House Votes To Repeal Obamacare

[Guest Taxed]

The Republican led house has voted, for the 37th time, to repeal President Obama’s health care law, even though GOP lawmakers know the Senate will not follow suit.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics

If that is not the classic definition of insanity, I don't know what is??

Just keep on doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results!!

Republican senators are calling for a halt of the implementation ACA in light of the IRS scandal. Why stop there why not suspend all tax collection!

[Catherine]

Like throwing billions of dollars at social welfare programs, unConstitutionally, over the course of decades, to have the same percentage of people in poverty as when they started -- with the additional burden of the total destruction of the family structure and the solid, respectable, hard-working community social structure in poor areas?

You mean that kind of insanity?

Speaking as one who was raised Democrat/liberal, just open your eyes and LOOK at what the "liberal" policies have done in the past decades. A more complete and thorough destruction of an entire section of our nation can hardly be imagined, all in the name of "helping" people. It's there, plain as day, but you must be willing to see what is _really_ there and not what you _want_ to see. Far too many people are not willing to open their eyes.

I am a Constitutional Libertarian in large part because of the incredible damage that has been done (and continues to be done) to the poor and needy, for political gain.

[Guest Taxed]

I am trying to picture a country that Catherine would love to live in as a constitutional liberatarian.

Would you have any form of social security for folks who are retired?

Would you have some safety net for the famil whose bread winner just got laidoff?

Would you have any program to help sick families so that they do not go bankrupt paying medical bills?

Would every citizen be left to fend for themselves?

I know many liberatarians say, "Don't tell me what I can or can't do". I buy that arguement to a point. But in a civilized society if everybody took that approach don't you see the possibility of total chaos and anarchy? I like John Stossel but sometimes he goes overboard!

Finally politicians from both parties will take advantage of a social situation to further their politics. That is given and that is why I take what politicians say with a grain of salt!

[kcjenkins]

I am trying to picture a country that Catherine would love to live in as a constitutional liberatarian.

MY ANSWERS, CATHERINE WILL NO DOUBT ADD HER OWN.

Would you have any form of social security for folks who are retired? YES, BUT UNLIKE THE PONZIE SCAM WE HAVE NOW, IT WOULD BE ACTUARIALLY SOUND AND BELONG TO YOU. AFTER ALL, Approximately one-fourth of employees of state and local government do not participate in Social Security. This includes most to substantially all public employees in Alaska, Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Ohio. In addition, approximately two-thirds of public safety officers--firefighters and police officers--do not participate in Social Security. These workers are in the seven states listed above and many other states.An estimated one-half of public school teachers do not participate in Social Security, including a majority to substantially all in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, and Texas. ALL THESE GROUPS GET HIGHER BENEFITS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE UNDER FICA. SEE 401(a) plans.

Would you have some safety net for the family whose bread winner just got laid off? SURE, BUT NOT LASTING FOR A YEAR OR MORE.

Would you have any program to help sick families so that they do not go bankrupt paying medical bills? FRANKLY, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE THE BANKRUPTCY RULES, YOU KNOW? SHOULDN'T PEOPLE PAY THEIR OWN BILLS IF POSSIBLE?

Would every citizen be left to fend for themselves? NO, BUT NEITHER SHOULD THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO WORK LIVE ALMOST AS COMFORTABLY AS THOSE WHO DO WORK.

I know many libertarians say, "Don't tell me what I can or can't do". I buy that argument to a point. But in a civilized society if everybody took that approach don't you see the possibility of total chaos and anarchy? I like John Stossel but sometimes he goes overboard! NO, IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY PEOPLE WOULD REGULATE BEHAVIOR BY MOSTLY BY SOCIAL PRESSURE, BUT LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT AGAINST POLICE OR GOVERNMENT, JUST AGAINST THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXPANSION OF THEIR POWER INTO AREAS THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS IN.

Finally politicians from both parties will take advantage of a social situation to further their politics. That is given and that is why I take what politicians say with a grain of salt! I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. DOES NOT MEAN I THINK WE SHOULD JUST ACCEPT IT.

[Guest Taxed]

Thank you KC for jumping in. I welcome a debate on these issues.

1) Social Security is NOT a ponzi scheme as some have suggested. By repeating that phrase you hurt your own cause because most independents disagree with you.

The actuarial assumptions on which it was based over half a century ago does not hold true anymore because of change in demographics, family structure and people living longer. Also it was really never designed to provide disability benefits to such a large group of people. We can debate what changes needs to be made such as raising eligibility age, cut back of benefits at certain levels and a real tightening of the eligibility criteria to get disability benefits. We can also debate if the contribution rate should be increased to keep up with inflation.

Public employees have their own system in my state and i am assuming in your and they contribute to that based on their formula and get benefits. So if your objection is that they should not have their own system, that can certainly be debated.

Unemployment benefits were extended for more than a year because we suffered the worst economic downturn since the great depression. I am sure most Republican minded employees who were getting those benefits did not send their checks back!

I totally disagree with you that an American family has to stare down bankruptcy because they had the misfortune of paying for necessary medical costs. That's what happened in third world countries. Even they are instituting universal healthcare for their citizens. It is not a priviledge to have healthcare you know.

I hope you advise your candidates to debate the pros and cons of our policies in a healthy and respectable way with the otherside rather than name calling and screaming as was evident during the town hall meetings 2 years back.

Your and many like minded people who say " NO, BUT NEITHER SHOULD THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO WORK LIVE ALMOST AS COMFORTABLY AS THOSE WHO DO WORK." demonstrate your total disregard of the real facts and piss of reasonable people.

How many people do you know that say I don't want a job, just give me welfare for the rest of my life! Perhaps a very small minority. Recall Mitt's 49% comment hurt your cause because you folks have a tendency to impute that belief to all those who are struggling and would rather have a job than unemployment checks.

I am looking forward to a healthy debate on all these issues in the next election cycle.

[kcjenkins]

"We can also debate if the contribution rate should be increased to keep up with inflation."

That should not be necessary because as WAGES increase due to inflation or increases in productivity, the amount of FICA paid in goes up too.

[Guest Taxed]

May be they need to bump up the either the rate a bit or the taxable wage base. Obviously the current revenue stream is not sufficient to sustain future obligations.

[joanmcq]

My question about SS is: why do minor children of someone collecting SS automatically get their own benefits? As in man of 65 has much younger wife who is still working and he has retired and getting a pension and SS. His kids automatically get SS too. WTF? This wasn't built into the actuarial assumptions.

[Jack from Ohio]

Taxed, tell me why, in a town of 12-13 thousand people, manufacturing companies cannot get enough people to fill positions. More then 2 dozen businesses have help wanted signs, yet, more people are drawing welfare and staying on unemployment than ever in the history of our town.

I will give you the answers that I have heard local people say....

"I don't want to work there, they are working 6-7 days a week and that is too much for me." (Been on unemployment 67 weeks so far.) (The company starts workers at $15/hour with overtime for over 40)

"That job only pays minimum wage, and I can't live on that." Unemployed 2 years living on welfare, food stamps and other local government subsidies. (no health issues)

"I can still draw unemployment for 22 weeks. Why should I work and only make $50/week more than my unemployment?"

This disease is ravaging our country. Unemployment is destructive to work ethic. Make it 26 weeks like it was for years, then no more. People who turn down or quit a job should lose any remaining unemployment benefits.

Our latest 2 generations have become lazy, apathetic, low information and "entitled" people. This will be the doom of the country.

If more money would cure poverty, we should have been poverty free 25 years ago. On the contrary, poverty is a state of mind, not a state of checkbook.

One more thing, you need to research the structure of Social Security. The only way it stays solvent is to have more people paying in than are taking out. How much you pay in has nothing to do with the amount of benefit you qualify for, for the rest of your live.

Ponzi scheme: Works as long as more people pay in than take out.

Our congress over the years have increased benefits, and granted benefits to many groups of people that the system was not intended to support.

Social Security WILL go bankrupt until the necessary changes and cuts are made. This is financial fact.

[Jack from Ohio]

May be they need to bump up the either the rate a bit or the taxable wage base. Obviously the current revenue stream is not sufficient to sustain future obligations.

This has been done several times with very little effect on the long term outlook of the SS program. Even if the rates of deduction were doubled, it would only add a few years to the solvency.

Major changes on who gets paid and how much must be addressed, otherwise, the system is doomed.

[Guest Taxed]

Jack you don't believe all that you hear do you?

As I said before, a small minority of people will probably prefer to collect welfare for the rest of their lives than work. BUT that is a very small percentage. Given human nature that is to be expected.

I was at a Chamber of Commerce meeting and the #1 reason why some employers can NOT fill open positions inspite of high unemployment is a lack of qualified people for the open positions. We need serious retraining of our people, especially those whose positions were eliminated and the type of work they did will most likely never come back.

Now granted all can not be retrained because of their skill level, education etc. But that is the main reason why many positions can not be filled.

Now you and I both know that unemployment insurance is less than the paycheck the worker was getting and it ends. It is not a lifetime benefit. Seriously you guys make it sound like 49% of Americans would rather collect unemployment checks for the rest of their life than work?? The more you push that narrative the worse it gets for you guys come election time!

[Guest Taxed]

This has been done several times with very little effect on the long term outlook of the SS program. Even if the rates of deduction were doubled, it would only add a few years to the solvency.

Major changes on who gets paid and how much must be addressed, otherwise, the system is doomed.

We need to look at the actuarial assumptions in today's environment and make changes that will sustain the program for future generations. As I said before we need to tighten who qualifies for disability benefits, retirement age for full benefits, the amount and yes the rates we pay. Everything should be on the table to make it a viable program.

[Guest Taxed]

My question about SS is: why do minor children of someone collecting SS automatically get their own benefits? As in man of 65 has much younger wife who is still working and he has retired and getting a pension and SS. His kids automatically get SS too. WTF? This wasn't built into the actuarial assumptions.

I see that a lot when a person is collecting disability benefits and has minor children. The other parent could be gainfully employed and it does not matter.

Yes we NEED to look at all actuarial assumptions and see if it can sustain that benefit structure. If not major adjustments needs to be made.

[joanmcq]

Yes, if disability or SS leaves the family in poverty, then let other systems step in to fill the gap. Automatically giving the children benefits doesn't do the system any good, and is outside of what it was designed to pay for.

[Jack from Ohio]

Jack you don't believe all that you hear do you?

As I said before, a small minority of people will probably prefer to collect welfare for the rest of their lives than work. BUT that is a very small percentage. Given human nature that is to be expected.

I was at a Chamber of Commerce meeting and the #1 reason why some employers can NOT fill open positions inspite of high unemployment is a lack of qualified people for the open positions. We need serious retraining of our people, especially those whose positions were eliminated and the type of work they did will most likely never come back.

Now granted all can not be retrained because of their skill level, education etc. But that is the main reason why many positions can not be filled.

Now you and I both know that unemployment insurance is less than the paycheck the worker was getting and it ends. It is not a lifetime benefit. Seriously you guys make it sound like 49% of Americans would rather collect unemployment checks for the rest of their life than work?? The more you push that narrative the worse it gets for you guys come election time!

These are no-skill manufacturing jobs at a very successful supplier for a very successful automobile company. Everything I posted, I have heard multiple people say on multiple occasions over the last three years. No exaggeration. If you pay people not to work, then people will not work.

This company built a second plant about 50 miles away in Indiana. The plant produces the same parts. The reason for not expanding here was spoken by a company executive. "We have drained this area of all the people what want to work."

You need a REAL REALITY CHECK for what is happening in the 50% of Americans. These are my first hand observations and experiences, not something I hear from any media sources. I see the tax returns for many of the people I have described, and know that they are living the words they say.

[Guest Taxed]

You and I must live in a different America! Last year a distribution warehouse moved to my area and for 50 open positions they have over 1000 people in line to apply! The TV crew was there and for a warehouse type job they had many people with college degrees, middle aged people with business experience applying.

That manufacturer in Ohio who can't find people to work, I can hook him up with folks in my state who would welcome them and there will be no shortage of people applying for those jobs.

I too do many tax returns of folks that i knew were making $20 - $30 an hour but due to layoff or cutback in hours are making less than half and struggling to pay their bills. The spouse who had a partime job is now working 2 partime jobs.

So I don't buy your theory that 50% of Americans would rather collect unemployment than work. I am not ready to give up on America!

[Catherine]

Have added numbers to your comments, rather than try to intersperse.

1. I am trying to picture a country that Catherine would love to live in as a constitutional liberatarian.

2. Would you have any form of social security for folks who are retired?

3. Would you have some safety net for the family whose bread winner just got laidoff?

4. Would you have any program to help sick families so that they do not go bankrupt paying medical bills?

5. Would every citizen be left to fend for themselves?

6. I know many liberatarians say, "Don't tell me what I can or can't do". I buy that arguement to a point. But in a civilized society if everybody took that approach don't you see the possibility of total chaos and anarchy? I like John Stossel but sometimes he goes overboard!

7. Finally politicians from both parties will take advantage of a social situation to further their politics. That is given and that is why I take what politicians say with a grain of salt!

1. THIS one, as this is still the one and ONLY country ever founded on the principle that political power is sovereign IN THE PEOPLE. WE retain power, WE have rights (given to us by our Creator, if you follow the Declaration's principles, and given to us on the basis of our humanity according to Ayn Rand's expositions, if you are an atheist -- those rights are NOT dependent on any government or government document, and NO government act or document can remove them), WE grant the government limited privileges so that it has power to act in specific, limited areas where we have charged it to act. Please see excellent explanation of the CRUCIAL difference between rights and privileges here:

http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf

John Adams also states that the moment the idea is admitted into society that private property is not as sacred as the laws of God, that anarchy and tyranny commence.

However we have strayed _very_ far from our founding principles in the last 100+ years, under both R's and D's. NEITHER party wants us to understand the Constitution or our Founding Principles because it is not in _their_ interests that we do so! I have spent most of the last five years and more studying and researching and the more I study and learn, the more adamant I get that we MUST return to a general understanding of the Constitution. When Alexis de Toqueville traveled this country in the 1800's he reported _common_ instances of the general public discussing the ramifications and Constitutional principles behind the actions taken at the federal level. There is a wonderful TRUE story you can find online about Davey Crockett getting lessoned in the Constitution by a constituent farmer. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html

2. Yes. It is called "savings." There is NO Constitutional authorization for the federal government to be involved in any way, shape, or form -- and this is a crucial piece of information most people no longer understand. The federal government's purpose and authorized areas of activity are ONLY in areas where a unified front of ALL the states is required -- national defense, interactions with other countries, disputes between states (for example, RI could not broker a dispute between NY and VA; a non-state party is required). See Article 1, Section 8, the latter half of Section 9, and Section 10. Also see Article 2, Sections 2 & 3.

There may be room for STATE action here -- that depends on the Constitutions of the states themselves. However, I would very strongly object to the state being the custodian of MY retirement funds (even if they can determine I must set aside x% for myself). Politicians simply cannot keep their hands off of money, and they spend it. If that money is MINE, from MY work, then it should be set aside for ME. NOT put into the general fund, spend willy-nilly, and all I really have is an IOU that is worth heaven only knows what.

The passage of the Social Security Act was carefully presented NOT as an insurance or annuity program, to pass constitutional muster at that time (even with FDR's threats to pack the court with those who would do his bidding, he was careful here). However, it is structured to work as an insurance/annuity plan, and while there are people who do not get out of it what they put in there are far more who get out more than they put in. It is also fundamentally flawed actuarily (is that a word?). Age 65 was picked as retirement age -- in a year when average lifespan was late 50's/early 60's -- and no provision for adjustment was made. That same plan, presented today, would set retirement age at about age 80 (with average lifespan now 82 - 84, depending on gender). It was never designed to be a multi-decade, sole support mechanism for the elderly!

It will either collapse catastrophically -- or we can restructure it now and phase it out gradually. I know very well that it means my generation will spend a lifetime paying in while never getting anything back. That is the price for our society having bought a pig-in-a-poke decades ago. I would love to learn more about how Galveston County withdrew from the SS program, structured their own in-county retirement system, and made it fully functional and fully funded. We have 50 states and hundreds of counties and thousands of towns -- we can experiment with dozens of options and see what works best! Why stick with a known losing system?!?!

3. Personal savings -- family -- church/civic group assistance -- state jurisdiction (and any state payments should be required to be picked up in person; nothing like standing in those long lines for your check every other week to make one eager to find work, as I found out after my first lay-off). Local groups (civic or religious) stand a far better chance of being efficient in getting money to those who need it -- just like with charitable organizations. If a charity is inefficient, people stop donating and give money to a cause that IS efficient -- and the inefficient one goes under. I know a woman who worked at a food pantry and learned about folks who agonized over feeding their pets -- so SHE started a pet food pantry! She saw a need, and addressed it, and was able to do so ONLY because she didn't have a huge bureaucracy to fight with.

4. Y'know, there _used_ to be charity hospitals. They're pretty much gone, thanks to over-regulation by the feds. Get rid of that over-regulation, and they'll come back.

And people are generous! One of my husband's oldest friends was diagnosed a number of years ago with Stage 4 kidney cancer. In the UK, Canada, or Europe (socialized medicine) they would have told him to go home and put his papers in order. Here, he got into a research study for an experimental treatment. $80,000 PER treatment, treatments twice a week for eight weeks; the series run twice. Ouch. Insurance didn't cover it. His family held fund-raising events. His company did as well. They also used quite a bit of savings. He is now an international expert on patient empowerment and advocacy. See his story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_deBronkart and http://epatientdave.com/ or read his books.

5. No!! They simply would not have a federal teat to latch on to. There would be state, community, church, family, and civic safety nets. The closer a group is to the source of a problem, the BETTER chance they have at properly and efficiently addressing _actual_ needs and _actual_ causes.

6. There are some libertarians who go overboard to anarchy (and I personally do NOT know if Stossel is one of them; I have not read his writings in any depth or breadth). Anarchy is not stable; it is always a prelude to tyranny and dictatorship.

http://youtu.be/ROnbwCf37EA

Badnarik shows clearly that (1) all rights are, in essence, property rights (starting with your first-ever piece of property, your own body); (2) every right implies a concommittant responsibility, and (3) the ONLY limitations on your rights is the equal rights of others. (This is also known as "your rights stop where my nose starts.") Furthermore, the only way reliably to defend the rights of minority groups, is staunchly to defend the rights of each individual, everywhere, without fail, without lapse, without exception.

That said, what one person does or does not do (chooses or chooses not; make up your own list) is an area for the individual to control. Minors under the control of their parents (with church or state intervention for abusive situations, etc.). You may choose not to wear a helmet when riding your motorcycle -- whereupon your insurer may choose to state in the policy that you are therefore NOT covered for head injury in an accident (at which time you had best be independently rich, or hope those charity hospitals are back). YOUR lack of self-concern does not obligate me to help pay for your care!! (I may choose to do so out of compassion -- but I am not obligated.)

Yes, this all pre-supposes a moral society. While the usual path for morals is religion, Ayn Rand has shown clearly that there is a more rigorous intellectual path to morality. Do not assume I am demanding a particular brand of faith to make this work. John Adams did say our Constitution was written for a religious and moral people, and that it was unsuited for any other society. Most people are moral, and good. Most politicians are neither; why should they then have so much power over our lives?

7. Absolutely true -- therefore we need to LIMIT their power by taking back the reins of control we have ceded. They do NOT have our best interests at heart; they have their own interests, closely aligned with the interests of international corporations, large unions, financial groups, and many others - which are antithetical to ours. The power they wield is NOT what was intended; NOT what was designed by the Framers, NOT what this country was set up to provide as a framework for our lives. Every federal over-reach into our lives (and outside of the very few areas it was meant to preside over), no matter what "good" it was designed to achieve, ultimately has the exact OPPOSITE effect. Therefore if we want to achieve good ends for our society, we must get the federal government OUT of those areas!

Enough; I've been at this for over an hour and I need my lunch and a strong cup of tea to help shake this headache I've been fighting all morning. Hope this was clear, and there is SO much information at the sources I linked above, plus

constitutiondecoded.com

and

publiushuldah.wordpress.com

[Guest Taxed]

Thank you Catherine. I appreciate your view point though i don't agree with the view that we should depend on charity, civic organization etc. (points 3 and 4). Some of us my get lucky to receive help and others may fall by the wayside!

Like you I too don't trust politicians all the time, because they have vested interest (next reelection). In a moral and just society which is more theoritical than practical I can see the merits of some of your arguments, but unfortunately given human nature we live in an imperfect society!

[Richcpaman]

Wow. The house voted to repeal Obamacare. Haven't they done that about 15 times already?

Why don't they vote to demand that the Senate pass a budget? Then maybe they can pass a budget to run the US Government for next year?

No, Too busy repealing Obamacare...

The system is broken in many ways. The easy availability of SS Disability and Unemployment and other social services is one element, but NOT the only one.

And the fact that the US House is voting to repeal Obamacare is just another defination of insanity....

Rich

[Catherine]

Thank you Catherine. I appreciate your view point though i don't agree with the view that we should depend on charity, civic organization etc. (points 3 and 4). Some of us my get lucky to receive help and others may fall by the wayside!

Like you I too don't trust politicians all the time, because they have vested interest (next reelection). In a moral and just society which is more theoritical than practical I can see the merits of some of your arguments, but unfortunately given human nature we live in an imperfect society!

You are very welcome.

There are plenty who "fall by the wayside" when gov't is in charge. Please also note I did say there was room for _state_ action -- just not federal; the Constitution specifically states that ALL powers not authorized are reserved to the states and the people (10th Amendment).

A dear friend applied for assistance years ago when she was near-destitute. The government social worker assigned to "help" her not only did NOT help -- but threatened to have another agency take her children away from her! She got help from a church group, _not_ the government. She was too scared to try to go back to them! Her crime? Being so poor that she had the heat turned off in most rooms of her house (over 100 years old, no insulation, no central heat - it was room by room heaters, so she only had heat on in rooms as they were being used). The social worker said the next time she came back it had better be warm in all rooms OR she would have child services remove the children. No ifs, and, buts, or explanations. (My friend's dad worked for the State Dept; she grew up all over the world and knew very well what a luxury central heat is - neither she nor her kids had any problem with turning heat on and off as they used rooms.) So government "help" is not without its own set of serious problems!

The more you distrust politicians (which can hardly be too much, in my view), the LESS power they must have over our daily lives. Please look at some of the info I linked earlier; you may find it very interesting at the least!

[Catherine]

Wow. The house voted to repeal Obamacare. Haven't they done that about 15 times already?

Why don't they vote to demand that the Senate pass a budget? Then maybe they can pass a budget to run the US Government for next year?

No, Too busy repealing Obamacare...

The system is broken in many ways. The easy availability of SS Disability and Unemployment and other social services is one element, but NOT the only one.

And the fact that the US House is voting to repeal Obamacare is just another defination of insanity....

Rich

They cannot "vote to demand the Senate pass a budget" -- the House has NO power over what the Senate does or does not do.

This statement is nonsense, proving only a lack of understanding of the Constitution on your part. Please look up the same resources linked for Taxed.

I agree the system is broken in many ways. A return to the Constitution would be a very good place to start fixing those broken areas. Study the document and see for yourself how powerful and how pertinent it is!

[David1980]

A return to the Constitution would be a very good place to start fixing those broken areas.

Yeah but getting the constitution updated has it's own problems.

[Catherine]

Yeah but getting the constitution updated has it's own problems.

I didn't say update -- I said return to.

[Jack from Ohio]

Yeah but getting the constitution updated has it's own problems.

No need to "update" it. That is the theory pushed by the "people who do not want to take the personal responsibility for their lives" take to weaken it or destroy it. It will stand on its own, if followed.

Current American Voter Apathy is rotting the country out from the center.

[joanmcq]

Catherine, it would have been a state agency that threatened to take your friends children. So that example really isn't pertinent to a discussion of whether a safety net should be at the state level, now is it? Now I go to an event that has 'radical self reliance' as one of its 10 principles. That said, community is very important to the event, as 'gifting' of oneself, ones resources, etc. is another principle. I do have a deep belief in doing for oneself. But then I also have a friend, who is coming to the end of the extended unemployment. He has savings. He's also middle aged, and spent his whole work life in an extremely specialized industry. He's actually gotten a few interviews, but has a stack of rejection letters from joBs he's applied for. No one wants him. He's considering trying his hand at playing pro poker because he perceives he has so few choices, the others being keep trying at jobs until he runs out of money and then putting his gun in his mouth, or just doing that before his money runs out. He believed that if one just worked hard & saved, you could have the 'American dream', and until about 18 months ago he thought he had that. Yeah, I know he's seriously depressed, and should get help. But hey, in October he can apply for MediCal, since he'll have no income at that point.