Blue states band together to fight ObamaCare ruling to Supreme Court

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay... not seeing a problem here. Being a UPS driver is pretty hard work. A Pharmacist sits behind a counter all day.

No, a pharmacist is on his or her feet all day, works odd and late hours, weekends, and even holidays.

I actually miscalculated and thought you would understand the problem, which is why I used brevity. But since you still don't get it, let me elaborate on the rest of what she said.

"Do you know what I went through to become a pharmacist? Do you know what my parents went through; the money it took us for my education??? The idea I entered a career where my eduction would be ongoing, not like a Fn UPS driver who didn't invest twenty cents in his career? With taking brakes in college to work and earn money for my education, it took me nine years to do what I do, while at the same time, those UPS drivers on strike started making good money the first day on the job.

Had I known this, I would have never spent the best years of my life for this career!! I would be over there (pointing to our overhead receiving door) dropping off packages to this place instead!!!!"

Now do you understand?

Again, a guy who is going on welfare in coming months should be glad the Democrats are bringing socialism.

You miss why we were the greatest (for white people- being a minority has always kind of sucked in this country). We were great because FDR and HST and LBJ created a middle class for white folks. The rich have been hacking away at it ever since.

No, I'm not going on welfare; never accepted welfare in my life. I'm going on a program I (and my employers) paid into my entire life, no choice of my own. And since it's government who put me out of a career I can easily continue doing, it's only fair that they pay me for making the huge mistake of using bureaucrats to replace doctors.

Furthermore, all that money I and my employers paid could have easily given me the opportunity to invest that money into a conservative account for my retirement/ disabilities. Had that option been there, I would be a millionaire by now and probably have been able to retire five years ago.

But if we look at real welfare, nobody has benefited from it more than minorities. Just ask my HUD neighbors who barely leave the house, in the suburbs, and come home all hours of the night waking working people up because they lived their entire lives being healthy, and never working a full-time first shift job.

 

[JoeB131]

No, a pharmacist is on his or her feet all day, works odd and late hours, weekends, and even holidays.

I actually miscalculated and thought you would understand the problem, which is why I used brevity. But since you still don't get it, let me elaborate on the rest of what she said.

"Do you know what I went through to become a pharmacist? Do you know what my parents went through; the money it took us for my education??? The idea I entered a career where my eduction would be ongoing, not like a Fn UPS driver who didn't invest twenty cents in his career? With taking brakes in college to work and earn money for my education, it took me nine years to do what I do, while at the same time, those UPS drivers on strike started making good money the first day on the job.

Had I known this, I would have never spent the best years of my life for this career!! I would be over there (pointing to our overhead receiving door) dropping off packages to this place instead!!!!"

Now do you understand?

So what's she's whining about is that the UPS drivers had the good sense to unionize so they wouldn't be abused in their job?

$60K back in 1998 was good money.

No, I'm not going on welfare; never accepted welfare in my life. I'm going on a program I (and my employers) paid into my entire life, no choice of my own. And since it's government who put me out of a career I can easily continue doing, it's only fair that they pay me for making the huge mistake of using bureaucrats to replace doctors.

Uh, guy, sorry, Social Security is WHITE PEOPLE WELFARE. I'm always amused when I see the usual right wing bigots whine when about SNAP or TANF or Medicare, but they are happy to snap up Social Security (even when they are still young enough to work), unemployment insurance or Medicare.

"I hates me the Gummit... except when I'm getting stuff!"

 

[Kosh]

Roberts probably doesn't want to revisit his dumb decision.

Actually his decision was the correct one as it is not up the supreme court to write or rewrite the laws.

As much as many may disagree with this, it was the correct decision. I do not want judges that are willing to write or rewrite laws from the bench, it is not their job.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The scariest phrase you could ever hear "We're government, and we're here to help."

No, the scariest thing is a Corporate bloodsucker saying "Trust me!"

The biggest flaw of the ACA is that it trusted the Insurance Industry not to try to screw people.

End of the day, big insurance will keep the ACA, because if it goes, socialized medicine is not far behind.

No. Socialized healthcare will be here if the Democrats ever get total control of the federal government again. That's why we need to make sure that never happens.

Do not be surprised if Trump wins a second term when he himself introduces such a plan.

Then it will be fun to watch all of you people say what a great idea it is

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The scariest phrase you could ever hear "We're government, and we're here to help."

No, the scariest thing is a Corporate bloodsucker saying "Trust me!"

The biggest flaw of the ACA is that it trusted the Insurance Industry not to try to screw people.

End of the day, big insurance will keep the ACA, because if it goes, socialized medicine is not far behind.

No. Socialized healthcare will be here if the Democrats ever get total control of the federal government again. That's why we need to make sure that never happens.

Do not be surprised if Trump wins a second term when he himself introduces such a plan.

Then it will be fun to watch all of you people say what a great idea it is

Really? How do you suppose he would pay for it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Roberts probably doesn't want to revisit his dumb decision.

Actually his decision was the correct one as it is not up the supreme court to write or rewrite the laws.

As much as many may disagree with this, it was the correct decision. I do not want judges that are willing to write or rewrite laws from the bench, it is not their job.

The problem is Roberts did rewrite the law. He basically said that if they consider the penalty a tax instead of a fine, then Commie Care is constitutional. He never insisted that the law be changed in Congress first, and redefined the penalty on the bench.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The scariest phrase you could ever hear "We're government, and we're here to help."

No, the scariest thing is a Corporate bloodsucker saying "Trust me!"

The biggest flaw of the ACA is that it trusted the Insurance Industry not to try to screw people.

End of the day, big insurance will keep the ACA, because if it goes, socialized medicine is not far behind.

No. Socialized healthcare will be here if the Democrats ever get total control of the federal government again. That's why we need to make sure that never happens.

Do not be surprised if Trump wins a second term when he himself introduces such a plan.

Then it will be fun to watch all of you people say what a great idea it is

Really? How do you suppose he would pay for it?

When has Trump ever cared about paying for anything?

Trump submitted the largest budget request in our nation's history, was he worried about how it would be paid for...NO.

 

[Kosh]

Roberts probably doesn't want to revisit his dumb decision.

Actually his decision was the correct one as it is not up the supreme court to write or rewrite the laws.

As much as many may disagree with this, it was the correct decision. I do not want judges that are willing to write or rewrite laws from the bench, it is not their job.

The problem is Roberts did rewrite the law. He basically said that if they consider the penalty a tax instead of a fine, then Commie Care is constitutional. He never insisted that the law be changed in Congress first, and redefined the penalty on the bench.

But that "tax penalty" was eliminated after the end of 2018, under the terms of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Technically, the individual mandate itself is still in effect, but there’s no longer a penalty to enforce it.

The justices ruled that the so-called individual mandate is a tax that Congress can impose on Americans. Congress can pass taxes, they may call it many things, but a tax is something the Congress can impose.

The one part of the Affordable Care Act that was found unconstitutional was the sanction imposed on states if they fail to expand Medicaid to the poor.

"Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts explains. "That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition — not owning health insurance — that triggers a tax — the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance."

Roberts admits that this may not be a natural reading of the mandate. But that doesn't matter, according to precedent.

Roberts also makes the case that "exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress's power to tax."

"In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets — for which the licensee had to pay a fee — could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power," Robert writes.

Partisans will see how they see it, but the laws are that Congress has to write the laws and the supreme court determines if it is Constitutional or not. It is up to Congress to make their laws clear, not the courts.

 

[Kosh]

The scariest phrase you could ever hear "We're government, and we're here to help."

No, the scariest thing is a Corporate bloodsucker saying "Trust me!"

The biggest flaw of the ACA is that it trusted the Insurance Industry not to try to screw people.

End of the day, big insurance will keep the ACA, because if it goes, socialized medicine is not far behind.

No. Socialized healthcare will be here if the Democrats ever get total control of the federal government again. That's why we need to make sure that never happens.

Do not be surprised if Trump wins a second term when he himself introduces such a plan.

Then it will be fun to watch all of you people say what a great idea it is

Really? How do you suppose he would pay for it?

When has Trump ever cared about paying for anything?

Trump submitted the largest budget request in our nation's history, was he worried about how it would be paid for...NO.

And yet the far left house voted for it!

Only 65 out of 197 House Republicans ended up voting for the measure, rejecting the pleas from Trump and their own leadership.

Once again blaming Trump instead of the part of Congress that controls the purse strings!

Once again proving you have no idea how the government works and all you want is to post propaganda!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And yet the far left house voted for it!

Only 65 out of 197 House Republicans ended up voting for the measure, rejecting the pleas from Trump and their own leadership.

Once again blaming Trump instead of the part of Congress that controls the purse strings!

Once again proving you have no idea how the government works and all you want is to post propaganda!

Of course the Dems voted for it, they are open and honest about their fiscal views.

No one part of Congress controls the purse strings, nothing gets spent without approval from the Senate and from Trump...yet you never give them any blame...why is that?

It should be noted also that while the Repubs controlled all parts of the budget process we were still adding a trillion dollars a year to the debt...but you ignore that as well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what's she's whining about is that the UPS drivers had the good sense to unionize so they wouldn't be abused in their job?

$60K back in 1998 was good money.

Not for somebody who dedicated most of their younger life to make it. She had a great point. While she was working, studying, paying some of her college bills, a guy gets a job at UPS and starts making money from day one. Nothing wrong with that mind you. I never went to college and did the same thing, just not for quite as much money.

To the point, when these unions overpay their employees, it makes no sense to do what that pharmacist did, or any other medical professional. So younger people would opt to get a job at UPS, Fedex, any of our auto industries, the steel mils......

When it creates a shortage, the only way to attract people to those professions is an increase in pay, because nobody wants to spend four years in school, leave with a mound of debt, only to be paid less than a UPS driver as a registered nurse. When those rates drastically increase, it's one of the contributors to our now unaffordable healthcare prices.

The one thing that will never sink in with you on the left is that big buck jobs have a domino effect. It's why we are against a huge minimum wage increase. It just won't increase wages for low paid workers. Everybody will need a raise in pay to keep up with that increase, and the cost of living goes way up for all of us.

Uh, guy, sorry, Social Security is WHITE PEOPLE WELFARE. I'm always amused when I see the usual right wing bigots whine when about SNAP or TANF or Medicare, but they are happy to snap up Social Security (even when they are still young enough to work), unemployment insurance or Medicare.

"I hates me the Gummit... except when I'm getting stuff!"

Just like your hatred of insurance companies. Yet you carry insurance for your health, auto, and home. And if you ever came across a loss, you won't pay for it with cash, you will use your insurance company you hate so much. So don't be so liberal about hypocrisy.

As I stated, government didn't give me an option to be on any program. So just like you with insurance, there is nothing wrong with using a system you were forced to pay into your entire life. Only an idiot would pay into something, and when needed, not collect on it because they disagree with the system.

A good chunk of my paychecks went to SS and FICA, which is just a cute acronym for SS and Medicare. I didn't want to contribute to it, but had no choice. I would have much rather taken the cash, make my own investments, and leave government out of it. But government forced me into the system.

I was fine until government ruined things for me. I had a job with health insurance. Government ruined that benefit. Now they took the job away from me as well. But from a commie point of view, anytime government creates huge problems in your life, figure out a way to deal with it.

 

[Kosh]

And yet the far left house voted for it!

Only 65 out of 197 House Republicans ended up voting for the measure, rejecting the pleas from Trump and their own leadership.

Once again blaming Trump instead of the part of Congress that controls the purse strings!

Once again proving you have no idea how the government works and all you want is to post propaganda!

Of course the Dems voted for it, they are open and honest about their fiscal views.

No one part of Congress controls the purse strings, nothing gets spent without approval from the Senate and from Trump...yet you never give them any blame...why is that?

It should be noted also that while the Repubs controlled all parts of the budget process we were still adding a trillion dollars a year to the debt...but you ignore that as well.

Now you just have shown you are left wing partisan hack!

Thanks for finally showing and admitting it!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And yet the far left house voted for it!

Only 65 out of 197 House Republicans ended up voting for the measure, rejecting the pleas from Trump and their own leadership.

Once again blaming Trump instead of the part of Congress that controls the purse strings!

Once again proving you have no idea how the government works and all you want is to post propaganda!

Of course the Dems voted for it, they are open and honest about their fiscal views.

No one part of Congress controls the purse strings, nothing gets spent without approval from the Senate and from Trump...yet you never give them any blame...why is that?

It should be noted also that while the Repubs controlled all parts of the budget process we were still adding a trillion dollars a year to the debt...but you ignore that as well.

Now you just have shown you are left wing partisan hack!

Thanks for finally showing and admitting it!

you are so cute when you try this hard.

 

[Kosh]

And yet the far left house voted for it!

Only 65 out of 197 House Republicans ended up voting for the measure, rejecting the pleas from Trump and their own leadership.

Once again blaming Trump instead of the part of Congress that controls the purse strings!

Once again proving you have no idea how the government works and all you want is to post propaganda!

Of course the Dems voted for it, they are open and honest about their fiscal views.

No one part of Congress controls the purse strings, nothing gets spent without approval from the Senate and from Trump...yet you never give them any blame...why is that?

It should be noted also that while the Repubs controlled all parts of the budget process we were still adding a trillion dollars a year to the debt...but you ignore that as well.

Now you just have shown you are left wing partisan hack!

Thanks for finally showing and admitting it!

you are so cute when you try this hard.

Nope you just shown it in this post! You have been outed, get it over it!

And you just shown you have no idea how the government works, just like all far left cult members!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And yet the far left house voted for it!

Only 65 out of 197 House Republicans ended up voting for the measure, rejecting the pleas from Trump and their own leadership.

Once again blaming Trump instead of the part of Congress that controls the purse strings!

Once again proving you have no idea how the government works and all you want is to post propaganda!

Of course the Dems voted for it, they are open and honest about their fiscal views.

No one part of Congress controls the purse strings, nothing gets spent without approval from the Senate and from Trump...yet you never give them any blame...why is that?

It should be noted also that while the Repubs controlled all parts of the budget process we were still adding a trillion dollars a year to the debt...but you ignore that as well.

Now you just have shown you are left wing partisan hack!

Thanks for finally showing and admitting it!

you are so cute when you try this hard.

Nope you just shown it in this post! You have been outed, get it over it!

And you just shown you have no idea how the government works, just like all far left cult members!

So tell me, what happens if the Senate does not sign off on the House's spending bill?

What happens if the POTUS does not sign the spending bill sent to him?

 

[Kosh]

And yet the far left house voted for it!

Only 65 out of 197 House Republicans ended up voting for the measure, rejecting the pleas from Trump and their own leadership.

Once again blaming Trump instead of the part of Congress that controls the purse strings!

Once again proving you have no idea how the government works and all you want is to post propaganda!

Of course the Dems voted for it, they are open and honest about their fiscal views.

No one part of Congress controls the purse strings, nothing gets spent without approval from the Senate and from Trump...yet you never give them any blame...why is that?

It should be noted also that while the Repubs controlled all parts of the budget process we were still adding a trillion dollars a year to the debt...but you ignore that as well.

Now you just have shown you are left wing partisan hack!

Thanks for finally showing and admitting it!

you are so cute when you try this hard.

Nope you just shown it in this post! You have been outed, get it over it!

And you just shown you have no idea how the government works, just like all far left cult members!

So tell me, what happens if the Senate does not sign off on the House's spending bill?

What happens if the POTUS does not sign the spending bill sent to him?

Not my fault you outed yourself as a far left partisan hack!

You can spin this anyway you want, but you just proven that your hatred is more important that reality.

Once again the far left voted for the bill and not the (R)'s as many of them did not vote in the house. So good luck spinning your far left propaganda!

The House first passed a measure funding domestic programs on a 297-120 vote. But one-third of the Democrats defected on a 280-138 vote on the second bill, which funds the military and the Department of Homeland Security, mostly because it funds Trump’s border wall project.

Learn to research your propaganda before you post your hate here!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Roberts probably doesn't want to revisit his dumb decision.

Actually his decision was the correct one as it is not up the supreme court to write or rewrite the laws.

As much as many may disagree with this, it was the correct decision. I do not want judges that are willing to write or rewrite laws from the bench, it is not their job.

The problem is Roberts did rewrite the law. He basically said that if they consider the penalty a tax instead of a fine, then Commie Care is constitutional. He never insisted that the law be changed in Congress first, and redefined the penalty on the bench.

But that "tax penalty" was eliminated after the end of 2018, under the terms of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Technically, the individual mandate itself is still in effect, but there’s no longer a penalty to enforce it.

The justices ruled that the so-called individual mandate is a tax that Congress can impose on Americans. Congress can pass taxes, they may call it many things, but a tax is something the Congress can impose.

The one part of the Affordable Care Act that was found unconstitutional was the sanction imposed on states if they fail to expand Medicaid to the poor.

"Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts explains. "That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition — not owning health insurance — that triggers a tax — the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance."

Roberts admits that this may not be a natural reading of the mandate. But that doesn't matter, according to precedent.

Roberts also makes the case that "exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress's power to tax."

"In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets — for which the licensee had to pay a fee — could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power," Robert writes.

Partisans will see how they see it, but the laws are that Congress has to write the laws and the supreme court determines if it is Constitutional or not. It is up to Congress to make their laws clear, not the courts.

Where Roberts was wrong is words have meanings. a penalty is not a tax. It's fine for not obeying a law. If you are paying money for not obeying a law, then it is not a tax, it's a penalty.

If I get pulled over for a traffic violation, receive a ticket, and pay that fine, it was not a tax. It was a penalty for not obeying a law. When I pay my property tax bill, consumption tax, city or state, I'm being taxed the same as most other people. I'm not being assessed a fine for wrongdoing.

Now if Roberts said it's unconstitutional to penalize people, and DumBama went back to Congress and had the law changed from fine to tax, then Roberts would have a case. But you can't change words or definitions on the bench. That to me is judicial legislation. It's up to the legislatures to change the wording to make it constitutional, not a judge.

 

[JoeB131]

Not for somebody who dedicated most of their younger life to make it. She had a great point. While she was working, studying, paying some of her college bills, a guy gets a job at UPS and starts making money from day one. Nothing wrong with that mind you. I never went to college and did the same thing, just not for quite as much money.

To the point, when these unions overpay their employees, it makes no sense to do what that pharmacist did, or any other medical professional. So younger people would opt to get a job at UPS, Fedex, any of our auto industries, the steel mils......

You have no point, Welfare Ray... (This is your new nickname). She made good money as a pharmacist... She's upset because someone found a way to make good money that wasn't as hard as how she got there, but was a lot less back-breaking. I wouldn't want to be a UPS Driver, not even for that kind of money.

The one thing that will never sink in with you on the left is that big buck jobs have a domino effect. It's why we are against a huge minimum wage increase. It just won't increase wages for low paid workers. Everybody will need a raise in pay to keep up with that increase, and the cost of living goes way up for all of us.

You might have a point. If they pay those workers a living wage, the rich might have to give up their Italian Vacations and their Dressage Horsies... oh, the horror of it all.

Just like your hatred of insurance companies. Yet you carry insurance for your health, auto, and home. And if you ever came across a loss, you won't pay for it with cash, you will use your insurance company you hate so much. So don't be so liberal about hypocrisy.

The law requires me to carry auto insurance. I really don't have a problem with car or home insurance, those things are reasonably priced. It's health insurance that is outrageous along with the shit like denying coverage after they have your money.

As I stated, government didn't give me an option to be on any program. So just like you with insurance, there is nothing wrong with using a system you were forced to pay into your entire life. Only an idiot would pay into something, and when needed, not collect on it because they disagree with the system.

But the point is, you did have other options. You can do something else for a living... you just refuse to. "Give me some of that sweet, sweet, welfare money, bitches!"

Personally, I think disability is severely abused. When my late sister lost her eyesight due to a detached, and couldn't work as a nurse anymore (the only thing she really knew how to do) she went down to the SSI office and there were a whole bunch of able bodied people applying for benefits... not a wheelchair or a white cane in the lot.

A good chunk of my paychecks went to SS and FICA, which is just a cute acronym for SS and Medicare. I didn't want to contribute to it, but had no choice. I would have much rather taken the cash, make my own investments, and leave government out of it. But government forced me into the system.

Uh, guy, you live in a slum in a busted up city... I don't think you'd have made better choices if you got that 7% of your income that FICA and SS provide.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You have no point, Welfare Ray... (This is your new nickname). She made good money as a pharmacist... She's upset because someone found a way to make good money that wasn't as hard as how she got there, but was a lot less back-breaking. I wouldn't want to be a UPS Driver, not even for that kind of money.

I would have taken that job at a younger age. In fact, I did apply to be honest. They only accepted applications at the unemployment bureau. So I went there and filled out an application. She wasn't so much upset at what they made, she was upset that they had the audacity to go on strike in spite of their earnings and benefits.

You might have a point. If they pay those workers a living wage, the rich might have to give up their Italian Vacations and their Dressage Horsies... oh, the horror of it all.

No, if they pay them a living wage, the cost of everything increases dramatically, and in a few years, their living wage will no longer be livable anymore because everything they buy will cost much more as well. They will be right back to where they started before the increase.

The only thing a living wage would do is price us more out of the world market. That means more automation investments, more companies moving out of the country, more outsourcing. It's a zero sum gain.

The law requires me to carry auto insurance. I really don't have a problem with car or home insurance, those things are reasonably priced. It's health insurance that is outrageous along with the shit like denying coverage after they have your money.

Health insurance is like any other insurance. They collect premiums to pay the bills they receive. All insurance works the same, and they all compete against each other. It's just that healthcare is much more expensive for an insurance company than auto or home insurance; much less payouts.

Yes, the law requires you to carry auto insurance, just like the law required me to pay into these social programs.

But the point is, you did have other options. You can do something else for a living... you just refuse to. "Give me some of that sweet, sweet, welfare money, bitches!"

Personally, I think disability is severely abused. When my late sister lost her eyesight due to a detached, and couldn't work as a nurse anymore (the only thing she really knew how to do) she went down to the SSI office and there were a whole bunch of able bodied people applying for benefits... not a wheelchair or a white cane in the lot.

You don't have to be in a wheelchair to be disabled from work. I have several medical conditions, and unless one of my illnesses act up, you'd never know I have several serious life threatening medical conditions at all just by looking at me. Your sister must have not have been very good at what she did if she concluded that just by looking at people, she could tell they were incapable of working.

Furthermore is the fact that age discrimination is alive and well today. Yes, we have laws against it, but it's nearly impossible to prove. Even if I did get a job, it would be nowhere near what I made being an tractor-trailer operator. Non-skilled blue collar jobs pay about ten bucks an hour or so, and in most cases, require a lot of hard physical work; work I am no longer capable of doing for any stretch of time. I would need to enter a different profession, one that would be willing to hire an old rookie out of school. Good luck with that one. I'd get out of school at the age of 61 or 62, and then try to get a job in a field of work I have no experience in. It would make no sense.

Uh, guy, you live in a slum in a busted up city... I don't think you'd have made better choices if you got that 7% of your income that FICA and SS provide.

Sure you would. SS sends out a pamphlet every couple of years or so. In it they list your contributions every year you worked. Next time you get that pamphlet, take that to a reputable investment company and ask what you'd be worth today had all that money been invested in a growing conservative account. I think you'd be shocked at their answer.

 

[JoeB131]

I would have taken that job at a younger age. In fact, I did apply to be honest. They only accepted applications at the unemployment bureau. So I went there and filled out an application. She wasn't so much upset at what they made, she was upset that they had the audacity to go on strike in spite of their earnings and benefits.

I don't think you'd have been happy at UPS. Those guys actually have health benefits and rights at work...

You don't have to be in a wheelchair to be disabled from work. I have several medical conditions, and unless one of my illnesses act up, you'd never know I have several serious life threatening medical conditions at all just by looking at me. Your sister must have not have been very good at what she did if she concluded that just by looking at people, she could tell they were incapable of working.

Well, she couldn't really "look" at anyone at that point, because she was legally blind.

Furthermore is the fact that age discrimination is alive and well today. Yes, we have laws against it, but it's nearly impossible to prove. Even if I did get a job, it would be nowhere near what I made being an tractor-trailer operator. Non-skilled blue collar jobs pay about ten bucks an hour or so, and in most cases, require a lot of hard physical work; work I am no longer capable of doing for any stretch of time. I would need to enter a different profession, one that would be willing to hire an old rookie out of school. Good luck with that one. I'd get out of school at the age of 61 or 62, and then try to get a job in a field of work I have no experience in. It would make no sense.