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.
That's an excuse for inaction on the part of demo's that want to just keep this law in place. If it is known by both sides that there are real problems with implementation of the law, and refuse to take at face value a minor delay while these issues are addressed, but just go ahead with it anyway for the purpose of cementing it in stone, then who is to blame when we start to hear the stories of lives destroyed by the law when they come out?
If it could have been written better as you say, then why weren't these issues addressed before the demo's jammed this through on a party line vote, in the middle of the night? Is that 'working for the people'? I say no. But, to use an analogy that I think fits here...If you are replacing the light fixture in your dining room say, and you pull the old one down, and notice that the wiring needs to be fixed or it could be a fire hazard, do you put up the light, and turn it on anyway without fixing the wiring first? Or do you just let the house possibly burn down because you want to say look at that shiny new light fixture?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.
No, this is not what we are seeing so far....Reports are that in fact most of the nation will see increases to their premiums.B)yes
We know that is the theory that is being pushed, but, can you point to one government program, or entitlement that costs less today, than was projected when it was implemented?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.
And this is the problem you have when a bill that is over bloated, and jammed with all kinds of hidden taxation and dishonest regulation hidden in over 2800 pages that NO ONE read, and the speaker at the time said "we have to pass the bill, before we can know what is in the bill", and in fact didn't read it herself, and rammed it through in the middle of the night on a one part line vote, what do you expect? Demo's don't want this law dissected, because the people know of it, the less they like it, and start to see that the trade off of liberty contained within, as opposed to the goodies contained within, are not a fair trade off.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.
So then why'd they exempt themselves? And why are they screaming like stuck pigs if they have to pay like everyone else? Dismissing it as a talking point is a pure dodge in addressing why it is that these members feel that the laws they pass only apply to the little people.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.