- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up

Sorry, no featured jobs currently.

- Advertisement -

« News Home

At Girard hot dog shop, some relish health ruling; others grill it as unjust

Published: Fri, June 29, 2012 @ 12:01 a.m.

SEE ALSO: • What you need to know about health care now

• YSU students offer variety of views on law’s mandate

• Business, union leaders react to ruling

• Hospital stocks jump sharply on court decision

• Health providers throughout Valley applaud 5-4 ruling

• Area politicians toe party lines in reactions to ruling

• President wins in the high court

By Danny restivo



Download as PDF:
Affordable Care Act Decision

US Supreme Court Document in the case of the National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Lunchtime can create a boisterous atmosphere at the Jib Jab Hot Dog Shoppe.

The environment was a perfect setting for customers to share their sentiments after the Supreme Court ruling to uphold President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

“I think less government is the way we are supposed to be,” said Pam DeGenaro, a Girard native and manager at a private tax service.

“It started with seat belts years ago, and they mandated that, now it’s cigarettes and now it is you have to buy health care, so I think the government has overstepped its boundaries.”

Travelers stopping in from nearby Interstate 80 and workers from the area create a diverse scene in the afternoon at the eatery. It allowed for an engaging “Obamacare”


“I guess it’s good for the people who don’t have it, if it doesn’t change for the people who do have it,” said Judy Takach, a retired librarian from Youngstown State University. “I guess we will see how it plays out. We won’t know until it’s all in place.”

“As far as the universal health care, I guess my issue is what exactly are the co-pays going to be?” said Rob Rodgers, a union pipe fitter who works in Girard. Rodgers has seven children and is curious to see how much will be taken out of his paycheck now.

“Every hour I work it’s almost $9 that goes towards my health care,” he added.

“I really like the idea of people having insurance, especially for their children, if they have some kind of a problem that would otherwise exclude them from it, but I worry what it’s going to do for Medicare and for the deficit,” said Nancy Manente, a retired General Motors Co. worker from Mineral Ridge.

“I got to raise prices to cover this,” said Jib Jab part-owner Jack Doverspike. “For us small [business] guys, it really hurts. Big corporate chains are different.

“I’m a small guy. It depends on how many employees they are going to put me under and how they are going to write it, but ... it’s going to hurt.”

Others believe the ruling will improve the country.

“I’m not saying the law is perfect, but even if it gets refined or changed over time at least something is happening,” said Jason Tingler, a Hubbard native and a Ph.D. student studying genocide studies at Clark University in Massachusetts.

Some are still angry they will be forced to buy health insurance.

“That is wrong, and we will see all of them [politicians] in November,” said a Pittsburgh resident who’s looking forward to the upcoming election.


1Buci01(12 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

Leave it to mis informed individuals whom think they know everything and you will find a mis informed Liberal. Some items never change.

Suggest removal:

2LtMacGowan(643 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

I almost cried tears of joy when I read the ruling. It was absolutely the right thing. I am just sorry we didn't get single payer socialized medicine, but President Obama's reforms are a step in the right direction.

The last time I bought private insurance I made 22 claims, and all but ONE claim was denied, 21 separate letters saying claim DENIED, PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.

Obama is my hero! Thank you for taking a huge step forward to fixing our idiotic medical system that is so bad its not even in the top 15 in the world.

Suggest removal:

3Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

REDEYE maybe you should travel more

Seat Belt Laws

June 2012

Seat belt laws are divided into two categories: primary and secondary. Primary seat belt laws allow law enforcement officers to ticket a driver or passenger for not wearing a seat belt, without any other traffic offense taking place. Secondary seat belt laws state that law enforcement officers may issue a ticket for not wearing a seat belt only when there is another citable traffic infraction.

Learn More About Occupant Protection

Child Passenger Safety Laws

Issue Brief

Click It or Ticket

Related Links
32 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have primary seat belt laws.
17 states have secondary laws. In many of these states, the law is primary for younger drivers and/or passengers.
In several states, laws vary depending on whether the passenger is seated in the front seat or in a rear seat.
New Hampshire has enacted neither a primary nor a secondary seat belt law for adults, although the state does have a primary child passenger safety law that covers all drivers and passengers under 18

Suggest removal:

4atownreader(34 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

This decision will be a game changer for the better. I applaud the Supreme Court. Shame on those nasty republicans who monger fear into the brains of the not so bright. Greed is evident in their thinking. All their arguments are absolutely ridiculous. We are not stupid. If they would actually read what is going to be provided rather than make up their own cra#, we would not have this division. Shame on them for creating this upheaval.

Suggest removal:

5saysomething(1 comment)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

Just to be clear redeye, for you to be right 50 states would need to have a seatbelt law. Per your own admission, only 49 do.

I feel for the small businesses on this one, but I still agree with the law. For those of you concerned about government "controlling" your health coverage, I would like you to imagine your life without the protections of your government.

Suggest removal:

6Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

WRONG NH does not have one at this time , But they are about to vote it in
Does that make you feel better , Take a deep breath and clam down , Your veins are showing We will have to change your name to red face

Suggest removal:

7commoncitizen(961 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

saysomething, There's a difference in the government "protecting" the citizens of this country and "controlling" every aspect of our lives.

Suggest removal:

8AFgrad(11 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

For those who are happy with this decision. Just remember that there is no free lunch. Someone is going to have to pay for those who refuse to work but still are covered. And that someone is those who work. Just to be clear. I think as a society we have a obligation to support those in society for no fault of their own can't support themselves. I have problems with my tax dollars going to support dead beats who spend their time avoiding doing their fair share and sucking off the rest of us.

Suggest removal:

9southsidedave(4780 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

@ redeye1....all of those things you mentioned, do not make Obama a great man

Suggest removal:

10Snoopy01(10 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

I am employed full time with rheumatoid arthritis. I am happy to hear the law passed. I don't know much about it but it has to be better than the one I don't have now. The only way I can get insurance is if I want to pay over $800 a month. (that is a little difficult when I bring home less than that every two weeks).

I was originally going to vote for Mitt but the more he talks the less I like him. His wife did an interview with a $1000.00 Tee shirt on (and yes this is correct). They are so out of touch with the middle class working folks. They do not have a clue what working to provide or a family really means.

Suggest removal:

11BabaGhanoush(106 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

"What gives government the right to force me to do without?"

Government as envisioned by liberals, progressives and democrats, that's what.

Of course if we ran the government the way our Founders envisioned it to be, we wouldn't be in this mess now.

Suggest removal:

12BabaGhanoush(106 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

I read somewhere that you will not be able to pay cash for any medical procedures or office visits?
Is that true?
Why should we have to take what the government decides we should have to take?

This is not the purpose of government: to limit our freedom.
The Constitution was designed to limit the Federal Government, not the citizens.

Suggest removal:

13BabaGhanoush(106 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

BTW there are 21 new taxes in O'Care.

The Supreme Court just redefined the meaning of "Tax".
It is whatever we say it is.
The dems are still denying it's a "TAX"!
Now there will be no limits on taxation or or any limitations on what a a tax is.


Suggest removal:

14BabaGhanoush(106 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

"We'll see who has the last laugh in November."

Since you libs were squealing like stuck pigs after Nov 2010, I can only imagine wailing and gnashing of teeth after the bloodbath of Nov 2012.

700 dems were thrown out then, 10 times as much will be tossed this Nov.

Wisconsin was only the beginning.

Suggest removal:

15BabaGhanoush(106 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago


Okay, you are only required to have car insurance if you have a car.
Why should you have to have health insurance if you never go to a doctor.
There are those who are never or rarely ill for any reason.

Okay, you should be able to have levels of coverage just as you do with car insurance, eh?
You should buy as little as you want or as much as you need.
Can you? No you cannot. Not under private coverage and certainly not under the thumb of the Gub'mint.

BTW if you're a guy why should you pay for maternity, pre natal and women's concerns, eh?
And if you're a woman, why should you pay for urological or prostate problems?

You should pay for what you need and not what someone says you should have.

Ever look at you policy and see what you're paying for on account of what is mandated by Gub'mint?


The lowest is Idaho with 13 and the highest is RI with 69.
Ohio has 29 mandated coverages.

These are arrived at by the commissioner of insurance and lobbyists for the particular mandated coverages.

Suggest removal:

16freedomofchoice(8 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

Blah: While talking about Obamacare, I brought up the fact that we Americans are slowly loosing our "freedoms" in this country..When the government starts penalizing its citizens "for not choosing" to do what they think is best for us, where will it end...watch for more of the same if this man remains in the oval office next yr.

Suggest removal:

17msweetwood(161 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

Baba writes: "Why should you have to have health insurance if you never go to a doctor ... BTW if you're a guy why should you pay for maternity, pre natal and women's concerns, eh? And if you're a woman, why should you pay for urological or prostate problems?"

First, you NEVER go to a doctor? You don't have annual physicals? You never slip off of a ladder? There is no history of heart defects or cancer or diabetes in your family? Never having a family? In fact, no one in your family ever has been to a doctor?

Or are you arguing in abstract for this hypothetical non-existent person?

And second, you are a woman worrying about paying for men's issues or a man worrying about paying for women's issues? Here's what I am worried about: My insurance going up by double digits every year because those without any insurance whatsoever think of the ER as a free dispensary for their every ache or pain - or the occasional actual emergency.

I was on vacation a couple of years ago and sitting in a resort bar when a group of us were debating health care. The bartender looked up to inform us he was against that socialist president and his "Obamacare." With a straight face he said "We already have the best health care system in the world. Why ruin it? I can walk into any emergency room and get the best care and not pay a dime."

Turns out, of course, he had no health care insurance (he had only the benefit of the ability to parrot what he heard on right-wing radio). So, then the group - pro and con the health care law - began to school him that he was the socialist living off of our increasing insurance costs because he was a freeloader.

So, either you pay your fair share and stop freeloading on the rest of us or you pay a fine. I can remember a time with Republicans like Mitt Romney actually advocated for personal responsibility...

So, tell me why my thinking is wrong. And be prepared to tell me whether you have health insurance or are a free loader.

Mark Sweetwood
Managing Editor

Suggest removal:

18freedomofchoice(8 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

I read that the penalty for not buying ins. will be w/held from your refund when you file taxes......

Suggest removal:

19freedomofchoice(8 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

"Also, an estimated 26 million people will remain without health coverage once the law is fully implemented, including illegal immigrants, people who don't sign up and elect to face the fine instead, and those who can't afford it even with the subsidies."
Quote from the Vindy story: what you should know about health care ruling.
hummmmmm.if they can't afford it even w/the subsidy..how are they gonna afford the fine...

Suggest removal:

20walter_sobchak(1914 comments)posted 2 years, 3 months ago

Since most Americans pay no income tax to federal govt, there is little impetus for them to be responsible and have health insurance. Very little will change except that the federal govt will now know who the people are that don't have insurance. This free-loader who feels that it is acceptable to not pay for an ER visit knows that the IRS will not be able to touch him either.

What will ultimately happen in the US is that Medicare will be expanded to include those that don't have insurance. The premium rate will have to be increased to further tax the working Americans to pay for the welfare program to cover the free-loaders. We will ultimately collapse like Europe is doing.

Suggest removal:

21TylerDurden(367 comments)posted 2 years, 2 months ago


Statements like that are both scary and entertaining. To compare any politician of the last 50 years to Abe Lincoln is pretty ludicrous.

Suggest removal:

22TylerDurden(367 comments)posted 2 years, 2 months ago

If you read in context Pam never said the Federal government mandated seat belts, and she was referring to the banning of cigarettes in public places. You are so quick to demean that in the end you look like the jackass. You must be a joy at home and work. Jerk.

Suggest removal:

23freedomofchoice(8 comments)posted 2 years, 2 months ago

We Americans are slowly loosing our "freedoms" in this country..When the government starts penalizing its citizens "for not choosing" to do what they think is best for us, where will it end...watch for more of the same if this man remains in the oval office next yr.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport