- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You answer my questions with questions. First off, what I'm saying is that republicans asking for a delay so that obamacare can be implemented correctly is an outright lie that they won't even try to defend, they don't want it done right they want it gone as a best possible scenario (from their perspective) or done wrong as a 2nd best scenario.
To address your post:
Thats 3 questions in 1 sentence
A) not necessarily, it was rushed and certainly could have been written better, with more consideration to certain issues. But when your writing in pencil (effectively) you don't crumple the whole crossword puzzle up because one of your answers doesn't fit in light of more recent developments, you flip the pencil around, use the eraser, and fix it.
B)yes
C) that's not the point of the ACA, its to make coverage affordable and available. However, the ACA should increase competition, which should cause quality to improve over time.
There's tons of contradictory evidence that points to both sides being both right and wrong. There's also a lot of evidence of dishonesty with statistics, misrepresentation of facts, deliberately misleading sound bytes, and most everyone (but republicans far more so) working backwards from their conclusion and trying to find something that supports their own position, at times taking actions that create said evidence without any real need to do so (business owners ****ting on their workers in anticipation of obamacare, when they didn't need to take a dump anyway and could have done so elsewhere if they needed to). I trust none of it, let the ACA happen and lets see how it goes. America is strong enough to make the corrections needed and endure should the ACA prove to be as bad as the right makes it out to be. On the other hand, it could end up working really really well with a few adjustments, which is what the right is really scared of.
Bad analogies are bad. You suggest that obamacare will ruin the lives of those in congress if they don't exempt themselves. Do you think any of them would have a hard time buying health insurance, top tier, out of pocket? Just another empty talking point that sounds good but makes no sense if you stop to think about it.
For the same reason that Obamacare would force people who already have insurance into a whole new insurance regime.
If Obamacare is so awesome, why not put everyone on it?
Only if it adds that Congress doesn't get paid until it's done and after one month past the deadline new elections are held for ALL congress members. I'm not up for some wishy washy amendment with no teeth.
Actually it is a big deal for world markets, stock markets, and how the world looks at us from a economic stability point, etc.
This just makes us look bad and hurts us in many ways. I blame both sides and the president for this crap.
For the same reason that Obamacare would force people who already have insurance into a whole new insurance regime.
If Obamacare is so awesome, why not put everyone on it?
Um, possibly because....it was designed from the start to get those WITHOUT insurance..... to purchase it.For the same reason that Obamacare would force people who already have insurance into a whole new insurance regime.
If Obamacare is so awesome, why not put everyone on it?
Um, possibly because....it was designed from the start to get those WITHOUT insurance..... to purchase it.
Have you forgotten the basics?
The debt limit doesn't limit future spending, it pays for spending that's already been passed.
Congress doesn't have a credit limit, but they do have to pay their bills. They can vote to spend whatever they want and sell T bills to make up the difference. They can continue to do this until they can't pay for what they spend. If that happens,T note will be risky investments. They'll demand high rates. The cost of financing the debt will explode destroying the US economy.
And all of this happens if GOP refuses to pay for what they spent. Not raising the debt ceiling would harm the US more than any terrorist ever could.
Because that is not what the AHC act was about. It is meant to allow the UNINSURED to finally be able to purchase HC. That is its purpose. I am not surprised that you are clueless about it most who oppose it are.
The debt limit doesn't limit future spending, it pays for spending that's already been passed.
Congress doesn't have a credit limit, but they do have to pay their bills. They can vote to spend whatever they want and sell T bills to make up the difference. They can continue to do this until they can't pay for what they spend. If that happens,T note will be risky investments. They'll demand high rates. The cost of financing the debt will explode destroying the US economy.
And all of this happens if GOP refuses to pay for what they spent. Not raising the debt ceiling would harm the US more than any terrorist ever could.
Um, possibly because....it was designed from the start to get those WITHOUT insurance..... to purchase it.
Have you forgotten the basics?
The same "exemption".....that if you have employer provided insurance, you should be forced to drop it so that you have to purchase insurance on the private market? The purpose being......what?Oh, is that what it's for? LMAO!!!! Two-thousand pages, just to force people to purchase health insurance???
If that's the case, then everyone who already has health insurance should receive the same exemption.
Because that is not what the AHC act was about. It is meant to allow the UNINSURED to finally be able to purchase HC. That is its purpose. I am not surprised that you are clueless about it most who oppose it are.
Morning there Gimmie,
Can you please point me to the part in the Constitution of the United States where the authority lies for the government to 'Force' people to buy any private product?
The same "exemption".....that if you have employer provided insurance, you should be forced to drop it so that you have to purchase insurance on the private market? The purpose being......what?
I mean if the grand idea is to delink insurance from employment....fine.....but that is not the intent, your intent is to try to blow up the whole plan.......which was originally a conservative plan to counter single payer/socialized medicine.
It still amazes me how this point is still lost on cons.
Because that is not what the AHC act was about. It is meant to allow the UNINSURED to finally be able to purchase HC. That is its purpose. I am not surprised that you are clueless about it most who oppose it are.
You have yet to show me how raising the debt each year is going to pay it off.
I never said 'force'. And besides, you already have it. But I suppose you are fighting for the right to be irresponsible.....after all, that is a guaranteed right...right?Morning there Gimmie,
Can you please point me to the part in the Constitution of the United States where the authority lies for the government to 'Force' people to buy any private product?
This is what is so weird about Grassley's provision, why would he insist that those already with insurance (Congressional employees) be forced into a whole new insurance regime? The only thing that makes sense is a sabotage.
Actually its purpose is to take the over burdened middle class health care system and share it with the poor and under privileged so they will continue to vote for democrats. The elites aren't being touched as is evidenced in the fact the congress exempts itself, the administration exempted itself, large corps exempted, and public employee unions exempted.
The same "exemption".....that if you have employer provided insurance, you should be forced to drop it so that you have to purchase insurance on the private market? The purpose being......what?
I mean if the grand idea is to delink insurance from employment....fine.....but that is not the intent, your intent is to try to blow up the whole plan.......which was originally a conservative plan to counter single payer/socialized medicine.
It still amazes me how this point is still lost on cons.
Facts.
It certainly was a concept they ascribed to. Of course there is a whole lot of walking back and scrubbing going on now.Still sticking to it being Heritage's plan eh, even when that has been debunked....:doh
I never said 'force'. And besides, you already have it. But I suppose you are fighting for the right to be irresponsible.....after all, that is a guaranteed right...right?
And the Republican position is to deny millions coverage so they can gloat about how much better they are than "them".
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?