Republicans Plan to Obstruct the Constitution -- Again

[JoeNormal]

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?

Probably fewer than would die because they can't afford treatment.

That is what the Emergency rooms are for. They are FREE.

Oooh, that'll save the tax payers a lot of money! Goddamn you guys are stupid.

I guess you are right. Just let those that can't afford health insurance die. I didn't know the taxpayers paid for Emergency room care. Is that true?

EVERY ER has a sign that says they cannot be refused care.

Those costs have prompted financially strapped hospitals to rely on a complex system of shifting costs. Most of the burden falls on taxpayers, with the government providing tens of billions of dollars annually to help hospitals care for the uninsured. Privately insured Americans also pay a price as insurers raise premiums to reflect higher charges from hospitals.

Trauma in the ER: Who pays for the uninsured?

 

[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.

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

I just looked at all the threads you've started back to 2011. You're clearly not voting for Hillary. So maybe you live in a state where your vote doesn't matter but if you did, I don't believe you aren't voting for trump.

Arizona might go blue. If that's where you are from I bet you're voting straight ticket

 

[easyt65]

Throw out the bums that refuse to do their jobs and refuse to do anything but warm a chair in Congress and collect a paycheck.

Harry Reid left hundred of GOP bills on his desk, refusing to allow them to come up for a vote. Where was that sentiment then?


Harry Reid’s Obstructionism

Harry Reid’s reign of paralysis


Many of these comments / thread, and posts reek of the stench of hypocrisy.

How many of those GOP bills had the 60 votes needed to go to the floor?

Let me check.........ummmmmm....None

Wait.....so like the average hack you "support" the rules when they "favor" you.
Got it.

Hey Republicans......you reap what you sow

When you require the Dems to get 60 votes to bring their bills to the floor, don't complain when you are required to meet the same standard

And when libs complain because Harry Reid reguses to allow bi-partisan Bills to come to the floor for a vote, ad my link shows happened, Teid is just being a Liberal Obstructionist refusing to do his job.

 

[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 n


ot 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.

I just looked at all the threads you've started back to 2011. You're clearly not voting for Hillary. So maybe you live in a state where your vote doesn't matter but if you did, I don't believe you aren't voting for trump.

Arizona might go blue. If that's where you are from I bet you're voting straight ticket

We were talking about McCain not Hillary or Trump.
You said vote McCain out and I agreed.

 

[OldLady]

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

When Republicans nominated candidates to Democrat Senates, they kept nominating moderates/leftists who kept screwing us to get them through the Senate. Democrat Presidents are nominating nothing but hard core leftists. It's about time the Republicans stood for something

Garland is not a hard core leftist, by anyone's standards. Try again.

 

[owebo]

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

McCain is a GOPer...you know, a democrat...

 

[OldLady]

There have been 35 actual, substantiated cases of fraud in voting out of millions and millions. 35. That is not "fixed Primary elections, massive fraud." You do not have evidence that Hillary's campaign hired homeless and mentally ill people to disrupt and engage in violence at GOP events. I'd put my money on a Hillary supporter firebombing the GOP HQ, but you fail to mention the DNC has raised $13,000 to restore it. Without any fuss or muss or need to call names.
I know you can't prove any of the above hyperbolic slander about rigged elections. It IS NOT TRUE. You are being used to move forward an agenda to destroy this country through rebellion against the majority's decision. That is so third world and tacky.
Grow up.

There is a video out today of democrat operatives describing exactly what they do to commit voter fraud, they bus people to mutiple districs, the find abandoned houses and use those addresses and they even have an illegal alien who gets other illegal aliens to vote.....it is out on video, they admit it and are proud about it ......

You are not a very wise person.....

Yes...we have the leaders of the group stating they use homeless people and union thugs from the AFL-CIO to disrupt trump rallies...they are on video admitting to it, and one of them was just fired because of it....he is now going to get an even better job with the democrats once the election is over...

You can't deny it......they have actually admitted to all of it on video....they have been caught and there is no way to say they didn't say it......

Keep drinking the koolaid, Guy. The reason that video is not being covered by the MSM is that the guy who made it is a convicted felon who has perpetrated hoax video's before. They don't want to get burned again. Fox covered it briefly, but also informed viewers of the above.
And if you don't think Republicans are up to the same sort of tactics (what do you call the nonsense that goes on here?) you're sadly deluded.

 

[rightwinger]

Throw out the bums that refuse to do their jobs and refuse to do anything but warm a chair in Congress and collect a paycheck.

Harry Reid left hundred of GOP bills on his desk, refusing to allow them to come up for a vote. Where was that sentiment then?


Harry Reid’s Obstructionism

Harry Reid’s reign of paralysis


Many of these comments / thread, and posts reek of the stench of hypocrisy.

How many of those GOP bills had the 60 votes needed to go to the floor?

Let me check.........ummmmmm....None

Wait.....so like the average hack you "support" the rules when they "favor" you.
Got it.

Hey Republicans......you reap what you sow

When you require the Dems to get 60 votes to bring their bills to the floor, don't complain when you are required to meet the same standard

And when libs complain because Harry Reid reguses to allow bi-partisan Bills to come to the floor for a vote, ad my link shows happened, Teid is just being a Liberal Obstructionist refusing to do his job.

Name one

 

[martybegan]

Politicians playing politics, what a fucking horror.

Ignoring an empty seat on the Supreme Court goes beyond mere politics
It is a dereliction of duty

I see it as holding the line.

Quit whining, as Obama would say.

hat line would that be?

The imaginary line that says Conservatives should have an advantage on the court?

The line you idiots crossed when your Justices started ignoring the Constitution based on feelings, fluffy bunnies, and unicorn farts.

They never ignored the Constitution

It is you who has no standing in determining what is constitutional and what is not

They went back to the Constitution of 1940, but instead of using the designated legislature, they created a "council of ministers" that started issuing laws and decrees.

 

[kaz]

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

When Republicans nominated candidates to Democrat Senates, they kept nominating moderates/leftists who kept screwing us to get them through the Senate. Democrat Presidents are nominating nothing but hard core leftists. It's about time the Republicans stood for something

Garland is not a hard core leftist, by anyone's standards. Try again.

For example ...

 

[rightwinger]

It will be interesting to see how Republicans play the Garland nomination once they have lost their gamble on the Presidency and the Senate

Will they scramble in a lame duck congress to confirm moderate Garland?
How will they react when Hillary says....Now that I have a Democratic Senate, I am going to reconsider Garland who was selected for a Republican Senate to confirm....I want someone younger and more liberal

 

[JoeNormal]

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

When Republicans nominated candidates to Democrat Senates, they kept nominating moderates/leftists who kept screwing us to get them through the Senate. Democrat Presidents are nominating nothing but hard core leftists. It's about time the Republicans stood for something

Garland is not a hard core leftist, by anyone's standards. Try again.

Kaz is such a right wing nut, Garland looks left to him.

 

[kaz]

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

When Republicans nominated candidates to Democrat Senates, they kept nominating moderates/leftists who kept screwing us to get them through the Senate. Democrat Presidents are nominating nothing but hard core leftists. It's about time the Republicans stood for something

Garland is not a hard core leftist, by anyone's standards. Try again.

Kaz is such a right wing nut, Garland looks left to him.

Yet still the content behind that is zero. How is he not a leftist?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If this is their position when HRC is elected she should just respond 'there will be a blanket veto on EVERY bill Congress sends to my desk to be signed until the proper Congress is elected and 'the people have had their say in a proper election'.

The time has come for the Democrats to cram this shit right back down the Republican's throats. The Republicans have decided the Constitution isn't valid anymore and they can ignore it.

Let's find out.

The Democrats have already been ignoring the Constitution for the last 8 years.

I am not sure that shutting down the entire federal government for 4 years might not be the best thing to happen for the American people.

With the mounting problems of terrorism, crime, gangs, the economy, jobs being exported, etc, the federalis have only made things much worse.

We can handle these problems better our own damned selves.

 

[Dana7360]

Bork got a hearing and those voting against him gave specific reasons for their vote.

Cowardly Republicans will not even do that

There's the problem. 90 senators would not find Garland's views to be ... controversial.

But again, the gop was ok with Obama getting two nominations. And presumably Hillary will also get two in one term.

After that .. possible culture wars.

If the congress doesn't confirm Garland, Hillary will appoint 2 but possibly 3 justices to the court. That is if Hillary wins.

Judge Anthony Kennedy is 80 years old. It's possible that he would retire or possibly die during a Hillary presidency.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not hoping that Kennedy or anyone dies. I hope he continues to live a healthy life.

I suspect the gop will confirm two Hillary appointees. IF Kennedy were to pass away during Hillary's first term, I doubt a gop Senate would take up a third. And it would be punted to 2020 and beyond.

So once again the republicans show how much they distain our constitution.

If Kennedy passed away the president has a constitutional obligation to nominate someone. The senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent.

The constitution doesn't say one party can prevent even a vote for a nominee as they have been doing for almost a year.

It's shameful. I can't do anything to remove a republican who does that. I'm lucky, there is only 1 republican that represents me on the state or federal level. My state has one republican elected to state office. Otherwise everyone who represents me is a democrat. The chance of one of our senators in DC being a republican is nearly non existent.

I don't think it's so bad. Reagan got 3 confirmed. Kennedy was confirmed in the final year, but first Bork said batshit crazy stuff, and then Douglas Ginsburg not only smoked POT in law school, but may have been involved in some "collective buys." Kennedy was the "safe choice."

Poppy got 2. Slick got 2. W got 2. Obama got 2.

But we'll have to see if the gop acts responsibly ... assuming Hillary wins and they hold onto the Senate. If the dems win the senate, I think they'll move very fast to push nominations through.

I remember the reagan years. I voted against him twice.

I'm hoping that Hillary wins and gets to appoint at least 2 if not 3 judges to the supreme court.

The rulings that twist our constitution into a pretzel and harm our nation will stop if liberals have a majority on that court.

 

[Dana7360]

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 first sentence of your post is a lie.

For the truth you can click the link below and pick your article about all the republican amendments to the ACA.

republican amendments to affordable care act - Yahoo Search Results

 

[TooTall]

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 first sentence of your post is a lie.

For the truth you can click the link below and pick your article about all the republican amendments to the ACA.

republican amendments to affordable care act - Yahoo Search Results

I stand corrected. The Republicans input was as follows:

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions adopted 159 amendments offered by Republicans, but only two of them were significant or controversial enough to merit roll call votes. One of those two affected the manufacture of biologics medication and another required members of Congress and congressional staff to enroll in the government-run option.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, said 132 of the 159 were for "technical amendments" and that it was a misnomer to call them proof of bipartisanship.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, 16 Republican amendments were adopted. With the exception of one that would create a pathway for nonpioneer drug companies to manufacture "follow-on" biologics, said Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for Republicans on the committee, none of the Republican amendments could be considered major, and none change the core of the legislation.

"The process in our committee was bipartisan only in that we were given the opportunity to mark up the bill," said Miller. "In large measure, the bipartisanship that existed during the E&C markup was that of luck and circumstance, not intent among Democrats."

In the House Ways and Means committee markup, all 38 of the Republican-sponsored amendments were rejected along a party-line vote.

 

[PredFan]

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

Hey moron, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Only a liberal can be that stupid.

 

[Dana7360]

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?

Probably fewer than would die because they can't afford treatment.

That is what the Emergency rooms are for. They are FREE.

What color is the sky in your world?

The ER isn't free. The patient gets the bill.

A close friend of mine lost her insurance because of divorce. She had a benign cyst removed from her breast in the 80s. When she lost her insurance she had to buy it privately. No insurance company would cover her because she had a benign cyst removed in the 80s.

She ended up in the ER nearly dead from a very bad case of diverticulitis. She was admitted to the hospital and remained there for nearly a month.

She later received a bill for over 200 thousand dollars. She's paying it off but most don't do that.

What happens to those bills is a result of what reagan did to our health care system in the 80s. At the time people were asking what about those who can't afford insurance? reagan's answer was sending them to the ER and all of those bills that aren't paid fall under what reagan and conservatives called "cost shifting." That is shift the unpaid bills to those who can pay.

The problem with that is thousands of Americans died. We started seeing donation cans at cash registers to help children not die because they had cancer and no insurance. We saw pancake breakfasts to raise money to pay for chemo therapy for kids.

On top of that the bills for those ER visits are at the highest cost. When a visit to a doctor's office would be cheaper.

The ER isn't free to Americans, we're paying higher costs for things in an ER and Americans are needlessly dying.

 

[OldLady]

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

Hey moron, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Only a liberal can be that stupid.

Never said it was unconstitutional. Read the thread or shut up.