- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 15,631
- Reaction score
- 16,563
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You " decided " wrong, so wrong.
Ever since it was passed Democrat Politicians and their supporters have been stuck in a endless loop of pro-ACA propaganda.
Well, there was a break in the propaganda right around the time Democrats wanted to get re-elected.
They just kept their mouths shut and refused to acknowledge that the ACA existed.
Allot of good it did. They still lost.
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is an activist justice? We have a govt. that is 18.2 trillion dollars in debt and you have no problem giving them more power and more money? Please name for me one, just one Federal Social program that ever cost what it was supposed to cost? Better yet name for me just one economic prediction Obama has made that is accurate? You still buy the leftwing rhetoric no matter how many lies you are told.
No more than you buy the right-wing rhetoric no matter how many lies you are told....
Now, do you suppose you could elevate you debate beyond 3rd grade playground tactics?
No more than you buy the right-wing rhetoric no matter how many lies you are told....
Now, do you suppose you could elevate you debate beyond 3rd grade playground tactics?
I think we all know the answer to that....there isn't one.
At least, not one that could get backing to pass.
BTW... I am not sure what the debt has to do with this.... please do a better job of either staying on topic or tying in your sidebars.
Medicare Part D actually came in costing less than initially projected as have projected ACA costs thus far. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150126/NEWS/301269833
Do you understand the difference between a Federal Mandate and a state mandate? Republicans know that healthcare expenses are state issues not a Federal taxpayer issue. Obama is a big govt. liberal who believes in a massive central govt. and nanny state. Apparently so do you
It's not even close to being Constitutional, lol...
No rational, informed, honest person would conclude that it is Constitutional. Only corrupt, dishonest, activist jurists would approve it. Exhibit A: The SCOTUS. All 9 need to be impeached.
You see, rhetoric for shock value works to ways. As Obama promised "you can keep you plan" 25 million people were losing their coverage, and potentially sent to their death by Obamacare.
See how that works?
Obama let people die too!
we have liabilities of over $100 Trillion
Medicare Part D actually came in costing less than initially projected as have projected ACA costs thus far. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150126/NEWS/301269833
Good thing DEMs helped Bush straighten out that roll-out.
That cooperation ended with Obama's 1st election and Cantor's (Mr. False-Equivalency's) meeting that night .
Are you saying the conservative SCOTUS is legislating from the bench?
Medicare Part D actually came in costing less than initially projected as have projected ACA costs thus far. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150126/NEWS/301269833
How do you think Obamacare is going to paid for? Only a liberal believes govt. programs don't cost any money and won't add to the debt. Guess we just woke up and 18.2 trillion dollars appeared on the books, larger than the U.S. economy.
How come you're not a member of SCOTUS?
Is that right? Democrats helped Bush roll out the program? Do you even know what Ted Kennedy proposed and how much?
I have never heard anything but a pathetically shallow argument drawing a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare. OK, you have the floor, please explain to all of us the difference and why this is so important. Creating a national healthcare system, across state lines, likely requires a national mandate.
To have the healthcare system work, as well articulated by Roberts, we need to be certain all are covered (despite pre-existing conditions), it is affordable (tax credits) and all participate (mandate). If you want to do this on a national basis, and the appetite of Americans pre-2009, was that was the case, then you need to do these things across state lines...
That all said, most of this is moot, as this is here to stay... if people want to change it, they need to be working WITH the law as working against it is futile.
Do you even know why it came in under cost projections? You look at Medicare Part D and ignore the incentive part of it for the consumer and that is what saved the money.
1. I'm not a lawyer
2. I'm not corrupt and dishonest
3. I believe in a strongly constrictive Constitution, i.e. I believe in limited government; not unlimited government
I have to admit, you are pretty good at trying to turn this around. It is not about me knowing more than a supreme court judge, it is about 3 of them having a take on this decision today that I agree with.
Because you made it up.
The largest block of text behind ACA is Title 2: The Role of Public Programs, at almost 100 sections covering everything from every part of Medicaid, CHIP, various government Prescription Drug Plans, MACPAC assessment policies, and other Child Health Services. The second largest block is Title 3: Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Healthcare, also at almost 100 sections covering everything from Medicare, to Healthcare and Hospital evaluations, to Fee Schedule and Coding changes, to Payment Accuracy, to Charge Master regulations, to Medicare Part D plan changes.
Again, since you do not or will not understand, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to correct wording of legislation. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make legislation at all, it is there job to evaluate the challenge made against the law as passed. In this case, they politically made a decision and made a conclusion that the document itself does not stipulate.
I am not suggesting the law does not stand, I am suggesting they made an error. 3 justices pointed out the error in dissent. And you are wrong on the powers of the Supreme Court. Their clear job is to interpret the law vs. challenge, not edit and repair what Congress did not handle well. The law as written was clear, today 6 justices expanded the definition of "State" to include the Federal Government.
Did they help Bush fix his roll-out--yes or no?
Did DEMs obstruct Bush with Medicare part D--yes or NO, Conservative?
are you glad that Bush appointed Roberts--yes or no ?
Yes, and there are incentives in the ACA as well. The reason why its coming under cost projections thus far is more people are going with bronze level plans on the exchanges.
My only point in bring it up was that you falsely implied no federal social program ever came in under initial projections in terms of costs.
Lies? What lies? You think Healthcare is a Federal Responsibility? You think that all states have the same cost of living? You think that you pay for the healthcare costs in my state? Please show me that Gruber wasn't talking about you.
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?