i thought changing the deadlines was subject to discretion on the part of the department of health and human services?
Actually, the CBO has been quite consistent in it's projections since 2009. The ACA is posted online and it's not that difficult to understand.
The POTUS has not altered the legislation, only the deadlines to fully implement it.
If it wasn't for the left, the rural areas wouldn't even have roads, electriciy or running water let alone health care availability.
The right wing could care less about the debt...that they created. They pretend to care because it gets them elected and once elected they spend like there is no tomorrow.
It's subject to the executive branch and the regulatory agencies tasked with implementing the legislation.
The CBO makes projections based on the data. Thats what they do.Lies and absolute nonsense. The CBO is making predictions based upon PROJECTED data, that's not going to yield sound results.
The people who live in rural areas tend to be conservative and people who live in urban areas tend to be democrat. It's the later that make up the bulk of tax revenue and it's their taxes that pay for the roads and infrastructure for the rural areas. Why? Because rural areas don't have a big enough tax base, thats why.The POTUS did indeed alter the legislation, not only the timing involved but the exemptions allowed. Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but he has, despite the fact that is not in his grant to do so. The left is not solely responsible for roads, electricity or city water. In fact the people who put those things in place in your cities were largely conservative as you can get.
Huh?As to that last, so? That still doesn't answer the question, just reinforces it - are you saying the left wing doesn't want to reduce the debt, and now seemingly according to you doesn't even pretend to care?
The POTUS has not altered the legislation, only the deadlines to fully implement it.
If it wasn't for the left, the rural areas wouldn't even have roads, electriciy or running water let alone health care availability.
Nope.No, not if those deadlines are written into the bill as they are. Then it's the legislative branch who must make any changes.
Your sentence here is contradictory. How can he not have altered the legislation and yet at the same time altered the deadlines to fully implement it? Is altering the dates of implementation not actually considered "altering" anymore? Did that word suddenly get a re-vamp on its definition that 99.999% of people don't know about?
Wow..this is such a crockpot full of crap. So much so that I don't think that there is a proper way to respond as this is such a stupid statement that one couldn't possibly speak slow enough or in small enough words to make even a slight scratch in the stupidity of that statement.
Wow, same to you and more of it.
Nope.
The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 gives the POTUS and agencies the "discretion" to implement legislation. The NPRM is defined in the APA. Obama provided a public notice to the ACA rule changes as per the NPRM....
Proposed HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2015 - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
No, it doesn't allow it to change legislation, but to set rules at the agency level for implementation and enforcement of legislation. These rules must pass a court type procedure.
So you don't mind people dying in hospital parking lots for lack of money? I remember when we allowed that to happen, maybe you don't.My standard of living is fine, and my private healthcare is fine... as long as the government stays out of it.
It is not the role of government to provide healthcare. If people cannot afford healthcare, it is no different than not being able to afford satellite television. If you can't afford it, you don't get it. If you force government to provide it, then at least acknowledge that it is on the backs of other taxpayers.
Back to the idea that in your country the government doesn't have the peoples' mandate for healthcare. If that's the case, surely you can agree that there are some places where healthcare has been placed under the control of the government -- like France, Britain, or indeed even New Hampshire to an extent. It then seems to me that the democratic process is what determines what powers the government has, and in many places, the citizens have democratically given the government the mandate to provide healthcare.
Here's the rub: It appears to me that your country, despite how you feel, has given your government the mandate to provide healthcare, by electing someone running on a platform that includes government healthcare.
It then seems to me that, as this man, democratically elected and very open about his intention to bring government healthcare to the United States, has his mandate, he can and indeed MUST try to implement it.
Therefore, it seems to me that your country wants and is going to get government healthcare. Where is your issue with this?
So you don't mind people dying in hospital parking lots for lack of money? I remember when we allowed that to happen, maybe you don't.
Then I suggest you provide some evidence to prove your claim cuz your opinions don't amount to a hill of beans.
You brought it up, one would think you might want to know what it says first. But hey, here's a link to the act in question - see for yourself:
Administrative Procedure Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I saw it happen many times in my own city. It was part of COBRA in 1986 when Reagan was in the White House and the Republicans controlled the Senate. Any hospital accepting Medicare payments is required to provide emergency care to anyone without question as to insurance or ability to pay.If that were the case then what you would be describing would be a nation of people so poor that they wouldn't know where their next meal was coming from; that is not the case.
Interesting choice of stupid references. I see the same BS on many conservative websites, which is no doubt where you got your "fact" list. :roll:I find it ironic that most of the people who claim they can't afford healthcare are people who can afford car payments, smart phones, concert tickets, eating out, new fashions, satellite TV, Starbucks coffee and tattoos.
Maybe they just haven't prioritized their lives very efficiently. If they haven't that is on them, not my job to figure it out for them.
You are correct, the current government healthcare law was signed into law through democratically elected representatives. However, in the case of this law it was not supported by just slightly less than half of the people of this nation, therefore nobody could argue that there was a sweeping mandate for that law.
Just because something wins by a simple majority does not make it right. And the way socialism works in one nation is not the same in another nation. In terms of the government healthcare law in this country that we are debating, I saw a figure that said only 10% of those eligible have signed up for it. If it was so popular to have in place, why is it such a failure you might ask? Well, as it turned out it isn't FREE, not even for the saps who thought it would be free. Fact is nothing is ever free; somebody pays for everything. My "rub" is that I am usually the one paying.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?