Why it is Pointless to Argue With a Liberal (Page 6): So you are just pulling this out of your ass. Newton's Laws govern the real world movements of physical objects. They do not...

Singularity

jay-are wrote:

It is the logical conclusion that things will come to after being set in motion in the direction they are being set in motion. Newton's laws of motion are called laws for a reason. They are guaranteed to control the outcome of things.

So you are just pulling this out of your ass.

Newton's Laws govern the real world movements of physical objects. They do not predict social or political behaviors or realities. If this is a sample of your critical thinking skills, I don't have much confidence in your predictions. I have no doubt you BELIEVE what you are saying. But I don't believe without evidence.

But that is beside the point. I am only asking for documentation of the claim that doctors will be prevented from taking cash payments under the ACA. If its written into the act, there should be a page reference to it. Something this crazy should be on the news channels or news articles on the internet.

jay-are

Singularity wrote:

So you are just pulling this out of your ass.

Newton's Laws govern the real world movements of physical objects. They do not predict social or political behaviors or realities. If this is a sample of your critical thinking skills, I don't have much confidence in your predictions.

stevenkalka

Had enough wrote:

This article describes several people on this forum. Right Brian!!!!

Maybe they take the progressive/equality rants at face value. A number of them repeat certain mantras because it makes them seem morally superior, such as "The rich should pay their fair share". They seldom stipulate what that would be. It's like more of a stream of consciousness than a philosophy.

jay-are

Singularity wrote:

So you are just pulling this out of your ass. br ... (show quote)

My answer is that there is documentation in the law that certain requirements were required, but Obama changed the law in spite of what is written in the law. Therefore, if the ability of doctors to take cash payments becomes a threat to the desired outcome of Obamacare, there is no reason not to believe that Obama or whoever takes over after him will not just give an executive order to outlaw the practice.

Singularity

jay-are wrote:

My answer is that there is documentation in the law that certain requirements were required, but Obama changed the law in spite of what is written in the law. Therefore, if the ability of doctors to take cash payments becomes a threat to the desired outcome of Obamacare, there is no reason not to believe that Obama or whoever takes over after him will not just give an executive order to outlaw the practice.

Yup. Ass origin. Thanks for clearing that up.

stevenkalka

jay-are wrote:

My answer is that there is documentation in the law that certain requirements were required, but Obama changed the law in spite of what is written in the law. Therefore, if the ability of doctors to take cash payments becomes a threat to the desired outcome of Obamacare, there is no reason not to believe that Obama or whoever takes over after him will not just give an executive order to outlaw the practice.

It looks like he'll continue to selectively enforce various provisions and kick the can down the road beyond his term. Any legislative fixes will probably come once he's out of office.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Singularity wrote:

Do you have a reputable source for this information? I would like to review it.

If you are sincerely interested, you can Google the ACA and peruse its 1,000's of pages. You will eventually find it buried under other conditions and regulations. i won't do it for you, but you can locate it if you are desirous of doing so.

jay-are

Old_Gringo wrote:

If you are sincerely interested, you can Google the ACA and peruse its 1,000's of pages. You will eventually find it buried under other conditions and regulations. i won't do it for you, but you can locate it if you are desirous of doing so.

Again you make claims but you are not willing or able to back them up.

grace scott

jay-are wrote:

Will you eat crow when you lose your doctor? What... (show quote)

And when you get sick, you will pay your own medical bills. I hope you have the money to do so.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Blacksheep wrote:

Omigod. La Horrendo, La Repugnante is back.

Me he dado cuenta. incluso me respondió a ella, algo que yo me había comprometido a hacer de nuevo. nunca me mal.

jay-are

grace scott wrote:

And when you get sick, you will pay your own medical bills. I hope you have the money to do so.

That is the plan. If I don't I will die, but I won't ask you to pay a dime.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

Yes, and my rates went up by almost a 1000 dollars a year, and our idiot gov. O'malley has just about bankrupted us to try and set up exchange sites that will cost another 56 million dollars before all is said and done. Lies, lies, lies, as far as I m concerned this administration is as transparent as coal. The facts are right in front of us and ''sqeeker'' Carnie is still telling us that 2+2=5 because "Napolian" said so. Sooner or later ur gonna have to wake up and look who's walking now !! Just another step of Agenda 21

Singularity

stevenkalka wrote:

"The rich should pay their fair share". They seldom stipulate what that would be. It's like more of a stream of consciousness than a philosophy.

What about the "Christian philosophy?"

Fair share....

Rich Young Ruler - asked Jesus Christ what he still needed to do to be acceptable to G*d. JC said sell ALL HE HAD to donate to the poor...

Widow's mites - JC remarked that a poor widows donation of two mites ( worth about 1/2¢) was a greater gift than the huge showy donations by the rich folks because she gave even in her poverty. The worthiness of any act of charity is not in the cash amount you give, it is related to the degree of sacrifice involved, the measure of the amount of your heart that is already given to the enterprise.

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

I don't need your money to do so because I BOUGHT INSURANCE, hence the word i-n-s-u-r-a-n-c-e. You do understand what it is don't you? You don't by car insurance after you totalled ur car, duh. People need to be responcible for they're actions ( forgot libs aren't responcible for anything, Bush's fault right ) and lives not just expect others to do EVERYTHING for them !

Singularity

Old_Gringo wrote:

If you are sincerely interested, you can Google the ACA and peruse its 1,000's of pages. You will eventually find it buried under other conditions and regulations. i won't do it for you, but you can locate it if you are desirous of doing so.

You haven't given any honest proof either! Unless you are saying you have read with your own eyes that part of the ACA and saw that it said that which you claim? If you are saying THAT, I will believe it. At least enough to research it. If that is not the case, then where did you learn it?