If the supremes axe the federal exchange, what will the gop do?

[bendog]

How America Reduced Its Healthcare Spending by 2 Trillion The Atlantic
Since Obamacare, while what the nation spends on healthcare has gone up, it's going up slower than it has since 1965 to the tune of 2 TRILLION less in estimates.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

 

[bendog]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

keep muttering

 

[The Rabbi]

The reduction in health care spending was a trend that predated Obamacare. So Obamacare is not responsible for it.
What will the GOP do? Probably cave in to Democrats and vote a bill to extend subsidies at the federal level in exchange for promises that the Democrats wont beat them up in the hallway.

 

[The Rabbi]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

keep muttering

Transation: Facts are inconvenient thngs.

 

[bendog]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

keep muttering

Transation: Facts are inconvenient thngs.

Two trillion less, fake rabbi. No facts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If the supremes axe the federal exchange, what will the gop do?

1) Put head up butt?

2) Put head in sand?

3) Cover eyes and ears and dance a jig?

4) Move on to other issues and leave the wingnuts flapping in the breeze?

5) attempt all of the above

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It wasn't supposed to go up slower.

yes it was.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

keep muttering

If by muttering you mean telling the truth I have no problem with that at all. I'll take note that you didn't dismiss a single factual point I made.

 

[The Rabbi]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

keep muttering

Transation: Facts are inconvenient thngs.

Two trillion less, fake rabbi. No facts.

WHat is two trillion less?

 

[bendog]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

keep muttering

Transation: Facts are inconvenient thngs.

Two trillion less, fake rabbi. No facts.

WHat is two trillion less?

Idiot. You argue "no facts" when you don't even read a link. To the Atlantic of all sites.

And I don't even like Obamacare. But you guys, and most of the gop field, are idiots.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Somebody please explain to tools like Dizzy little tiizzie taz ( Dont Taz Me Bro ) and that hater of all things American The Rabbi what most EVERY sentient being on the planet knew AT THE TIME of debates over healthcare reform:

the decision:
No. 11–393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012*

In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key provision is the individual mandate...

The Anti-Injunction Act and the Affordable Care Act, however, are creatures of Congress’s own creation. How they relate to each other is up to Congress, and the best evidence of Congress’s intent is the statutory text. We have thus applied the Anti-Injunction Act to statutorily described “taxes” even where that label was inaccurate. See Bailey v. George, 259 U. S. 16 (1922) (Anti-Injunction Act applies to “Child Labor Tax” struck down as exceeding Congress’s taxing power in Drexel Furniture). Congress can, of course, describe something as a penalty but direct that it nonetheless be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. For example, 26 U. S. C. §6671(a) provides that “any reference in this title to ‘tax’ imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by” subchapter 68B of the Internal Revenue Code. Penalties in subchapter 68B are thus treated as taxes under Title 26, which includes the Anti-Injunction Act. The individual mandate, however, is not in subchapter 68B of the Code. Nor does any
other provision state that references to taxes in Title 26 shall also be “deemed” to apply to the individual mandate.

Amicus attempts to show that Congress did render the Anti-Injunction Act applicable to the individual mandate, albeit by a more circuitous route. Section 5000A(g)(1) specifies that the penalty for not c...​

 

[The Rabbi]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

keep muttering

Transation: Facts are inconvenient thngs.

Two trillion less, fake rabbi. No facts.

WHat is two trillion less?

Idiot. You argue "no facts" when you don't even read a link. To the Atlantic of all sites.

And I don't even like Obamacare. But you guys, and most of the gop field, are idiots.

Idiot. You should read your own link. There was no "Two trillion dollars" of savings. We are spending more on healthcare thn ever before. The rate of incresae has slowed, but that happened before ACA.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

keep muttering

Transation: Facts are inconvenient thngs.

Two trillion less, fake rabbi. No facts.

WHat is two trillion less?

Idiot. You argue "no facts" when you don't even read a link. To the Atlantic of all sites.

And I don't even like Obamacare. But you guys, and most of the gop field, are idiots.

Idiot. You should read your own link. There was no "Two trillion dollars" of savings. We are spending more on healthcare thn ever before. The rate of incresae has slowed, but that happened before ACA.

actually, you too are an idiot if the logic of your argument holds because even a WAPO fact check observed: "There is no dispute that health care spending is growing at its lowest level since the 1960s, but the impact of the Affordable Care Act is still uncertain."

We would be spending more on healthcare costs no MATTER what happened. Blaming Obamacare is as silly as Obama taking credit ahead of time without all the facts to back him up

 

[JakeStarkey]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year. It wasn't supposed to go up slower. We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him. ObamaCare delivered little of what it promised and a monstrous price tag, but proponents keep moving the goal post in order to defend it.

Nonsense. It was not supposed to be an across the board decrease of that amount: you are wrong.

Yes. Obama said we could keep our doctors (I did) but many did not.

Yes. The expenditures on health care are flattening dramatically.

Stay in context.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We were supposed to see a reduction of $2500 a year

was this guaranteed within the law? Because if it is it can't be found. I know, I've looked

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reduction in health care spending was a trend that predated Obamacare. So Obamacare is not responsible for it.
What will the GOP do? Probably cave in to Democrats and vote a bill to extend subsidies at the federal level in exchange for promises that the Democrats wont beat them up in the hallway.

That is not true, and you don't have the links to prove your silly statement.

 

[The Rabbi]

Transation: Facts are inconvenient thngs.

Two trillion less, fake rabbi. No facts.

WHat is two trillion less?

Idiot. You argue "no facts" when you don't even read a link. To the Atlantic of all sites.

And I don't even like Obamacare. But you guys, and most of the gop field, are idiots.

Idiot. You should read your own link. There was no "Two trillion dollars" of savings. We are spending more on healthcare thn ever before. The rate of incresae has slowed, but that happened before ACA.

actually, you too are an idiot if the logic of your argument holds because even a WAPO fact check observed: "There is no dispute that health care spending is growing at its lowest level since the 1960s, but the impact of the Affordable Care Act is still uncertain."

We would be spending more on healthcare costs no MATTER what happened. Blaming Obamacare is as silly as Obama taking credit ahead of time without all the facts to back him up

This is why I have you in ignore. You admit health care costs are rising. I am disputing that there is any 2 trillion dollars in savings, whether attributable to Obamacare or not. ANd you are agreeing with me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We were supposed to keep our doctor if we liked him.

Read my lips "no new taxes"

Oh the horror! The horror.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Two trillion less, fake rabbi. No facts.

WHat is two trillion less?

Idiot. You argue "no facts" when you don't even read a link. To the Atlantic of all sites.

And I don't even like Obamacare. But you guys, and most of the gop field, are idiots.

Idiot. You should read your own link. There was no "Two trillion dollars" of savings. We are spending more on healthcare thn ever before. The rate of incresae has slowed, but that happened before ACA.

actually, you too are an idiot if the logic of your argument holds because even a WAPO fact check observed: "There is no dispute that health care spending is growing at its lowest level since the 1960s, but the impact of the Affordable Care Act is still uncertain."

We would be spending more on healthcare costs no MATTER what happened. Blaming Obamacare is as silly as Obama taking credit ahead of time without all the facts to back him up

This is why I have you in ignore. You admit health care costs are rising. I am disputing that there is any 2 trillion dollars in savings, whether attributable to Obamacare or not. ANd you are agreeing with me.

Two trillion less, fake rabbi. No facts.

WHat is two trillion less?

Idiot. You argue "no facts" when you don't even read a link. To the Atlantic of all sites.

And I don't even like Obamacare. But you guys, and most of the gop field, are idiots.

Idiot. You should read your own link. There was no "Two trillion dollars" of savings. We are spending more on healthcare thn ever before. The rate of incresae has slowed, but that happened before ACA.

actually, you too are an idiot if the logic of your argument holds because even a WAPO fact check observed: "There is no dispute that health care spending is growing at its lowest level since the 1960s, but the impact of the Affordable Care Act is still uncertain."

We would be spending more on healthcare costs no MATTER what happened. Blaming Obamacare is as silly as Obama taking credit ahead of time without all the facts to back him up

This is why I have you in ignore. You admit health care costs are rising. I am disputing that there is any 2 trillion dollars in savings, whether attributable to Obamacare or not. ANd you are agreeing with me.

Stating "The rate of incresae has slowed, but that happened before ACA." doesn't negate the possibility or even the probability that the PPACA is responsible for some or even most of the recent slow down.

The Rabbi gets to keep his Idiot America Membership Card