The Prof
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,828
- Reaction score
- 1,808
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, they simply expected a rocky road.
LOL!
you can say that again
No, they simply expected a rocky road.
The above came from some one who repeatedly told us "Health Care reform is dead. Bank on it".
So far it's headed that way....either that or Obama better get the printing press to start printing those waivers....lol.
j-mac
So far actually it is not headed that way, since most judges have rules that it is constitutional out of those that even heard the challenge. Details, they are important.
So far it's headed that way....either that or Obama better get the printing press to start printing those waivers....lol.
j-mac
SO why is it that we can expect Americans by-law to purchase insurance, and yet we cant mandate that people provide for their families and children? And if we wont expect them to feed their children what on earth makes anyone think they will pay for insurance? How does ANYONE realistically believe this flies?
Yes, they can "build infrastructure" but they can't actually implement it -- so it has the same effect as an injunction, only they're not barred from making preparations in the event the decision gets overturned on appeal.When is a loss not really so bad?
Hudson ruled against the government, but he didn't stop it (you can read the full opinion here). He refused the plaintiff's request for an injunction against the legislation's continued implementation. The construction of the bill's infrastructure will continue.
Well, the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision and any provision that is directly dependent on it.And second, he refused to overrule anything but the individual mandate itself…
Yes, they can "build infrastructure" but they can't actually implement it -- so it has the same effect as an injunction, only they're not barred from making preparations in the event the decision gets overturned on appeal.
The judge felt no irreparable harm would occur in allowing the government to make preparations that could easily be reversed.
Because the law provides provisions (aid) for the poor to receive credit to defray the cost OR go directly into Medicaid. Moreover, people who have health care via their employer won't have a problem retaining health care with said employer even if said employer changes insurance companies. As long as the employer makes the insurance available at the start of every enrollment period which the law mandates they must do, no one gets dropped. Instead, the individuals chooses to acquire health care via some other means, i.e., they pay for it themselves or go without. In such case, the mandate tax "penalty" kicks in.
The only way Congress has any affect on the health care reform law is if by or before 2014 we have a Republican Congress and a Republican president. Otherwise, it's all on the SC as to the constitutionality of this law. So, grab a seat and watch the theater unfold.abc, today: obamacare popularity at all time low
New Low in Support for Health Care Reform - The Numbers
seeya in congress, folks
Do you really (are you serious? Are you serious??? NP) believe that there will be private insurance 5-10 years from now? And who is 'poor'? Is it anyone under the $250k cap? Anyone under the poverty level? And how much is that going to jack up the costs (which is why they will eventually insist the only answer is increasing taxes and offering universal healthcare...sure...you can pay for insurance...again...)? How many employers will just pay the fine (considering the fine is projected to be less than the cost of providing coverage)? And how many more business will get 'waivers' so they wont be included in the requirment to provide coverage for their employees?
I see one future...shut down medicare, medicaid, coverage for seniors, shut down VA hospitals: one system...universal healthcare. For all except the very wealthy who will pay for private doctors or go to another country for their healthcare.
As I said,
you find a way to get it out of the house with "funding" and we will talk about your popcorn feast.
Some of you make things too complicated..
LOL maybe you didn't realize.. but none of this is "exactly a big deal" until the case is decided by the Supreme Court. Until then, we get to discuss lower court decisions.It's not going to be implemented until 2014, so it's not exactly a big deal.
LOL maybe you didn't realize.. but none of this is "exactly a big deal" until the case is decided by the Supreme Court. Until then, we get to discuss lower court decisions.
Then you're reponding to something you imagined. I never claimed or implied it was "some sort of victory" -- I was parphrasing the law as it was laid out in the judge's decision.Maybe you did not realize, but I was responding to your point that it not being implemented now was some sort of victory.
Sorry...don't listen to any of the media whores (left wing or right wing). She clearly didn't have a clue what is contained in the first Amendment.
Yes, they can "build infrastructure" but they can't actually implement it -- so it has the same effect as an injunction, only they're not barred from making preparations in the event the decision gets overturned on appeal.
Then you're reponding to something you imagined. I never claimed or implied it was "some sort of victory" -- I was parphrasing the law as it was laid out in the judge's decision.
But that's what's so hilariously sad about this entire state of affairs. Conservatives could and SHOULD have done something about this 17 YEARS AGO after HillaryCare was voted down in '93. They knew health care costs were spiralling out of control. They knew people were being denied medical coverage. They knew families were one catastrophic illness or injury away from filing bankruptcy due to high medical cost. They knew tort reform was a big financial burden on doctors, surgeons and hospitals. And they knew Medicare and Medicaid (not to mention the cost to VA Hospitals) were skyrocketing, and yet they did nothing in that 17 year period except play political games, i.e., the individual mandate was a good thing when they included it in health care reform then but suddenly once health care reform passes it's a bad idea and it's unconstitutional? And it was their idea!!
LOL maybe you didn't realize.. but none of this is "exactly a big deal" until the case is decided by the Supreme Court. Until then, we get to discuss lower court decisions.