In the Spirit of the ACA Joke...

[Antares]

We have an office pool going....$5 entry fee......closest time chosen to the actual moment President Moron extends the deadlone....I have 3:30 eastern

 

[BobPlumb]

Isn't it already extended for those that check the appropriate box?

 

[emilynghiem]

Isn't it already extended for those that check the appropriate box?

From talking with assistants with Congresswoman SJLee's office yesterday,
as long as you are already in the system, you have until April 15 to complete it.

As for me, I am one of those Constitutionalists who believe the system should be optional for those who have committed to other ways to pay for their own health care, do not believe that the legislation is 100% legitimate because of Constitutional and partisan conflicts, and would support the parties paying for their own systems of choice through their own taxes.

The problem remains that such agreement or amendment to the bill/laws
has not been written up yet.

I tried to write it up, but at this point, I would also need to write out a plan for how to pay for all the people's costs who don't believe in the mandates for Constitutional reasons.

I believe members, leaders and officials with various parties should be responsible for funding and managing their own versions of health care reforms, since they have different or conflicting "political beliefs" I recognize as equally protected under the Constitution.

I can't find very many people who support the same; most support their own view and discount or exclude others.

Why not have an alternative where Republicans/Libertarians or others focus their system on reforming health care and assistance to VETS, and use that system to help citizens who invest in it, so it is voluntary/free market participation?

Many of the same people who don't believe in helping welfare recipients to become more dependent on govt handouts and mandates on programs, would PREFER to pay into free market systems for helping Veterans. So isn't that an equal burden of govt that citizens could have the option of paying for instead of a tax penalty (and instead of federal health insurance mandates they don't believe in and interpret as unconstitutional violations).

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How can anyone find fault with that?

Jeez people, think it through.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Deadlines and redlines are meaningless to this guy. Talk is cheap ya know.

 

[007]

Isn't it already extended for those that check the appropriate box?

No, there's no need to check any boxes. The DNC has checked all the boxes for you in advance...

ObamaCare Applicants Receiving Voter Cards Identifying Them As Democrats - Downtrend.com

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe because neither the President nor the Supreme Court is authorized to change legislation without going through Congress.

Maybe because the President blamed the GOP for deadlocking Congress and shutting down govt, over this VERY issue of delaying the individual mandate.

If you recall, the President refused to alter any conditions on the ACA, so he blamed the GOP for the shutdown caused by agreeing on a budget that included a one year delay on the individual mandate; but afterwards HE keeps changing it anyway, although unconstitutionally through his media-based relations with the public completely outside of Constitutional procedures. Don't you think that is conflicting?

How can anyone find fault with that?

Jeez people, think it through.

Luddly since you seem to be as adamant about "right to health" as the conservatives I know who are adamant about "right to life".
What if the shoe was on the other foot?

What if Conservative Prolife leaders passed a bill contested by the Democrats because it overrode free choice and made ALL taxpayers pay for a Right to Life system. What if the bill mandated that everyone pay for health care that banned abortion and banned abortifacient drugs. And what if the deadline for signing up for this health care system was today, or you would get fined on your taxes if you refused to pay into this prolife health care system that went against YOUR beliefs in free choice.

How would you respond if the Prolife President keep changing the bill to DELAY the contested mandate, but kept forcing prochoice people and companies to be under the mandates anyway, not listening to our petitions that our "right to choose" was being PENALIZED under this bill, and we needed more time to resolve the conflict?

What if the health care mandates went against YOUR beliefs, how would you react?
Would you discount the whole bill as unconstitutional on its face? Or would you put up with being under the mandates and fines, hoping the conflicts can be resolved "afterwards"?

Would you be okay with letting a PROLIFE policy be imposed on you and the public
"in the meantime" while these conflicts are going on?

Would you be willing to pay either 1% of your income as a fine to govt to run a PROLIFE health system that excludes yours and my belief in free choice? Or like Hobby Lobby would you be willing to pay 1.3 million in fines for refusing to pay for policies you don't believe in?

Wouldn't you complain? Would you follow the law you contested, and pay for the program that excludes right to choose, or would you just "shut up and pay the fines"?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Maybe because neither the President nor the Supreme Court is authorized to change legislation without going through Congress.

Maybe because the President blamed the GOP for deadlocking Congress and shutting down govt, over this VERY issue of delaying the individual mandate.

If you recall, the President refused to alter any conditions on the ACA, so he blamed the GOP for the shutdown caused by agreeing on a budget that included a one year delay on the individual mandate; but afterwards HE keeps changing it anyway, although unconstitutionally through his media-based relations with the public completely outside of Constitutional procedures. Don't you think that is conflicting?

How can anyone find fault with that?

Jeez people, think it through.

Luddly since you seem to be as adamant about "right to health" as the conservatives I know who are adamant about "right to life".
What if the shoe was on the other foot?

What if Conservative Prolife leaders passed a bill contested by the Democrats because it overrode free choice and made ALL taxpayers pay for a Right to Life system. What if the bill mandated that everyone pay for health care that banned abortion and banned abortifacient drugs. And what if the deadline for signing up for this health care system was today, or you would get fined on your taxes if you refused to pay into this prolife health care system that went against YOUR beliefs in free choice.

How would you respond if the Prolife President keep changing the bill to DELAY the contested mandate, but kept forcing prochoice people and companies to be under the mandates anyway, not listening to our petitions that our "right to choose" was being PENALIZED under this bill, and we needed more time to resolve the conflict?

What if the health care mandates went against YOUR beliefs, how would you react?
Would you discount the whole bill as unconstitutional on its face? Or would you put up with being under the mandates and fines, hoping the conflicts can be resolved "afterwards"?

Would you be okay with letting a PROLIFE policy be imposed on you and the public
"in the meantime" while these conflicts are going on?

Would you be willing to pay either 1% of your income as a fine to govt to run a PROLIFE health system that excludes yours and my belief in free choice? Or like Hobby Lobby would you be willing to pay 1.3 million in fines for refusing to pay for policies you don't believe in?

Wouldn't you complain? Would you follow the law you contested, and pay for the program that excludes right to choose, or would you just "shut up and pay the fines"?

Well gee, that would be wrong because REPUBLICAN!

But the (un)aca was done by DEMOCRATS! so ... it's all good.

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe because neither the President nor the Supreme Court is authorized to change legislation without going through Congress.

Maybe because the President blamed the GOP for deadlocking Congress and shutting down govt, over this VERY issue of delaying the individual mandate.

If you recall, the President refused to alter any conditions on the ACA, so he blamed the GOP for the shutdown caused by agreeing on a budget that included a one year delay on the individual mandate; but afterwards HE keeps changing it anyway, although unconstitutionally through his media-based relations with the public completely outside of Constitutional procedures. Don't you think that is conflicting?

How can anyone find fault with that?

Jeez people, think it through.

Luddly since you seem to be as adamant about "right to health" as the conservatives I know who are adamant about "right to life".
What if the shoe was on the other foot?

What if Conservative Prolife leaders passed a bill contested by the Democrats because it overrode free choice and made ALL taxpayers pay for a Right to Life system. What if the bill mandated that everyone pay for health care that banned abortion and banned abortifacient drugs. And what if the deadline for signing up for this health care system was today, or you would get fined on your taxes if you refused to pay into this prolife health care system that went against YOUR beliefs in free choice.

How would you respond if the Prolife President keep changing the bill to DELAY the contested mandate, but kept forcing prochoice people and companies to be under the mandates anyway, not listening to our petitions that our "right to choose" was being PENALIZED under this bill, and we needed more time to resolve the conflict?

What if the health care mandates went against YOUR beliefs, how would you react?
Would you discount the whole bill as unconstitutional on its face? Or would you put up with being under the mandates and fines, hoping the conflicts can be resolved "afterwards"?

Would you be okay with letting a PROLIFE policy be imposed on you and the public
"in the meantime" while these conflicts are going on?

Would you be willing to pay either 1% of your income as a fine to govt to run a PROLIFE health system that excludes yours and my belief in free choice? Or like Hobby Lobby would you be willing to pay 1.3 million in fines for refusing to pay for policies you don't believe in?

Wouldn't you complain? Would you follow the law you contested, and pay for the program that excludes right to choose, or would you just "shut up and pay the fines"?

Well gee, that would be wrong because REPUBLICAN!

But the (un)aca was done by DEMOCRATS! so ... it's all good.

This is why I say we should separate the parties as political religions. Let both parties fund "right to life" or "right to health" for their members as they believe in, and make everyone happy. No more money or energy would be spent fighting, but all resources would be invested in making systems work that people freely choose to fund and participate in VOLUNTARILY because they agree. What a concept, ya think?

We wouldn't let Muslims or Hindus force "pro-pork" or "anti-beef" policies on the public,
banning or requiring funding either one. So why do we let Democrats and Republicans push
their agenda this way, by majority-rule "forcing" their biased beliefs onto everyone else as "the only right way"?

As Gandhi united the Muslims and Hindus against a common enemy,
we need a Constitutional Gandhi or King to unite the parties on common principles.

Otherwise we remain divided and conquered, as the Muslims and Hindus were in India.
We need to learn from history, and quit repeating wars from the past.

 

[natstew]

The 'fix' is in, the numbers are cooked, no need for more extensions.

 

[Antares]

Website down, they are no taking calls.

 

[Antares]

(sigh) What a day.
Website simply not working.

 

[007]

(sigh) What a day.
Website simply not working.

Don't worry... another illegal alteration of the law by the kenyan is on the way.

 

[Antares]

I worked 14 hours trying to get people signed up yesterday ugh.
It was a disaster for the Admin, you just couldn't access the website....we could have enrolled twice as many as we did.