Republicans Plan to Obstruct the Constitution -- Again

[Grizz]

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

"Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs"

Correction , BOTH sides should have done this, it's not what the President wanted, he wanted/wants Single Payor Gob care for all.

"and let people shop for the best deal"

This they could already do.

"with low cost insurance for broken arms,"

This already exists.

"and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now"

Nope, Medicaid eligibility is determined by one's assets (or the lack thereof)

The gop chose to not submit a proposal covering everyone. Bennett of Utah tried, and he was primaried by the tea party for his trouble. No, people to NOT shop for the best deal. THAT's precisely the problem, and will continue to be so when we go single payer, which is where we're headed. And, you lack any basic understading of Medicaid eligibility for the disabled.

LOL, Insurance is what I do son. I deal with people on the fringes of eligibility every day, it is you who hasn't a clue.

 

[Grizz]

As an aside ben, they to this day shop for the best deal...it's just that there isn't one. The plans and the pricing have been standardized.
Don't even start with the different deductibles, when one starts paying is not as important as when one STOPS paying....and in the Bronze plans you stop at 6700 for an individual plan all the way up to 13400 for the aggregate plans.

 

[Grizz]

You haven't lived until you have to tell someone that they can't get their subsidy because they don't make enough money

 

[bendog]

As an aside ben, they to this day shop for the best deal...it's just that there isn't one. The plans and the pricing have been standardized.
Don't even start with the different deductibles, when one starts paying is not as important as when one STOPS paying....and in the Bronze plans you stop at 6700 for an individual plan all the way up to 13400 for the aggregate plans.

Exactly so. The market is not transparent.

 

[Grizz]

As an aside ben, they to this day shop for the best deal...it's just that there isn't one. The plans and the pricing have been standardized.
Don't even start with the different deductibles, when one starts paying is not as important as when one STOPS paying....and in the Bronze plans you stop at 6700 for an individual plan all the way up to 13400 for the aggregate plans.

Exactly so. The market is not transparent.

That wasn't what you said, you said they couldn't shop for the best deal.
It was far and away better pre-ACA, the problem was really less than scrupulous agents. A good agent made all the difference in the world.

At any rate the cat is out of the bag now, the easiest fix will be Medicare Style for all

 

[bendog]

Griz,

http://www.nd.gov/dhs/info/pubs/docs/medicaid/fact-sheet-children-w-disabilities-medicaid-buy-in.pdf

Disabled Child Living at Home | Mississippi Division of Medicaid

 

[bendog]

As an aside ben, they to this day shop for the best deal...it's just that there isn't one. The plans and the pricing have been standardized.
Don't even start with the different deductibles, when one starts paying is not as important as when one STOPS paying....and in the Bronze plans you stop at 6700 for an individual plan all the way up to 13400 for the aggregate plans.

Exactly so. The market is not transparent.

That wasn't what you said, you said they couldn't shop for the best deal.
It was far and away better pre-ACA, the problem was really less than scrupulous agents. A good agent made all the difference in the world.

At any rate the cat is out of the bag now, the easiest fix will be Medicare Style for all

You can't shop for the best deal unless the market's transparent.

Look this was hashed out over 8 years ago. Have a nice day. I went there once, and it was more than enough.

 

[Grizz]

Griz,

http://www.nd.gov/dhs/info/pubs/docs/medicaid/fact-sheet-children-w-disabilities-medicaid-buy-in.pdf

Disabled Child Living at Home | Mississippi Division of Medicaid

From your link, first paragraph.

"



Children with Disabilities Medicaid coverage allows families with children to "buy-into" the Medicaid program by paying a monthly premium based on the family’s income. "

Exactly, but assets are also figured into it.
I have seen ore than one family

I can go back to Roe and Obergfell, both which stretched "interpretation" to levels seen in Dred Scott and Plessey.

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

There was no mention of "disabled" kids here, you are moving the goal posts.

 

[TooTall]

I can go back to Roe and Obergfell, both which stretched "interpretation" to levels seen in Dred Scott and Plessey.

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

The GOP was completely shut out of the formation of the ACA and not a single one of them voted for it.

 

[rightwinger]

Well I didn't like Obergfell, but even Roberts conceded the gays would win the day. I thought Roe was also a political misstep, but while I respect your religious views, over 60% believe that there's some right to choice. There's just no real constitutional crisis.

Civil rights required the conservatives to accept govt intrusions on personal contracts. You had to contract with blacks. There was no way out. That was a crisis. The emacipation took property without compensation. That was a crisis.

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. If you don't want health insurance, pay a tax.

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

The GOP was completely shut out of the formation of the ACA and not a single one of them voted for it.

The door was wide open

Republicans posted someone at the door to ensure no Republican would dare pass through it

 

[TooTall]

As an aside ben, they to this day shop for the best deal...it's just that there isn't one. The plans and the pricing have been standardized.
Don't even start with the different deductibles, when one starts paying is not as important as when one STOPS paying....and in the Bronze plans you stop at 6700 for an individual plan all the way up to 13400 for the aggregate plans.

Exactly so. The market is not transparent.

That wasn't what you said, you said they couldn't shop for the best deal.
It was far and away better pre-ACA, the problem was really less than scrupulous agents. A good agent made all the difference in the world.

At any rate the cat is out of the bag now, the easiest fix will be Medicare Style for all

I can hardly wait. The Veterans Administration model for everyone. I wonder how many will die waiting on a DC bureaucrat to OK cancer treatment?

 

[Grizz]

As an aside ben, they to this day shop for the best deal...it's just that there isn't one. The plans and the pricing have been standardized.
Don't even start with the different deductibles, when one starts paying is not as important as when one STOPS paying....and in the Bronze plans you stop at 6700 for an individual plan all the way up to 13400 for the aggregate plans.

Exactly so. The market is not transparent.

That wasn't what you said, you said they couldn't shop for the best deal.
It was far and away better pre-ACA, the problem was really less than scrupulous agents. A good agent made all the difference in the world.

At any rate the cat is out of the bag now, the easiest fix will be Medicare Style for all

I can hardly wait. The Veterans Administration model for everyone. I wonder how many will die waiting on a DC bureaucrat to OK cancer treatment?

Actually Medicare works, although on the coming Macro scale I'm not so sure.

 

[Grizz]

What is stopping Obama from passing a law that if you don't buy a car you have to pay a tax? That makes just as much sense as the ACA tax.

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

The GOP was completely shut out of the formation of the ACA and not a single one of them voted for it.

The door was wide open

Republicans posted someone at the door to ensure no Republican would dare pass through it

Bullshit.

 

[Theowl32]

God help me, I fucking hate them.

 

[sealybobo]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

McCain Suggests GOP Would Oppose Clinton Supreme Court Picks

Throw out guys like mccain

I am not voting for him.
I will do a write in.

Until the next midterms when you vote for his clone.

 

[sealybobo]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

McCain Suggests GOP Would Oppose Clinton Supreme Court Picks

Throw out guys like mccain

I am not voting for him.
I will do a write in.

Until the next midterms when you vote for his clone.

 

[LeftofLeft]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/17/us/politics/ap-us-mccain-supreme-court-.html

How is this different vs. What Democrats do when Republican Presidents put forth nominees? Compare how many Obama and Bill Clinton nominees Republicans shot down vs. the number of Bush and Reagan nominees shot down by Democrats?

McCain is simply taking a page from the book of the late Ted Kennedy.

I do not agree with either party obstructing the work of government. It just happens to be the Republicans. There is a significant difference, though, between what is happening/what McCain is proposing and Democrats shooting down Bush/Reagan nominees. The critical term is "shoot down." I didn't say Republicans need to approve the nominees. They need to do their job and hold hearings and discuss the nominees' credentials.
When the Democrats and Republicans have completely forgotten how to work together, maybe they BOTH need to go.

I don't there is a difference. Specifically, McCains words equate with what Democrats record on approving Justices; namely, Democrats have shot down more Justices. McCain or any other Senator knows they can't skirt the process and that process needs to be full and open for the American People to see.

While not perfect, it looks like our Founders thought this check and balance through. I'd hate to see what this would look like with Presidents picking or appointing judges outright.

 

[peach174]

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain pledged Monday that Republicans will unite against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton puts forward if she becomes president, forecasting obstruction that could tie Capitol Hill in knots.

However an aide later clarified that McCain, R-Ariz., will examine the record of anyone nominated for the high court and vote for or against that person based on their qualifications.

McCain's initial comments came in an interview with Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano to promote the candidacy of Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

"This is the strongest argument I can make to return Pat Toomey, so we can make sure there are not three places on the United States Supreme Court that will change this country for decades," McCain said.


Yeah, right, nice attempt at a save by the aide. So the Republicans plan on another 4 years of do-nothing obstructionism if they don't get their way?
No one who values democracy or our form of government should vote for a single Republican in this election. Democrats will have no choice but to run the country if the Republicans refuse to participate.

McCain Suggests GOP Would Oppose Clinton Supreme Court Picks

Throw out guys like mccain

I am not voting for him.
I will do a write in.

Until the next midterms when you vote for his clone.

You have me pegged totally wrong.
I'm not voting for Flake the fake either.

 

[rightwinger]

Come on, let's be just a tad realistic. Tthe reality is still that if a person is uninsured, and he gets really sick or even needs an ER, he often doesn't pay for, but instead shifts the cost to the insured folks. Congress said "buy insurance or pay a tax." I'm not relitigating the ACA again, because IT WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. Congress has the power to levy taxes. There is a rational reason to treat those who refuse to buy insurance (and freeload) differently from insured. It was not a difficult question.

It was a POLITICAL question. Court's don't go there. Or shouldn't. The gop could have nominated someone capable of winning this election, and go at HC by just making sure everyone has X dollars to get services and then let them buy them in a transparent market.

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

The GOP was completely shut out of the formation of the ACA and not a single one of them voted for it.

The door was wide open

Republicans posted someone at the door to ensure no Republican would dare pass through it

Bullshit.

More victimization from the right

Refuse to participate and then blame the other side because you didn't get any input

 

[Grizz]

28.5 million in 2015—remain without health care coverage. The treasury should be overflowing with money when they collect the taxes from the 28+ million that do not have health insurance.

Imagine, the fed govt collecting less tax revenue that needed to make program solvent. When's that happened before. (-:

Again, the gop should have just found a way to fund tax credits for everyone to get preventative care and generic drugs, and let people shop for the best deal, with low cost insurance for broken arms, and really really sick people go on Medicaid, which is where they ended up before the ACA and where they end up now.

The GOP was completely shut out of the formation of the ACA and not a single one of them voted for it.

The door was wide open

Republicans posted someone at the door to ensure no Republican would dare pass through it

Bullshit.

More victimization from the right

Refuse to participate and then blame the other side because you didn't get any input

You are quite the little brain dead parrot kid