But the point I was making is: the SC has ways of using logic to get wherever they'd like to go, in order to suit the times & politics.
This is seen at best when we examine cases where they logic their way through cases years apart to get opposing rulings, seemingly to suit the times & mood of the country - the school segregation cases of the '50's/'60's are a great example of this.
The irony here is striking. The majority is accused of legislating from the bench because they did not strike down a key provision of the ACA on a legal technicality due to an ambiguously worded phrase in a 900 page bill. To any reasonable individual, not blinded by partisanship, the three dissenters were the obvious judicial activists in this one.
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)
those were approved increases.
for 2016 it is worse while not approved it is ranging from 10-70% with 10-30% being the average.
again please tell me how that is cheaper. you see the word increasing? increasing means going up decreasing means going down.
prices are not decreasing.
Heya JF. Yep and one that keeps growing and doubling and growing some more.
Over 31 mil that will never have insurance.....isn't that what they said.
That's not correct several Republicans had plans. But then they couldn't agree on them as a party. It was and is a Leadership problem.
It seems to me, if Republicans try to turn a sows ear into a silk purse, they will be blamed for the pig. So what's to gain?
To her Wall Street owners: Hillary Clinton: “But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. so, you need both a public and a private position.” - Hillary Clinton: "I'm kind of far removed from the struggles of the Middle Class"