If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history

[boedicca]

It's so endearing that Jim has a well developed fantasy life...and it will likely give him comfort when the Dems lose big in November.

 

[Dot Com]

Did Ryan's latest budget again propose to defund the ACA. Will they ever give up?

^^^Fail^^^

Paul Ryan on Sunday said that the GOP House budget was tailored to assume that the Affordable Care Act would be repealed.

"Are you saying, as part of your budget, you assume the repeal of Obamacare?," asked Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace.

"Yes," said Ryan, adding that, "we're going to propose replacing Obamacare with patient-centered health care, with a better health care system for everybody."

Ryan defended his opposition to the law.

"We don't want to push more people into a failing program," he said. "We believe that Obamacare is a program that will not work. We believe Obamacare will actually lead to hospitals and doctors and health care providers turning people away."

Paul Ryan: GOP Budget Assumes Obamacare Repeal

^ Ryan fluffer. Figures.

Whats the name of GObP's plan?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history

LOL

Dems are totally fucked

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history

LOL

Dems are totally fucked

You may be right, but I would not count your McCarthys before they hatch.

 

[MeBelle]

Did Ryan's latest budget again propose to defund the ACA. Will they ever give up?

^^^Fail^^^

Paul Ryan on Sunday said that the GOP House budget was tailored to assume that the Affordable Care Act would be repealed.

"Are you saying, as part of your budget, you assume the repeal of Obamacare?," asked Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace.

"Yes," said Ryan, adding that, "we're going to propose replacing Obamacare with patient-centered health care, with a better health care system for everybody."

Ryan defended his opposition to the law.

"We don't want to push more people into a failing program," he said. "We believe that Obamacare is a program that will not work. We believe Obamacare will actually lead to hospitals and doctors and health care providers turning people away."

Paul Ryan: GOP Budget Assumes Obamacare Repeal

^ Ryan fluffer. Figures.

Whats the name of GObP's plan?

Google, it works for you.

Fluffer!

 

[HenryBHough]

"If the ACA succeeds, the GOP may be history"

And, should pigs learn to fly, one might shop for bacon with a shotgun.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Rightwinger
I noticed you totally avoided the issue of
CONSENT
and
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

Is it because you don't believe that government authority is based on that?

At least I can sleep peacefully at night and tell my children, grandchildren, great grand daughter I didn't vote to hang this around their necks...and make them SLAVES for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

that's all I care

First rape and now slavery

Do you guys have any more hyperbole? You haven't mentioned Hitler in a while

Yes, people who ignore the "consent or dissent" of people,
that is how slavery was justified, and how rape is dismissed as consensual,
when you dismiss people as not counting or unequal to yourself.

Rightwinger are you deliberately trying to
misrepresent my statement to "dismiss" it as irrelevant?

Or do you really not see that the
issue I was focused on is
CONSENT?

Do you use a different term besides CONSENT?
What do you call it, freedom of choice?
Separation of church and state authority?

RW when you object to the political agenda or beliefs of another party
pushed through govt, what do
YOU call it when such a policy
violates YOUR beliefs?

Sorry I used the term CONSENT if this does not matter or mean anything to you.
Can you please tell me what term you DO USE instead?

Do you call it equal representation or protection of the laws from discrimination?
Anti-bigotry? What do you call when you don't believe in some opposing person or group
pushing their views, beliefs or agenda on you, especially abusing laws or govt to do so?

What do YOU call it then? I'm happy to use your terms if you can't understand mine.

This is America......you are free to dissent

You are free to elect a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports your views....and then pass Supreme Court challenges

That is what the Democrats had to do

rightwinger
REGARDLESS if you get a majority in the House, 60 US Senators, a President who supports THAT view
and pass Supreme Court challenges,

NO it is still unconstitutional by Amendment 1, 10 and 14 to enforce ACA mandates that violate and discriminate on the basis of creed:

* Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof

* The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

See Also AMENDMENT XIV, Section 1:
* . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

rightwinger and JakeStarkey
if you believe your interpretation is so correct that you are willing to work with Obama, Pelosi and all Democrats who signed onto and endorse and enforced these ACA Mandates to PAY ALL COSTS and complaints of damages it caused,
then do so -- pay for your own beliefs just like Catholics, Hindus, and Muslims pay for their own programs,
and don't pass them by majority-rule to force the entire public to fund as a nationalized religion!

But if you are not willing to pay for the implications and ramifications of this ACA,
then I assume you only support it because of the Democrats who passed it and forced it.

So those are the people who should pay, and the enforcement of ACA should be limited to who those people can cover with their political religion they wrote out the rules for.

I didn't consent to these rules, and don't see how I can be made to pay for a contract I didn't sign.
Much less a religious belief that the ACA is the law of the land, and all these things in it justify giving up liberty for.

If Atheists are not required to put up with a simple Cross or Bible in the public domain that doesn't impose tax fines on them, but can sue to have such removed on the basis of conflicting beliefs, then why not apply the same standards to people with conflicting Constitutional beliefs that ACA offends and penalizes?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, you are still wrong, but drive on girl.

 

[JimH52]

Did Ryan's latest budget again propose to defund the ACA. Will they ever give up?

^^^Fail^^^

Paul Ryan on Sunday said that the GOP House budget was tailored to assume that the Affordable Care Act would be repealed.

"Are you saying, as part of your budget, you assume the repeal of Obamacare?," asked Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace.

"Yes," said Ryan, adding that, "we're going to propose replacing Obamacare with patient-centered health care, with a better health care system for everybody."

Ryan defended his opposition to the law.

"We don't want to push more people into a failing program," he said. "We believe that Obamacare is a program that will not work. We believe Obamacare will actually lead to hospitals and doctors and health care providers turning people away."

Paul Ryan: GOP Budget Assumes Obamacare Repeal

^ Ryan fluffer. Figures.

Whats the name of GObP's plan?

"Let em die"

 

[rdean]

No, the GOP is not only the Anti-ACA Party. As long as the Democrats exists the GOP will exist and the other way around.

Look at CPAC. It was a contest on who hates Obama the most. No policies. Nothing "smart". Nothing "new". Just white people hating the first black president.

 

[JimH52]

I thought this thread was dead? You know, like the GOP health insurance plan.....

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you are still wrong, but drive on girl.

JakeStarkey I am right on principle.
If the laws are not written LITERALLY enough to argue and prove that discrimination by creed is unconstitutional,
then I am seeking to correct that in the written laws so it IS clearly unconstitutional to override political beliefs that way.

I will post another link to more letters I am writing to try to prevent
from having to go on a hunger strike to make this point.

Surely there are other Constitutional and legal scholars with the same understanding of political beliefs.
I cannot be the only one making this argument. Hold on, let me post my letter on my ACA Petition thread and then I will link it here: Petition Separate ACA by Party Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[emilynghiem]

No, the GOP is not only the Anti-ACA Party. As long as the Democrats exists the GOP will exist and the other way around.

Dear Crystalclear I can't even find Democrats who want to pay for the ACA.

I found some who want to pay their taxes, but didn't really agree to these costs, and just feel they have to by law.
When I started talking about changing the laws, most of them were intrigued by the idea of reforming prisons
by state, saving those resources, and using that funding for health care instead of charging working citizens more on top of what we are already paying. They just didn't believe the politicians would do the work to change the prison system.

But compared with paying more for health care, most people I talk with would rather health care reforms come out of money we are already spending but the govt is wasting. Why not make the states fix that, and put pressure on politicians to do so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ACA will not finish off the GOP anymore than Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Emily, your opinion is not principle, but drive on!

 

[emilynghiem]

No, the GOP is not only the Anti-ACA Party. As long as the Democrats exists the GOP will exist and the other way around.

Look at CPAC. It was a contest on who hates Obama the most. No policies. Nothing "smart". Nothing "new". Just white people hating the first black president.

Hi rdean and JimH52
Your comments above equating opposition to the President based on race only
are exploiting and furthering endemic harm, by dividing people by race and party.

This has continually damaged the rights of Black citizens and leaders to know and enforce their rights under laws without imposing and enforcing divisive mindsets and segregation of power keeping them from uniting.

I know you must mean well, but this has caused more and more damage to the Black community and to our nation as a whole.

I have been trying to work with Black leaders and voters to understand their Constitutional laws and rights as citizens.

And your comments implying that Constitutional attempts to check Govt are only "white people against black"
and insinuating this is "all about race" are the VERY type of propaganda that dissuades and discourages
some of the most vulnerable citizens from uniting and empowering themselves with knowledge of the laws.

I am a prochoice Asian American Democrat who has been volunteering to save a national Black historic district
from being completely destroyed by such divisive politics.

The key issue is enforcing Constitutional protections equally for all citizens.
Making everything a race issue causes more division that has destroyed our nation, our economy, our democratic system.

We need to unite if we are going to rebuild our economy and country, and save our historic legacy and landmarks for future generations to build upon.

Please reconsider the impact of your accusations, and what it will really take to resolve objections to govt problems.
Making divisive remarks about race does nothing to encourage working together to solve problems, but makes them worse.

 

[emilynghiem]

ACA will not finish off the GOP anymore than Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Emily, your opinion is not principle, but drive on!

How is equal protection of the laws not a principle?

It's not my opinion, you can even see how people religiously disagree by beliefs on the ACA.

The numbers speak for themselves. the votes in Congress split in half along PARTY LINES.

I have not found anyone on either side willing to change their beliefs.

So these beliefs exist, that is not my opinion, and anyone can see that.
I am just looking for people intellectually honest enough and objective enough to
call a political belief for what it is. We know these differences exist, but just like Atheists
are willing to override the beliefs of Christians, and Christians of Atheists, they aren't always objective about it.

But we can't deny the differences in belief don't exist. That's all I have ever run into since this ACA was passed.
People on both sides unwilling to compromise their beliefs for the other side.

Because these are their inherent BELIEFS so of course those won't change.
The most that I can find is people willing to change their PERCEPTIONS of how
their beliefs can co-exist without conflicting.

Their beliefs remain intact and protected, but how we MANAGE and work with beliefs EQUALLY,
is what we can change.

And that depends on finding other Constitutionalists who are unbiased enough to enforce true equality.
I can't be the only one.

Because it's not my opinion, the LAW calls for "Equal Justice Under Law" and "Equal Protections of the Laws."

It wasn't just "people's opinions" that slavery didn't treat people equally,
or that bans on churches from performing gay marriage abridge religious freedom.

People either agree or don't agree that their beliefs and Constitutional values are "equally included."
I am just reporting what everyone has seen going on, with conflicts between people's political beliefs.

Clearly people with these beliefs DON'T AGREE with each other
and don't agree to compromise their beliefs either. So there needs to be a better solution, that doesn't impose on
one belief or another, even if it means transferring the issue to the States and people to work out.

JakeStarkey a solution does not have to be proven to exist first
to argue that the current conflict is unconstitutionally imposing on beliefs on people against their will.

When Roe V Wade was overturned, there was not an "alternative solution required first,"
before that law was struck down. Sad how the people who insist on providing and proving an "alternative solution"
didn't prove the ACA worked first, before passing it as law! So that is more discrimination by excusing the
burden of proof on one side, but requiring it on the other. More proof that the bill was biased
to favor political beliefs on one side while penalizing and burdening the other unequally.

 

[Zander]

Obamacare may not survive the next legal challenge......six little words might be its undoing..."an exchange established by the state"

Six words might decide the fate of Obamacare at the Supreme Court - The Washington Post

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your opinion on the 14th is your opinion, not a principle.

SCOTUS opines on whether matters constitutional are principle or not.

 

[emilynghiem]

Obamacare may not survive the next legal challenge......six little words might be its undoing..."an exchange established by the state"

Six words might decide the fate of Obamacare at the Supreme Court - The Washington Post

Twist in Obamacare Supreme Court case Weak plaintiffs - Yahoo News

Dear Zander
My concern is that the plaintiffs can be argued as having weak cases or no standing.

By making letter of the

Obamacare may not survive the next legal challenge......six little words might be its undoing..."an exchange established by the state"

Six words might decide the fate of Obamacare at the Supreme Court - The Washington Post

Twist in Obamacare Supreme Court case Weak plaintiffs - Yahoo News

Dear Zander
The plaintiffs can still be denied to have standing based on weak cases or not showing they are harmed or affected.
That's one problem with making letter of the law arguments, they can be dismantled by similar letter of the law arguments.

If arguments are based on principles first, that the people arguing for and against ACA have equal standing, equal protections and equal rights to their beliefs, then they don't HAVE to AGREE
because that is the whole argument -- the fact they DON'T agree shows that political beliefs are involved
and people don't agree to change them.

If people choose to bow to govt, like an Atheists chooses NOT to sue over a Cross or mention of God in a pledge, then that's the person's free choice, but it can't be forced by govt.

So why aren't we treating political beliefs equally as we do religious beliefs.
where the least restrictive option is upheld that allows the free exercise of both sides' beliefs.

So give people and states free and equal choice to determine their own health care programs and how to pay for them.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your opinion on the 14th is your opinion, not a principle.

SCOTUS opines on whether matters constitutional are principle or not.

Yes and JakeStarkey the beauty of the argument is that if we disagree
that further proves there is a difference in political beliefs. So you cannot get away from that.

Clearly if people keep dissenting because they cannot compromise or change their beliefs,
then consensus on law is needed to either reconcile or separate those beliefs so both are treated equally.