- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Of course by then I will be on Medicare.
Its all good.....if you aint on Food stamps. Just sayin.
Of course by then I will be on Medicare.
Only so far as we obey them. They dont have any actual enforcement power. So since they are willing to ignore the law, I guess we all should.
Yes, it is that entitlement that you and other liberals are proud of. Doesn't matter to you as long as someone else pays for it. Congratulations on being so successful. You surely made your parents proud.
Please tell me your kidding me?
If we are not a country of law, we are nothing!
poor Scalia. he is 100% correct yet the other judges choose to simply ignore the constitution and vote against him. one day the shoe will be on the other foot, and when the liberals begin whining I will remind them of this moment.
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies
Story just now breaking. More info to come soon. Millions of Americans get to keep their healthcare. A huge win for the Obama admin.
Its all good.....if you aint on Food stamps. Just sayin.
Its all good.....if you aint on Food stamps. Just sayin.
That's an interesting comment, because the Supreme Court did more-or-less seize it's own power (over Congress), when Justice Marshall established 'judicial review' early-on in the Court's (and country's) history.that is the one flaw in the constitution. there is no check and balance against the SCOTUS.
It is certainly a new interpretation of the way constitutional rights are interpreted to work.
This is water under the bridge, but one person who was right all along in the ACA negotiations said the 59 was never really solid. Don't know if he was right, but what he understood was as long as there were only 59, Democrats wanted to sign on to the public option for political reasons, but that one or more would have been stripped off if it actually meant that part would pass. As I recall, Bayh was an especially weak vote, and his wife, surprise, made mid 6 figures serving on the BOD of a couple of insurers.... Coincidence I'm sure!
I apologize, I sometimes forget that not everyone is as well read as me. I would have thought it was common sense given the amount of information available but that's a good call...It's funny - you post an article then make claims that are nowhere mentioned in what you cited.
I won't delve into your closing statement, but I'm in FULL agreement with your opening paragraph.
You make a very practical argument. That being said, I don't see single-payer coming quickly or (definitely not) easily. Mrs. Clinton is a strong universal healthcare proponent, so there may be possibilities if she were to get into office, but I'm not sure if her allegiance to big money will allow it. A public-option would be a further push in the direction of single-payer, and might be more doable. In fact, a public-option may be the initial construct leading to expansion to full single-payer (I would just expand MediCare by lowering the age over time - no idea if that's politically feasible; I doubt it, and the ACA seems to be the national umbrella system now).
Neither could John Roberts! :shock::lamoJust pick and choose what laws to follow and what laws to ignore. Can't see a problem with that....:shock: :lamo
Since the GOP House refuses to REPLACE what they are trying to REPEAL, while just going to court, the third wing of the USSC has acted for them, as they chose them to do .
That's fair - I'd say if Hillary Clinton somehow becomes President, a huge mistake in my view, you can forget about any comprehensive change to the ACA. It will be left to collapse unto itself. The only chance for comprehensive reform will be through a Republican President, someone like Jeb Bush, who can move away from the mandates and push to have broadened coverage of those without insurance at the moment - this is what should have been done in the US before the ACA. It would be, in effect, a federally funded complete expansion of Medicaid to cover those without insurance for financial reasons. In effect, a self-insurance program.
That will, over time, move the nation towards a single payer system that is supported by the majority of people. And you're right, it wouldn't be quick and it won't be easy, but a Clinton Presidency sets it back a decade and perhaps the ACA collapses under it's own inefficient weight.
Yeah I agree.. those 30,000 pages ( that makes 0bamacare so wonderful ) full of crap that nobody understands should not be touched.
that is the one flaw in the constitution. there is no check and balance against the SCOTUS.
As usual you are too kind.
An "asinine and insulting backward step" is how we see it here.
The change to UHC does not come easily, it didn't happen here overnight. But we learned there is no middle, no in between, it is an all or nothing venture. In my severest criticisms of Obama, this is the most severe. He had an opportunity to change opinion, by unifying, and deliberately squandered it.
In Canada we voted some years ago for who was our best Canadian. It wasn't Gretski, not Pierre Trudeau, not Les Voyaguers who opened all of North America, but one guy, a leader of a third ranked party who had implemented UHC in his province when he was premier. Tommy Douglas was never prime minister, in fact never even made her majesty's loyal opposition, the theoretical government in waiting. He was the leader of the third ranked party who convinced a nation of the value of universal health care. In fact, he wasn't even part leader when UHC came into being.
Obama had that opportunity, but rather than 'sell' a proven idea, convince America of the economic benefits [30-40% less lost time at work to start] and to bring the country together.
Instead he chose not to work with even the most moderate Republicans, and called them "enemies", and then proceeded to ram through the most complex piece of legislation in the history of the United States [that document and its attachments are more than the entire Canada Health Act and its attchments dating back to 1966].
So now, we have a deeper divide, those who may have supported UHC before lost their plans when no one was supposed to, it he and his posse alienated intelligent lawmakers who may have come on board and helped sell the idea.
My first post after the passing of Obamacare was something like this "the possibility of an affordable and sustainable universal health care plan has been set back at least two decades." I now say five decades.
And you now stand alone in the world among industrialized countries with the single worst idea on the planet.
Incorrect.that is the one flaw in the constitution. there is no check and balance against the SCOTUS.
hahahahathe only thing we can hope now is that in 2016 we get a republican president
No, it's not what 'someone' thinks those words mean - it's what a 'Justice' thinks they mean.evidently we aren't as words on a bill that are law mean nothing and it is solely up to whatever someone wishes them to be.
It never would have passed if 2 republican senators hadn't betrayed the people of their state or the people of America.
they did betray the people that voted for them. otherwise the bill never would have passed.
then Roberts makes one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in the world almost similar to the screw you deal that has us all in a blunder.
then he doubles down and does it again.
he is a wreck of a chief justice he has betrayed the constitution and his oath of office and should be removed.
the same for all the other members of the court that voted for this stupid bill.
they put their politics above the constitution. that is treason in my book.
I assume you think that's a good thing. If you don't, I do.