This merits a new sidebar poll. Which is the truer photograph of Stephen Hemsley?
Is this worthless leech worth 18.5 times what the Obama family is worth? I doubt that. Strib reporting on the Obamas shows Hemsley had 18.5 times as much income, in 2009. I almost mistyped, using the word "earned," but then caught the error. The gentleman deserves suitable taxation.
Take 90 million dollars for the people, leave him with a quite sufficient ten million.
It is obscene.
__________UPDATE__________
Although I disagree with many of Ron Paul's premises and conclusions, I find this excerpt interesting, from here:
Health insurers, like many other corporations in other industries, have now used the legislative process anti-competitively to corner the healthcare market. Instead of calling this socialized medicine, we should call it corporatized medicine, since the reform is to force us all into being customers of these corporations, whether we like it or not.
Ron Paul nailed down truth in two sentences. That's why it bothers me to read of Al Franken's braying about this enactment as being great, etc. I most certainly hope Jack Nelson Pallmeyer has another challenge in him. I expect that if the GOP motivated litigation against the measure has any success, it would be on the buy-in mandate for everyone. That is not regulating commerce but instead mandating it, in ways that many view as unsound - especially single payer advocates. Along with libertarians such as Ron Paul, single payer advocates see little value in both houses of congress and the White House assuring the likes of Hemsley and cronies a greater volume of cash flow into their money pits.