ACA Is Here to Stay !! :) (Page 2): :thumbup:...

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Dave wrote:

Just curious, have you gotten over crying about Citizen's United and the corrupt conservative SCOTUS?

:thumbup:

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

straightUp wrote:

The answer to your question is laid out in the law itself, which includes a description of how the ACA is to be funded. If this wasn't the case, and the ACA was a matter of just spending money, then you would certainly have a point.

How to spend money is not how to pay for spending it.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Blade_Runner wrote:

And, br br url=http://nypost.com/2015/05/14/obam... (show quote)

Now you can find something else to cry about. :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Unclet Loc: Amarillo, Tx

straightUp wrote:

The answer to your question is laid out in the law itself, which includes a description of how the ACA is to be funded. If this wasn't the case, and the ACA was a matter of just spending money, then you would certainly have a point.

The question of funding is ambiguous at best, therefore my concern. If left to the politicians, who do not have live by the rules they pass, it will just become another money pit to be filled by folks like us.

straightUp Loc: California

Ricko wrote:

StraightUP-if you knew anything about the ACA you would sing a different tune. The only people who benefit are those being subsidized and we were already doing that through medicaid.

Ricko, if YOU knew anything about the ACA you would know there is a LOT more to it than that. (It doesn't take 947 pages just to prescribe a subsidy). Besides, since when is helping those in need such a bad thing?

Ricko wrote:

For those on the receiving end its wonderful news but the premium payer will see his/her rates go up so that the subsidies can continue.

Rates have been going up anyway, to the point where people couldn't afford it and that's a huge reason why they came up with the "Affordable" Care Act. I'm one of those premium payers and I am happy to subsidize those less fortunate than myself. But I guess that's the liberal in me.

Ricko wrote:

The ACA is planned disaster. I can understand why the SCOTUS voted the way it did and it had nothing to do with whether the law was correctly interpreted.

That's not what Justice Roberts is saying.

Ricko wrote:

It had all to do with the 8.7 million who received subsidies which they would have to pay back had the court voted the way the law was written and intended. So they protected those people for the time being by totally ignoring what the law stated . The law is unsustainable and will crash and burn in due time.

Yeah, that's what you folks have been saying since the day Obama signed the law. So far, it's only getting bigger, better and more popular. I tell ya what.. when it crashes you can say you told me so. ;)

Ricko wrote:

The SCOTUS is voting itself out of existence. Even a lay person can understand exactly what that law specifies.

And yet, you can't... But then again, you think the SCOTUS is voting itself out of existence. Well, when the headlines read, "Supreme Court Disappears" I'll pay more attention to your rant.

Ricko wrote:

The SCOTUS is becoming more and more like Obama. They pick and choose the laws which they will or will not enforce. It is time for term limits at the SCOTUS. PS. If someone else were paying my insurance premium, i guess I would probably smile as well. Good Luck America !!!!

Aw, are you mad because someone else is getting assistance and it's not you?

straightUp Loc: California

Super Dave wrote:

It could be that it is here to stay, and we're all screwed. Well, at least until Obamacare destroys private healthcare and we're put on a government rationed healthcare. Then we're screwed worse.

And remember.. Obama said this was a way to get to 'single-payer', which is liberalspeak for Full Solviet Socialism.

Single-payer is what Newt Gingrich was pushing a few years back. Single-payer is what Romney was championing in Massachusetts. Obamacare is a market solution. And you are obviously incapable of understanding that.

straightUp Loc: California

UncleJesse wrote:

interpretive jiggery-pokery federal exchanges count as state exchanges but only for purposes of tax credits that never go to the citizen but to corporations.

Can you actually explain that or is this just another punch in the dark?

UncleJesse wrote:

congratulations straightUp and enjoy your day with your celebration but hope you libs work with conservatives to fix this thing

Fix what? (Just kidding) yeah, there's still a way to go and I also hope the liberals and conservatives can work together to make things better, that would be nice. Conservatives just need to step up the game and come up with some ideas, instead of just stomping their feet and saying "no" all the time.

straightUp Loc: California

Blade_Runner wrote:

And, br br url=http://nypost.com/2015/05/14/obam... (show quote)

I'm sure there are thousands of articles blaming Obamacare for everything. :roll:

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

straightUp wrote:

Single-payer is what Newt Gingrich was pushing a few years back. Single-payer is what Romney was championing in Massachusetts. Obamacare is a market solution. And you are obviously incapable of understanding that.

:thumbup:

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

straightUp wrote:

Single-payer is what Newt Gingrich was pushing a few years back. Single-payer is what Romney was championing in Massachusetts. Obamacare is a market solution. And you are obviously incapable of understanding that.

Actually... No they weren't. Yes, Newt did nationally, and Romney did locally propose a mandated healthcare system, but that's not what single payer is.

Single payer is where the only payer is the gubmit.... And therefore the gubmit will ration healthcare.

Remember Obama said to a person that her mother should take a pain killer and die instead of having lifesaving treatment? Expect more of this when elite politicians see weigh the cost/benefit of keeping someone alive (Benefit for politicians is a person's ability to pay taxes, btw..)

(see video)
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/obama-old-people-dont-neeqd-life-saving-treatments-they-can-take-a-pain-pill-and-be-left-to-die/

straightUp Loc: California

Dave wrote:

Just curious, have you gotten over crying about Citizen's United and the corrupt conservative SCOTUS?

You mean the corrupt conservative SCOTUS that just upheld the ACA? :) I'm actually pretty happy with them now. As for Citizens United, well of course I am concerned that idiots like you are willing to hand our democracy over to the highest bidders, and as a liberal I don't have the same passion for licking the boots of the oligarchy that you have. If you want to call that crying then fine. At least I'm not crying about stupid shit.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

straightUp wrote:

You mean the corrupt conservative SCOTUS that just upheld the ACA? :) I'm actually pretty happy with them now. As for Citizens United, well of course I am concerned that idiots like you are willing to hand our democracy over to the highest bidders, and as a liberal I don't have the same passion for licking the boots of the oligarchy that you have. If you want to call that crying then fine. At least I'm not crying about stupid shit.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

straightUp wrote:

You mean the corrupt conservative SCOTUS that just upheld the ACA? :) I'm actually pretty happy with them now. As for Citizens United, well of course I am concerned that idiots like you are willing to hand our democracy over to the highest bidders, and as a liberal I don't have the same passion for licking the boots of the oligarchy that you have. If you want to call that crying then fine. At least I'm not crying about stupid shit.

I see, the SCOTUS you now love were idiots handing our democracy to the highest bidder then - as a liberal you have the common problem - unable to maintain intellectual integrity while thinking insulting those with a different opinion shows your superiority - while it only shows your shallowness.

gynojunkie

straightUp wrote:

Once again, seething conservatives find themselves... (show quote)

Yes, a toothless smile fronting an empty cranial vault.

What we witnessed today is nothing less than the dissolution of our system of government; SCOTUS has become the politicized extension of the Executive Branch; furthermore, SCOTUS is in violation of its charter to interpret the constitutionality of legislation. Instead, SCOTUS parses the meaning/intent of the legislation and factors in the potential effect of its absence.

And, once again, the Feds waved Justice Roberts' kiddie porn collection in his face, to help keep him in line.

A traitor--four traitors--to America.

They need to be lined up against a wall, today...

jelun

Unclet wrote:

Could be its not a case of who is right and who is wrong, there is enough of that to go around. Can we afford to continue to subsidize all these folks, I think not. When the money runs out, where and to whom do we turn? Will you be smiling then? I agree, it is not perfect, but it certainly is not as good as it was prior to its existence.

We were subsidizing the health care of those without health insurance prior to this anyway, they just waited until they were REALLY sick and visiting the most expensive providers of care, Emergency Depts.

Many people disagree with you, Unclet.
What has your experience been with the ACA?