Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
exactly right, liberal programs never work, never have, never will. But I guess we have to destroy our economy in order to learn that simple lesson.
Is that why the Tea Party tried to destroy the economy? They just wanted to teach liberals a lesson?
first tell me how the 30 or 40 tea party members of the house have the power to shut down the govt, default on the debt, put barricades around monuments, and "destroy the economy".
you certainly give the small group of people a lot of power and authority.
There's an undertone of panic in the words of the conservatives here.
"Obama is doomed! HE'S DOOMED I TELL YOU! DOOMED! DOOMED! DOOOOOOMED! MOMMY, MAKE THE MEAN MEAN OBAMA BE DOOMED! WAAAAAAAH!"
So, Obama is doomed yet another time? Golly, we've never heard that before. Must be true this time, because things are totally different from all the other times he was doomed.
the easy answer would be to repeal it and then pass a one page law that said the following:
1. insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition
2. no insurance policy shall have a lifetime maximum payment
3. insurance companies may compete across state lines
4. no malpractice award may exceed $500,000
5. the loser in a malpractice suit pays all court and legal costs
6. the govt will buy a medical policy for every citizen whose AGI is less than $xxxx (pick a number)
7. drug patents shall be limited to 3 years
problem solved, cost to the taxpayer---------ZERO.
I can agree with all of these but do you think #6 would be no cost to the taxpayer?
Wouldn't the problem of those not insured, thus using the emergency room, still exist? Or does your plan include something for everyone to have a health care plan?
On edit I think, 1,2 and 6 would be added cost to the taxpayer. Maybe not through direct tax but it would increase the cost of health care, IMO.
good catch
1 and 2 might raise premiums.
6 would be a taxpayer cost, but trillions less than the cost of ACA. assume that 10 million would be getting govt paid insurance and that it cost $2000 per year -- 200 million, a drop in the bucket to the federal budget.
the easy answer would be to repeal it and then pass a one page law that said the following:
1. insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition
2. no insurance policy shall have a lifetime maximum payment
3. insurance companies may compete across state lines
4. no malpractice award may exceed $500,000
5. the loser in a malpractice suit pays all court and legal costs
6. the govt will buy a medical policy for every citizen whose AGI is less than $xxxx (pick a number)
7. drug patents shall be limited to 3 years
problem solved, cost to the taxpayer---------ZERO.
I can agree with all of these but do you think #6 would be no cost to the taxpayer?
Wouldn't the problem of those not insured, thus using the emergency room, still exist? Or does your plan include something for everyone to have a health care plan?
On edit I think, 1,2 and 6 would be added cost to the taxpayer. Maybe not through direct tax but it would increase the cost of health care, IMO.
good catch
1 and 2 might raise premiums.
6 would be a taxpayer cost, but trillions less than the cost of ACA. assume that 10 million would be getting govt paid insurance and that it cost $2000 per year -- 200 million, a drop in the bucket to the federal budget.
Is that why the Tea Party tried to destroy the economy? They just wanted to teach liberals a lesson?
first tell me how the 30 or 40 tea party members of the house have the power to shut down the govt, default on the debt, put barricades around monuments, and "destroy the economy".
you certainly give the small group of people a lot of power and authority.
Your short term memory loss gives lie to your claim that you have an MBA. They did it by breaking their oath and not passing a bill to fully fund the legislation that was required to operate the government. They also threatened to destroy the economy by not raising the debt ceiling either.
first tell me how the 30 or 40 tea party members of the house have the power to shut down the govt, default on the debt, put barricades around monuments, and "destroy the economy".
you certainly give the small group of people a lot of power and authority.
Your short term memory loss gives lie to your claim that you have an MBA. They did it by breaking their oath and not passing a bill to fully fund the legislation that was required to operate the government. They also threatened to destroy the economy by not raising the debt ceiling either.
And your short term memory reflects your refusal to research your claim. From Forbes;
Victory Over Obamacare: How To Embarrass The Democrats Into Funding The Government - Forbes
House Republicans sent over to the Democrat majority Senate three Continuing Resolutions (CRs) to fund the government. The Senate Democrat majority shot each one down on a unanimous straight party line vote. Every supposed Senate Democrat moderate marched in goose step with the liberal/left party line. Even supposed maverick Joe Manchin of West Virginia, from a state being crucified by the party liberals, voted with the Senate Democrat majority to shut down the government.
Senator Heidi Heitkamp won her race in North Dakota last year by 1% running as a supposed moderate Democrat. The people of her state overwhelmingly oppose Obamacare. But Heitkamp, like Manchin, would rather shut down the government than compromise over Obamacare.
The last CR the Republican House sent over to the Democrat Senate even funded all of Obamacare, except it required a one year delay in the highly unpopular individual mandate, to match Obamas arbitrary and illegal one year delay in the employer mandate that Obama declared by decree without legal authorization. And it nullified the special exemption from the requirements of Obamacare for Congress and its staff that the Obama Administration decreed as well without legal authorization.
But every single Democrat in the Senate voted to keep the special exemption from Obamacare for Congress and its staff, and against the same one year delay in the mandate on working people that Obama illegally granted for the mandate on big business.
The House was perfectly willing to fund the government; everything but Obamacare. And they were correct in doing so.
Obama is a lame duck. The concern for the dems is the NEXT presidency. It isn't looking hopeful for them.
Really? Because polls still have Hillary handily defeating anyone the GOP puts up, from Christy the Hutt to Rand the Plangerizer.
Sure, Uncle Joe. You forgot to add "period"
Obama is a lame duck. The concern for the dems is the NEXT presidency. It isn't looking hopeful for them.
ACA is forcing the mainstream Dems and Pubs to work together, forcing the extremists of the far right and far left with their radical agendas to rage and impotence.
so jake, lets see is Landrieu and her bill and uts sppters the mainstream or extremist? are the dems who voted yes on the Upton bill mainstream or extremists?
The reform and massage of ACA is moderate, mainstream attempts to make it work.
Extreme would be to kill it or make the program a national health care socialized system.
Answer is obvious.
so jake, lets see is Landrieu and her bill and uts sppters the mainstream or extremist? are the dems who voted yes on the Upton bill mainstream or extremists?
The reform and massage of ACA is moderate, mainstream attempts to make it work.
Extreme would be to kill it or make the program a national health care socialized system.
Answer is obvious.
the easy answer would be to repeal it and then pass a one page law that said the following:
1. insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition
2. no insurance policy shall have a lifetime maximum payment
3. insurance companies may compete across state lines
4. no malpractice award may exceed $500,000
5. the loser in a malpractice suit pays all court and legal costs
6. the govt will buy a medical policy for every citizen whose AGI is less than $xxxx (pick a number)
7. drug patents shall be limited to 3 years
problem solved, cost to the taxpayer---------ZERO.
exactly right, liberal programs never work, never have, never will. But I guess we have to destroy our economy in order to learn that simple lesson.
Is that why the Tea Party tried to destroy the economy? They just wanted to teach liberals a lesson?
first tell me how the 30 or 40 tea party members of the house have the power to shut down the govt, default on the debt, put barricades around monuments, and "destroy the economy".
you certainly give the small group of people a lot of power and authority.
The reform and massage of ACA is moderate, mainstream attempts to make it work.
Extreme would be to kill it or make the program a national health care socialized system.
Answer is obvious.
the easy answer would be to repeal it and then pass a one page law that said the following:
1. insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition
2. no insurance policy shall have a lifetime maximum payment
3. insurance companies may compete across state lines
4. no malpractice award may exceed $500,000
5. the loser in a malpractice suit pays all court and legal costs
6. the govt will buy a medical policy for every citizen whose AGI is less than $xxxx (pick a number)
7. drug patents shall be limited to 3 years
problem solved, cost to the taxpayer---------ZERO.
123 fine....
5. no.
6. 30K.
7. no way.
the easy answer would be to repeal it and then pass a one page law that said the following:
1. insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition
2. no insurance policy shall have a lifetime maximum payment
3. insurance companies may compete across state lines
4. no malpractice award may exceed $500,000
5. the loser in a malpractice suit pays all court and legal costs
6. the govt will buy a medical policy for every citizen whose AGI is less than $xxxx (pick a number)
7. drug patents shall be limited to 3 years
problem solved, cost to the taxpayer---------ZERO.
123 fine....
5. no.
6. 30K.
7. no way.
But I am interested in how you came about 30K and why no way to 7.
123 fine....
5. no.
6. 30K.
7. no way.
But I am interested in how you came about 30K and why no way to 7.
I settled on 30K becasue the flat tax proposal by Forbes makes sense to me, they would not be paying ANY tax under that income level and, they will get da freebee health care, there will be little left for the left to whine about...( not that they pay net Fed. taxes right now anyway, or that would shut them up, but I can dream
as far as the patent goes, they need more than 3 years to recoup research/development costs and turn a profit.
Is that why the Tea Party tried to destroy the economy? They just wanted to teach liberals a lesson?
first tell me how the 30 or 40 tea party members of the house have the power to shut down the govt, default on the debt, put barricades around monuments, and "destroy the economy".
you certainly give the small group of people a lot of power and authority.
Your short term memory loss gives lie to your claim that you have an MBA. They did it by breaking their oath and not passing a bill to fully fund the legislation that was required to operate the government. They also threatened to destroy the economy by not raising the debt ceiling either.
I can agree with all of these but do you think #6 would be no cost to the taxpayer?
Wouldn't the problem of those not insured, thus using the emergency room, still exist? Or does your plan include something for everyone to have a health care plan?
On edit I think, 1,2 and 6 would be added cost to the taxpayer. Maybe not through direct tax but it would increase the cost of health care, IMO.
good catch
1 and 2 might raise premiums.
6 would be a taxpayer cost, but trillions less than the cost of ACA. assume that 10 million would be getting govt paid insurance and that it cost $2000 per year -- 200 million, a drop in the bucket to the federal budget.
I am not trying to tear down you ideas merely discuss them.
Where does a person buy health care insurance, which is decent, for 2000/year? Sign me up right now.
And you folks are doing what Congress is finally doing: trying to make it work.
Good for you.
so jake, lets see is Landrieu and her bill and uts sppters the mainstream or extremist? are the dems who voted yes on the Upton bill mainstream or extremists?
The reform and massage of ACA is moderate, mainstream attempts to make it work.
Extreme would be to kill it or make the program a national health care socialized system.
Answer is obvious.
the easy answer would be to repeal it and then pass a one page law that said the following:
1. insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition
2. no insurance policy shall have a lifetime maximum payment
3. insurance companies may compete across state lines
4. no malpractice award may exceed $500,000
5. the loser in a malpractice suit pays all court and legal costs
6. the govt will buy a medical policy for every citizen whose AGI is less than $xxxx (pick a number)
7. drug patents shall be limited to 3 years
problem solved, cost to the taxpayer---------ZERO.
