReese]

But a few points, the rich class have always subsidized the rest of the country, they have always contributed more tax money. Even if they work the loopholes to reduce their percentage paid, their total money paid to the government is much more than the middle or poor.

I am not one of those people who think that people should be "punished" for being wealthy. I still believe that it requires a lot of hard work and dedication to get successful, and I also believe people deserve the money they've worked for.
But a certain percentage of taxes has a much bigger impact on people with a low income. Relatively speaking, the poor lose more money to taxes than rich people because their financial situation just isn't as good.

Why should those with the least have to tighten their belts while those who can afford way more keep getting fatter? It is not exactly beneficial to the rich class either. For instance: if you have less to spend and get to pay money you don't own, you are more likely to appeal for support like medicaid and welfare (which are payed by taxes) and will cost the rich eventually more.
People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the two richest men in the USA (correct me if I am wrong), think that people, and I quote, should "stop coddling the super-rich". Warren Buffet says that in 2010 he paid a federal tax bill of $6,938,744 - including the income tax as well as the payroll tax, which is only 17.4% of his taxable income and a lower percentage than was paid by the other people in his office whose tax burdens ranged from 33% to 41%. And Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett himself.
Some think that the idea imposing higher taxes on the super-rich as a measure to control fiscal deficit is of much debate and controversy. Some argue that this approach is counter-productive, leads to volatile revenues, and isn’t an effective measure to raise revenues as it takes resources away from job creators in the private sector, which will deter investors from starting new enterprises.
On the "job creators" thing, I'd like to note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. And what ha been happening since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

it has also never been a problem getting them to buy health insurance, and as a group they are generally healthier than the middle or poor class, thus they use less benefits, or they purchase the catastrophy plans and pay out of pocket for basic health services (the upper middle class usually does this as well).

You have a point there, and I agree. But you specifically name services that are more beneficial to the poor than the wealthy. For instance: infrastructure, transportation, education, research & developments are examples of things that are more useful the more you have. Airports benefit more from business people and those who can afford to travel, than people who don't have the money to do this.
There are also people who compare the rich paying more taxes to people with a big car paying more insurance. You have more, you pay for more.

Ok, so you've notified us that there are some people (not you, of course) who think that way. You've also said (in bold) both that you don't believe people should be "punished" (I'd love to know what the quotes meant) for being wealthy, and followed it immediately with a comparison of the wealthy "getting fatter" while those who can afford the least tighten their belts.

So...um...which is it? What do you think punishment is, if it's not reaching into peoples' pockets and taking what they've worked for?

As far as Warren Buffet's reported claims, and I say that because we know things don't always make it into print as they were stated, there is a lot we'd need to know that we simply don't know. To simplify it, if Warren makes $1m and his secretary makes $100k, his secretary is already in a lower bracket than him. But, if his secretary is an hourly or salaried employee, who does not have to spend portions of his/her paycheck in order to facilitate work (ie: Warren bought the desk, the computer, the tape, stapler, scissors, etc.) then that employee does not write off work expenses the same way. Even if the employee is required to buy things for work, there is no guarantee that the employee will choose to write the items off, will remember to save the receipts, etc. Depending on how much he made, versus how much he's had to spend on making the company run, his liability may well be less than that of an employee, depending on how much he's written off and whether they have. I cannot say for sure, but I sincerely doubt that Buffet used the old EZ form with the standard exemption, so there is something that doesn't compute. There would need to be considerably more information available, before I could take that with anything other than a pound of salt.

 

[JoeReese]

Another thing you have to factor into that (and I'm not saying I agree with this practice) is that Warren Buffet's salary may be (is most likely) radically different from the company profits.

If I start a company, JoeCo, and I sell aardvark mustaches. Suddenly I'm selling $50m worth of them a year. If it costs $21 m to run this company, leaving a 29m profit, that does not mean Joe Reese makes $29m a year. I could only be getting $1000/wk paycheck from my company, as CEO, which goes straight into savings because the house I live in, the car, the helicopter, yacht, pool, private gym, are all owned not by Joe Reese, but by JoeCo. If I'm the boss, who's going to say I can't use them whenever?

But, for my individual taxes, I make $52k a year.

 

[Anouck]

So...um...which is it? What do you think punishment is, if it's not reaching into peoples' pockets and taking what they've worked for?

It depends. From what point do you classify it as punishment? I personally believe that, if you are rich, you should pay more taxes. Is that a punishment? To some people maybe, but that is very subjective so I will never be able to give you an 100% correct answer to that. I'll see what I can find on this subject.

Okay...

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive".

...What you see here, is an increasing of social segregation. The rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. Now, we don't want to go back to the 16th century where having a low income basically means "screw you".
But despite that: If you make the poor poorer, you will get in a situation where they will cost you money even more. They will use more social services such as medicaid, and will maybe even come to the point where they can't pay taxes anymore at all. Since a lot of social services are paid with tax money, this wouldn't exactly improve the situation either.
You also create a situation where it is much more difficult for them to get out of their situation. A parent who can't financially support their child's education, will have a bigger chance of seeing their child getting into the exact same situation as them. And that means extra poor people.
Some people think it is not morally right to give the weakest people the heaviest burdens. I live in a country where the rich pay more taxes, and they don't exactly care. You see, 50 euros taxes on an income of 100 euros has more impact than 75 euros taxes on an 300 euros income. That is why I said you could say that the poor relatively speaking pay more taxes because for them it feels like a heavy burden while it is by far not as stressful if you earn a nice amount of money.

According to professor R.D Wolff, back in the 50s and 60s the USA government relied for a very big percentage on the taxes of corporations. Back then the economy was stronger and fewer were unemployed. Today, this heavily changed, and the government relies on individual taxes. But even now the USA is at the lowest end when we're talking about the amount of money your government asks you to pay. In other countries you have to pay way more. Sadly there is a huge disproportion in the burden, and the USA puts more burden on the middle class and people with a low income than other countries.

 

[JoeReese]

Ano, look at the chart. Stop listening to professors, or newspaper reporters' quotes from professors, and start looking for yourself. The irs.gov table I linked is the guide for doing your 2013 taxes. There is no more accurate description than looking at the official rules for yourself. Watch the percentage of tax liability change with the increase of earned money.

Yes, the rich get richer, but that's not because they're being taxed a lower percentage than the poor. That's because they are able to hide/launder/and write off their money. That's pure greed, I agree, but the solution is definitely not to pass yet more legislation that hurts the people whose monthly bills meet or overwhelm their monthly income, because they're who foots the bill...as we have seen. The answer is in closing their loopholes, so they can't hide and launder their money, not just increasing the price. Then the richy rich skate away, still writing most of it off, while the not-rich,not-poor crowd are left holding the bag, and end up poorer than the "poor."

Remember me mentioning how, when I lived in PA, I was aggravated to learn that people with four kids and no desire for a job were being given $1500 monthly, more than I brought home in a month with a full time job, JUST for housing. That did not include food stamps, cash (yes, cash) benefit, medicaid...

We simply cannot summarily reach into peoples pockets with compulsive charity as an excuse, and make the poor better off than they are, while the very rich are still just writing it all off and letting their company take the liability instead. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked for how long?

I'm not trying to jump on you Ano, and I don't know how Europe works, but this is something Americans learn only when they've been in the position of the payer for a while. It's an eye opening experience, believe me.

 

[Medea]

The answer is closing loopholes.....then why don't we close them? Seems to me there are plenty of conservatives on this thread that want to do that, but none in DC. The government can't close loopholes or raise taxes because the republicans AND democrats in Congress block them from any kind of corporate regulation every time. Especially republicans. Most of the time when it comes to protecting environmental standards or workers rights (like the right to organize), the republicans are against it. Why do you think all of our factories have closed down and opened up shop in China? Because corporations are willing to sacrifice american people to make more money! China has no environmental standards or workers rights, and can pay their workers $1.30 an hour. If democratic policies were in place to stop this from happening in China, our companies wouldn't go there.

It seems to me that China is NOT a communist state. It's more like a capitalist conservative's wet dream. Tell me the differences between the US in the early days our Industrial Age and China now. We have gotten rid of child labor and worker abuses since then. We have also put more environmental regulations in place. China is unchecked capitalism. It's what the republicans want us to go back to. No unions. No regulations. No environmental standards. It's what they fight for.

I am sorry to say this, but if we can't even get healthcare reform to work for helping the poor, then we are never going to get politicians on the page of "closing tax loopholes" so they actually pay the same tax rate as middle class workers do.

This gets back to my overall point that republicans need to quit blaming the government and Obama for everything. It's the corporations. It's the lobbyists. Did Obama drop people's insurance plans? No...the insurance companies did.....with NO threat of retaliation. The government works for corporations now. This is the price of unchecked capitalism. Call me a socialist if you want to. I'll slap on my Che Guevara beret.

You guys really need to get your heads out of your asses. We need the government. What we don't need is mega corporations controlling our government, because WE ARE TOO AFRAID TO SPEAK AGAINST CAPITALISM WITHOUT REGULATION. People want to think that capitalism and the free market are infallible and can save us from anything. That's horse plops. Trickle down economics DO NOT WORK!! Even some conservatives that used to work for Reagan admit that now. The status quo right now is the rich get richer. Is it that hard to see?? Really?!

And don't even bring up the founding fathers. Do you really believe the founding fathers would have envisioned capitalism run amok like the way it is now? American workers losing their jobs. US citizens dying because companies refuse to insure them? The rich and corrupt having all the wealth? I think I hear Ben Franklin and George Washington turning in their graves every time Sean Hannity mentions them by name.

 

[PrisonerLizzie]

It seems to me that China is NOT a communist state. It's more like a capitalist conservative's wet dream. Tell me the differences between the US in the early days our Industrial Age and China now. We have gotten rid of child labor and worker abuses since then. We have also put more environmental regulations in place. China is unchecked capitalism. It's what the republicans want us to go back to. No unions. No regulations. No environmental standards. It's what they fight for.

You do realize that not all Republicans want to go back to the pre-industrial revolution nor do they want to send the ladies back to the kitchens? We also don't buy cases of oil and go dumping them in local ponds and water supplies on the weekend for kicks. We do not hate babies/kittens/puppies/poor people etc. Although I am sure that there are a few people associated with the party that do partake of these things it is not the majority of us as television and other news media outlets would have you believe. We just think there are different ways to get to the same solution.

IMO the best thing that could happen in government is to do away with the lobbyists and special interest groups completely. I also think that there need to be term limits for congressmen. It should not be a lifetime position. But as congressmen are the ones who make laws and they like power this will never happen.

What we fight for is limited government. There are laws in place that are not enforced or are under enforced. Use the laws on the books. IF there is a new law needed don't make it so over reaching that it can say anything at any time. Have you read some of the laws they push through? They are littered with double-speak.

You guys really need to get your heads out of your asses. We need the government. What we don't need is mega corporations controlling our government, because WE ARE TOO AFRAID TO SPEAK AGAINST CAPITALISM WITHOUT REGULATION. People want to think that capitalism and the free market are infallible and can save us from anything. That's horse pl***. Trickle down economics DO NOT WORK!! Even some conservatives that used to work for Reagan admit that now. The status quo right now is the rich get richer. Is it that hard to see?? Really?!

.

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer because of the regulations on the free market. When the government starts concocting laws that say you have to buy X or that only benefit their big business contributors it removes the check and balance system of don't want it don't spend money on it. It also makes it impossible for small business (the perfect alternative to big business) to thrive because they don't have the collective funds to buy a candidate. Small business is what this country needs. Big companies need to be allowed to fail not given hand outs so they can give their execs their bonuses. The government needs to stay out of it and let things run in the natural course of supply and demand and many of the large corporations would fail. Over achieving government yes men ARE to blame because they allowed themselves to be bought.

 

[Vorador]

What we fight for is limited government. There are laws in place that are not enforced or are under enforced. Use the laws on the books. IF there is a new law needed don't make it so over reaching that it can say anything at any time. Have you read some of the laws they push through? They are littered with double-speak.


The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer because of the regulations on the free market. When the government starts concocting laws that say you have to buy X or that only benefit their big business contributors it removes the check and balance system of don't want it don't spend money on it. It also makes it impossible for small business (the perfect alternative to big business) to thrive because they don't have the collective funds to buy a candidate. Small business is what this country needs. Big companies need to be allowed to fail not given hand outs so they can give their execs their bonuses. The government needs to stay out of it and let things run in the natural course of supply and demand and many of the large corporations would fail. Over achieving government yes men ARE to blame because they allowed themselves to be bought.

Well said, government props up big business.

Liberals constantly bash everyone for wanting a free market, yet fail to realize that we don't have a free market now, and that's where the problems begin. A free market requires that under performing corporations fail, not continue to be propped up, the "too big to fail" line was ridiculous.

Then all of the concern about corporations would disappear, because the people could just stop buying their product or service, which we can't do now because of the ACA.[/quote]

 

[JoeReese]

Just for everyone's info, the THOMAS system I've referenced before is being changed. You can still use the THOMAS links, but it will redirect you to beta.congress.gov, which is actually a little more user friendly to search. You can still see all the same info.

 

[Anouck]

Stop listening to professors, or newspaper reporters' quotes from professors, and start looking for yourself.

"stop listening to intellectuals and people who studied for subjects like this". Yeah, indeed. Stop listening to people who did hours and hours of research and who studied on this subject and just think that your own opinion is the good one without ever considering opposite views.
Accepting facts and evidence doesn't mean you don't think for yourself; in fact, I don't only base my opinion on my personal convictions but also the stuff that happens around me and the things I learn. I can close my mind for everything that other people say, telling myself that I should think for myself, but that won't get me smarter through life.

I respect your opinion, even though it is not mine. What does irritate me, is that you ignore every piece of evidence and all the facts that I put down on the table. And that is what I noticed more throughout this thread. And not just by you, Joe. People keep rambling about how right they are, and don't even give attention to the facts and research done on this subject.
I could do that too, from now on. I Keep repeating why I think I am right without coming up with facts. That is easier for me and honestly; who does even take facts seriously in political debates?

I understand you have more experience. But in every political debate (also in the sb) we've been in before you pull the "I am older" or the "I have more experience" card. And that is a strong one. Yes, adults in general do know more, but they are not in a God-mode where they can't be proven wrong. And even though I understand and respect that argument, I rather get arguments based on my arguments instead of personal stuff such as my age or anything like that.

 

[JoeReese]

Stop listening to professors, or newspaper reporters' quotes from professors, and start looking for yourself.

"stop listening to intellectuals and people who studied for subjects like this". Yeah, indeed. Stop listening to people who did hours and hours of research and who studied on this subject and just think that your own opinion is the good one without ever considering opposite views.

Yes, precisely, because as history has shown us, time and time again, people who have done hours and hours of research only may or may not be telling us the truth of what they've learned, and you must be able to tell the difference or you will just fall into the herd as they shape it. I'm not saying don't hear them, but don't listen to them. In other words, if someone does hours and hours of research and then tells you the moon is made of green cheese, it may not be. "Facts" are great, when they are actually facts, but how many in this world are giving you the straight facts, even those who are bound, sworn, or otherwise responsible to do just that?

Do your own research, before you accept anybody else's research as fact. They may very well be the expert, but that doesn't make them truthful. Open eyes.

That's why you'll hear me say it over and over, and you'll also hear me say "don't take my word for it either." You must be able to see it for yourself. To beat again on the example of controversial bills and/or laws, why take the word of MSNBC, FOX, or whoever else, when you can go to the library of Congress and read it for yourself?