Buh Bye Obamacare

[busybee01]

That is all that matters to you. You are one sick dude who needs mental help. IF that is what conservatives are about then it needs to be destroyed.

Progressive ideas and rules do not suit rural America, In fact it’s a cancer. The collective is an evil concept

Is that why so many rural states get Obamacare subsidies. Helping people has nothing to do with the collective. That is what insurance is about.

Weakness is contagious, resistance to the collective is what’s best for rural America...

You live in a bad sci-fi movie. You are a looney tune who would be locked away in a rubber room if involuntary confinement were allowed.

Na, Rural America does not need a nanny state...

Is that why rural America takes the subsidies. Give them up if you are opposed to Obamacare.

 

[Rustic]

Progressive ideas and rules do not suit rural America, In fact it’s a cancer. The collective is an evil concept

Is that why so many rural states get Obamacare subsidies. Helping people has nothing to do with the collective. That is what insurance is about.

Weakness is contagious, resistance to the collective is what’s best for rural America...

You live in a bad sci-fi movie. You are a looney tune who would be locked away in a rubber room if involuntary confinement were allowed.

Na, Rural America does not need a nanny state...

Is that why rural America takes the subsidies. Give them up if you are opposed to Obamacare.

I’d like to give up all socialist entitlement programs… I don’t use any of that stupid ass things anyways.
I should not be paying into with them either

 

[otto105]

"My first day in office, I'm going to ask Congress to put a bill on my desk getting rid of this disastrous law, and replacing it with reforms that expand choice, freedom, affordability. You're going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it's going to be so easy."

it's not even close to as bad as Obamacare and all the exceptions they made to special interests

It’s republicare/trumpcare now.


It’s new motto is Die Quickly because you republican government is not coming to help.

 

[busybee01]

Only because the mandate was poorly implemented.

that's an understatement. it should never have been created. The dems should have sought out bipartisan support and done it right. but noooooooooooooooo all I heard was fk the repubs. and fk em slow.

The Republicans made it very clear that they were not going to work with Obama on this. Obama did talk to some moderate Republicans but pressure was brought to bear on them by the party. The mandate was created by the CONSERVATIVE Heritage Foundation.

that's total bullshit. I'm calling you on that. obammy wanted something and it was different than what the republicans wanted. that's why one negotiates. ever hear of the word before? see you leftist always want things your way only. the world doesn't work that way.

Have you ever heard of the word before. Obama talked with Republicans and they were not interested in compromise. The mandate was a CONSERVATIVE idea. You have no idea what a leftist is. Support for some form of Obamacare is over 50%. If over 50% are leftists, you are in trouble. Also waiting for the Republicans to start compromising. That is why Republicans could lose the House. To Democrats talking about reaching across the aisle.

Over 50%? Is that a "mandate" in your view? For fundamental changes, like nationalizing health insurance, we need far more than a slim partisan majority. Obama could have refused to sign ACA. He could have instructed Congress to go back to the drawing board and write legislation with real consensus behind it. But he didn't. He indulged his party's desire to do "something", even if that something was hated by half of the country.

So now, the slim partisan majority has flipped and Trump is dismantling ACA. It's all been a useless waste of time and money.

Don't the Republicans wish they had a plan that could get above 50%. The fact that a majority stand behind the Democrats rather than the Republicans on the issue of healthcare.

 

[Ame®icano]

LOLO......poor poor poor white trash can's, just can't adjust to the fact, the biggest beneficiaries of ACA....was poor poor poor white trashies...you people are too gotdamned dumb for words!!

As percent of population?

What difference does it make, how many nuts you are, you nuts are just stupid

Your claim is that whites are biggest beneficiaries. Percentages are proving they're not.

The same is with crime rate, fatherless homes and kids, drug usage, education, or almost any other statistic.

Prove me wrong.

 

[busybee01]

All this hand wringing is really funny. What you folks fail to understand is this is nothing but a legal issue. Does the US Constitution rule the day or not?

Let's look at a little background here. Normally congress inserts a clause into pretty much every bill that says, if any portion of a law is found unconstitutional, that portion of the law can be severed form the law and the remainder would still stand. Well the commiecrats in their zeal to pass this law, failed to include that technical provision.

As I have contended form day one, the moment any portion of the law was found unconstitutional, the law in its entirety should have been declared as unconstitutional and returned to congress. The Roberts court ignored this when they originally found several portions of the the law unconstitutional and allowed the remainder of the law to stand with no congressional authorization to do so.

The DOJ is simply saying they will not support a law, that has no severance clause, to be enforced in part without congressional authorization. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.


.

When did the DOJ get nominated and approved to be on the Supreme Court. That is not their call to make. The contention is that the protection for people with pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional which we know is a bunch of horse manure.

 

[busybee01]

The justice department needs rebuking by congress critters....

They have chosen not to defend a law wrtten by congress and passed by congress and signed by the president of the usa.

by them unconstitutionally.... not defending it, will change the law....the justice dept essentially is MAKING LAW by not defending the law against a suit.

that's utter bull crud!

It's already unconstitutional, and was at the time of passage.

That being the case, there's no reason to defend it.

Utter bull crap!

It was deemed constitutional silly!

And it shouldn't have been, the supreme court doesn't have legislative power. However they have exercised legislative power 3 times on this pile of crap trying to salvage it. Every damn one who voted in favor of those decisions should have been impeached.


.

It does not matter.

Robert forever secured a place in history as the son-of-a-bitch who changed his vote for whatever reason and allowed it to exist...in fact justified it's existence apart from the arguments of the WH.

Totally disgusting, but until the SCOTUS kills it....it is the fuck-law of the land

There's no need for it to go back to SCOTUS, the DOJ and the States can agree to settle it in the States favor, the judge will have no choice but to enter a consent decree. Maobamas EPA did it all the time to get court decrees to change the law is ways congress never agreed to.

You can bet this same tactic of "sue and settle" will be used for DACA also.


.

A handful of states will not set law for all states. Either Sessions enforces the law or he goes to jail.

 

[busybee01]

... Obama will go down in history as the feckless centrist who tried too hard to please everyone.

Obama tried too hard to please his base. ACA was a strictly partisan vote. Obama gave up on consensus and signed it into law anyway, knowing that half the country hated it. That was his failure. That's why we got Trump.

Every Republican vote was a strictly partisan vote. People are tired of partisanship. They support Obamacare but they realize it needs to be fixed. They want the parties to work together and fix it. That is why many Republican moderates will be replaced by Democrat moderates.

 

[busybee01]

Obama said he would not raise taxes on the Middle Class as he presented Obamacare as something other than a tax.

However, when it got to SCOTUS they said it had to be a tax to be somewhat Constitutional, so they said it was one even though it was presented as something other than a tax.

Now that the GOP ended the mandate it can no loner be a tax, so away it goes.

Obamacare ended up being the largest tax on the Middle class in US history.

Now Dims will have to sell the Single payer system to the country, probably as anything but a tax, once more.

The ACA was funded without taxing the Middle Class.

Where is Trump's plan? over 500 days & he hasx presented nothing to replace the ACA.

Uh, yes it was, perm,iums and deductibles skyrocketed under Obama care. I not only saw the news reports, I saw my own premiums and deductibles go way up.....fuck Obamacare

They are skyrocketing even more under Republicans. Even Tom Price who was the head of HHS under Trump says getting rid of the mandate will cause rates to go up even more.

 

[skye]

I'll quote because this is exactly how I feel about stupid Obamacare, the idiotic Obama legacy and the whole nightmare that was this traitor.



- "Future generations will look back on the Obama years just like we look back on the Great Depression - a tragic period in American History"-

 

[busybee01]

how awesome is this??
Department of Justice Declares ObamaCare To Be Unconstitutional and the Progressive Meltdown Begins

It always was.

'Awesome'? I would not call it that. I would call it anything BUT 'awesome'.

Democrats DESTROYED the previous system of health care insurance and replaced it with Obamacare, quietly admitting the whole time - as Harry Reid did - that it was a temporary stepping-stone to 'Single Payer'. Reid added a year or so after it was passed that it was 'designed to fail' but that it was failing way earlier than they had hoped.

There is nothing in place to go to if Obamacare either dies or dissolves. That doesn't bother Democrats that much because they wanted to 'HERD' the American people into 'Single Payer' anyway, stripping them of more choice, more control, and into more of the role of being a controlled 'sheep'.

Once again the politicians (Democrats especially, declared, 'Hi, I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help' (10 of the scariest words you will ever hear), they created the PROBLEM 1st, then come up with the solution (that is almost always worse than the problem they created and definitely worse than we had it before they showed up to begin with).

So, NO...I am not surprised, but this is not 'awesome'.

The fact is that the system had huge problems. More people were unable to buy insurance so they waited until their were sicker and it became more expensive when they visited the emergency room and were unable to pay. That was being passed to paying customers. People were gaming the system and not buying insurance when they were healthy and then buying insurance when they got sick. That was passed on to paying customers.

The fact is that Republicans did not have a plan to counter Obamacare. They had 8 years to come up with one and still do not have one.

The fact is that Obamacare did work. The number of people who have insurance has increased. The question becomes how to fix other aspects of it. The question is how to fix it not rto tell people with pre-existing conditions to drop dead which is what people like you are advocating.

 

[OKTexas]

All this hand wringing is really funny. What you folks fail to understand is this is nothing but a legal issue. Does the US Constitution rule the day or not?

Let's look at a little background here. Normally congress inserts a clause into pretty much every bill that says, if any portion of a law is found unconstitutional, that portion of the law can be severed form the law and the remainder would still stand. Well the commiecrats in their zeal to pass this law, failed to include that technical provision.

As I have contended form day one, the moment any portion of the law was found unconstitutional, the law in its entirety should have been declared as unconstitutional and returned to congress. The Roberts court ignored this when they originally found several portions of the the law unconstitutional and allowed the remainder of the law to stand with no congressional authorization to do so.

The DOJ is simply saying they will not support a law, that has no severance clause, to be enforced in part without congressional authorization. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.


.

When did the DOJ get nominated and approved to be on the Supreme Court. That is not their call to make. The contention is that the protection for people with pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional which we know is a bunch of horse manure.

No, the contention is the whole damn law is unconstitutional. It should have been sent back to congress the first time it was heard. Judicial misconduct is not justification for the DOJ to defend an unconstitutional law.


.

 

[busybee01]

Well tell the democrats to come to the table and lets hash out a good law...not have one ram-rodded down our throats.

That is code for "democrats need to bail us out because we couldn't even pass our own bill with majorities in both houses"

You NAILED IT!

The DEMOCRATS, who rammed this minority-supported Socialist Agenda legislation into law, down the throats of the majority of Americans who did not want it...

The DEMOCRATS who destroyed the previous health care system in order to HERD the American people against their will towards 'Single Payer' which will strip even more choice from them in regards to their own health care....

The DEMOCRATS, who rammed this edict into law despite knowing, ad admitting publicly (Harry Reid) that this was meant only as a Temp step towards Single Payer, that it was DESIGNED TO FAIL....

The DEMOCRATS who lied their asses off about it (Won't cost a dime, will pay for itself, will lower the cost of premiums, if you like your doctor / plan you can keep them...)...

...ARE OUR ONLY HOPE.

View attachment 197833

The DEMOCRATS are the @$$HOLES who created the problem in the 1st place...

...now you are SERIOUSLY saying THEY are the only ones who can save us from the epic BUTT-F* they gave all of us?!

If that's true....

View attachment 197837

The REPUBLICANS are the @$$HOLES who are creating the problem.

The fact is that voters trust Democrats more than they do Republicans on healthcare. The Republicans have no plan other than to tell older people and people with pre-existing conditions to drop dead.

 

[busybee01]

All this hand wringing is really funny. What you folks fail to understand is this is nothing but a legal issue. Does the US Constitution rule the day or not?

Let's look at a little background here. Normally congress inserts a clause into pretty much every bill that says, if any portion of a law is found unconstitutional, that portion of the law can be severed form the law and the remainder would still stand. Well the commiecrats in their zeal to pass this law, failed to include that technical provision.

As I have contended form day one, the moment any portion of the law was found unconstitutional, the law in its entirety should have been declared as unconstitutional and returned to congress. The Roberts court ignored this when they originally found several portions of the the law unconstitutional and allowed the remainder of the law to stand with no congressional authorization to do so.

The DOJ is simply saying they will not support a law, that has no severance clause, to be enforced in part without congressional authorization. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.


.

When did the DOJ get nominated and approved to be on the Supreme Court. That is not their call to make. The contention is that the protection for people with pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional which we know is a bunch of horse manure.

No, the contention is the whole damn law is unconstitutional. It should have been sent back to congress the first time it was heard. Judicial misconduct is not justification for the DOJ to defend an unconstitutional law.


.

Who made you the final arbiter of judicial misconduct. Please tell me when you were appointed and confirmed. The law was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court so it is constitutional whether you like it or not.

 

[otto105]

I'll quote because this is exactly how I feel about stupid Obamacare, the idiotic Obama legacy and the whole nightmare that was this traitor.



- "Future generations will look back on the Obama years just like we look back on the Great Depression - a tragic period in American History"-

BBBBBBBBWWWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHH



Come back to planet sometime.

 

[OKTexas]

All this hand wringing is really funny. What you folks fail to understand is this is nothing but a legal issue. Does the US Constitution rule the day or not?

Let's look at a little background here. Normally congress inserts a clause into pretty much every bill that says, if any portion of a law is found unconstitutional, that portion of the law can be severed form the law and the remainder would still stand. Well the commiecrats in their zeal to pass this law, failed to include that technical provision.

As I have contended form day one, the moment any portion of the law was found unconstitutional, the law in its entirety should have been declared as unconstitutional and returned to congress. The Roberts court ignored this when they originally found several portions of the the law unconstitutional and allowed the remainder of the law to stand with no congressional authorization to do so.

The DOJ is simply saying they will not support a law, that has no severance clause, to be enforced in part without congressional authorization. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.


.

When did the DOJ get nominated and approved to be on the Supreme Court. That is not their call to make. The contention is that the protection for people with pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional which we know is a bunch of horse manure.

No, the contention is the whole damn law is unconstitutional. It should have been sent back to congress the first time it was heard. Judicial misconduct is not justification for the DOJ to defend an unconstitutional law.


.

Who made you the final arbiter of judicial misconduct. Please tell me when you were appointed and confirmed. The law was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court so it is constitutional whether you like it or not.

You're clueless when it comes to the law and the Constitution. Only congress can allow the court to sever portions of a law from unconstitutional provisions. That authorization was not included in the ACA. That means the court allowed a law to go into effect in a form the congress never passed and the president never signed. That's as unconstitutional as it gets, the court has no legislative authority.

BTW that was the exact reasoning the court used in saying a president couldn't have a line item veto.


.

 

[dblack]

that's an understatement. it should never have been created. The dems should have sought out bipartisan support and done it right. but noooooooooooooooo all I heard was fk the repubs. and fk em slow.

The Republicans made it very clear that they were not going to work with Obama on this. Obama did talk to some moderate Republicans but pressure was brought to bear on them by the party. The mandate was created by the CONSERVATIVE Heritage Foundation.

that's total bullshit. I'm calling you on that. obammy wanted something and it was different than what the republicans wanted. that's why one negotiates. ever hear of the word before? see you leftist always want things your way only. the world doesn't work that way.

Have you ever heard of the word before. Obama talked with Republicans and they were not interested in compromise. The mandate was a CONSERVATIVE idea. You have no idea what a leftist is. Support for some form of Obamacare is over 50%. If over 50% are leftists, you are in trouble. Also waiting for the Republicans to start compromising. That is why Republicans could lose the House. To Democrats talking about reaching across the aisle.

Over 50%? Is that a "mandate" in your view? For fundamental changes, like nationalizing health insurance, we need far more than a slim partisan majority. Obama could have refused to sign ACA. He could have instructed Congress to go back to the drawing board and write legislation with real consensus behind it. But he didn't. He indulged his party's desire to do "something", even if that something was hated by half of the country.

So now, the slim partisan majority has flipped and Trump is dismantling ACA. It's all been a useless waste of time and money.

Don't the Republicans wish they had a plan that could get above 50%. The fact that a majority stand behind the Democrats rather than the Republicans on the issue of healthcare.

A slim majority, at best. Fundamental changes to society require more consensus than a simple partisan majority. They require real consensus to be sustainable. Without that consensus, you see the kind of senseless thrashing we're seeing with health care. The pendulum swings back the other way and it all gets compromised.

 

[dblack]

The REPUBLICANS are the @$$HOLES who are creating the problem.

They sure are!

But here's what I don't get. The Democrats turned health care into a political concern. They created sweeping new authority for the federal government to dictate terms on our health care. And now the Republicans are back in power, fucking it all up...

I guess I just have to ask, what the hell did they think would happen??? Seriously, did they think that no asshole would ever again get elected to public office? So, now here we are with Donald Trump making crucial decisions about health care. Thanks Obama, indeed.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

... Obama will go down in history as the feckless centrist who tried too hard to please everyone.

Obama tried too hard to please his base. ACA was a strictly partisan vote. Obama gave up on consensus and signed it into law anyway, knowing that half the country hated it. That was his failure. That's why we got Trump.

Every Republican vote was a strictly partisan vote. People are tired of partisanship. They support Obamacare but they realize it needs to be fixed. They want the parties to work together and fix it. That is why many Republican moderates will be replaced by Democrat moderates.

Well, we've heard that before. 2014, 2016......

Keep dreaming.

I'm not tired of partisanship and it appears that the top democratic leaders aren't either.

Or do you think cocksucker Schumer is really neutral ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

All this hand wringing is really funny. What you folks fail to understand is this is nothing but a legal issue. Does the US Constitution rule the day or not?

Let's look at a little background here. Normally congress inserts a clause into pretty much every bill that says, if any portion of a law is found unconstitutional, that portion of the law can be severed form the law and the remainder would still stand. Well the commiecrats in their zeal to pass this law, failed to include that technical provision.

As I have contended form day one, the moment any portion of the law was found unconstitutional, the law in its entirety should have been declared as unconstitutional and returned to congress. The Roberts court ignored this when they originally found several portions of the the law unconstitutional and allowed the remainder of the law to stand with no congressional authorization to do so.

The DOJ is simply saying they will not support a law, that has no severance clause, to be enforced in part without congressional authorization. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.


.

When did the DOJ get nominated and approved to be on the Supreme Court. That is not their call to make. The contention is that the protection for people with pre-existing conditions is unconstitutional which we know is a bunch of horse manure.

No, the contention is the whole damn law is unconstitutional. It should have been sent back to congress the first time it was heard. Judicial misconduct is not justification for the DOJ to defend an unconstitutional law.


.

Who made you the final arbiter of judicial misconduct. Please tell me when you were appointed and confirmed. The law was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court so it is constitutional whether you like it or not.

That is true.

And it won't be the first law the court has double-backed on.