Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Judging from some of the liberal responses, I genuinely wonder how many liberals really understand what Obamacare is. When you see inane remarks like "another loss for conservatives trying to take away people's health care," you wonder if such folks even understand what that "care" is.
Judging from some of the liberal responses, I genuinely wonder how many liberals really understand what Obamacare is. When you see inane remarks like "another loss for conservatives trying to take away people's health care," you wonder if such folks even understand what that "care" is.
Judging from some of the liberal responses, I genuinely wonder how many liberals really understand what Obamacare is. When you see inane remarks like "another loss for conservatives trying to take away people's health care," you wonder if such folks even understand what that "care" is.
SCOTUScare will implode. There is no way this side of reality that it's sustainable. SCOTUScare as well as the economy is quickly drawing to a catastrophic implosion. You see articles written on it more and more by the day. So SCOTUScare doesn't stand a chance, our economy doesn't stand a chance. We are a train wreck in motion, and virtually nothing can stop it at this point, and you can blame it all on our government, ALL of them, dems and repubs. When it comes to their greed and level of corruption there's not a pubic hairs difference between them.The left loons breath a sigh of relief now that the taxpayers will continue to support them.
So hang on to your hat... the ride is about to get rough... and I hope and pray that all these filthy little shit stain progtards never buy a gun or stock up on food or anything of the sort. I hope they all continue to think that unicorns are shitting rainbows out their ass and everything is beautiful forever in their land of commie utopia, because then they'll all be the first to perish. What a wonderful thought.
This is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare
.
When the court ignores black letter law, we're all in trouble.
Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.
Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.
And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.
Right, te people who couldn't get healthcare before were the working poor and lower middle classRight if you cannot afford the insurance, fine the poor. Tax them poor people even more.Nobody is being forced to buy something, if you chose to oppose Obama by not buying insurance, and causing people like me to pay for your unexpected ER visit after a car accident, you can pay at tax time.Forcing someone to buy something isn't freedom.which freedom is that?Another freedom taken by the Obama administration.
Put your money where your ideology du jour is
Last I checked, the poor were getting health care before Obamacare.
That didn't happen in any of the states that set up exchangesThis is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare
.
When the court ignores black letter law, we're all in trouble.
Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.
Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.
And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.
States found out setting up the exchanges would bankrupt them. Big shock
This is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare
.
When the court ignores black letter law, we're all in trouble.
Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.
Right now I pay for everybody who winds up at the ER after a car crash, and doesn't have any insurance.Right now they pay for it. Go Obama!Right if you cannot afford the insurance, fine the poor. Tax them poor people even more.Nobody is being forced to buy something, if you chose to oppose Obama by not buying insurance, and causing people like me to pay for your unexpected ER visit after a car accident, you can pay at tax time.Forcing someone to buy something isn't freedom.which freedom is that?
Put your money where your ideology du jour is
Last I checked, the poor were getting health care before Obamacare.
That's just the anger talking.All due respect...that just sounds like the third stage of grieving...bargaining.Yep, they read the law, didn't like what it said so they said it said something else and that was what was meant. In other words they made law. The read the mind of those who wrote the law. Regardless of which side you are on one would think what is happening is bad for the country. But I think those who just love shoving crap down on people will think this is the best thing that ever happened, they win and we all lose.
It isn't going to happen but imagine if the SCOTUS rules 5-4 against gay marriage. What do you think those crowing today will say about the SCOTUS?
If a Republican beats Hillary, and congress stays red after 2016, you'll not once hear righties, possibly you as well, say the phrase "shoving crap down throats".
If it turn out that way, the GOP will be doing what our government does regardless of who's in charge, they will spend all the money we send them, and some more on top of that...only then, on things righties want, as opposed to things lefties want.
The concept of having things "crammed down somebody's throat"...is simply a demonization of what happens to the losers of an election, after the winners implement what they ran on.
Obama ran on Obamacare, and was reelected.
Right now I'm listening to Fox News, and they're all a mixed bag of the 2nd and 4th stages of grieving, anger, and depression.
Who elected the SCOTUS? I certainly don't remember that vote. Your whole posts sounds like the little kid that is happy they got what they wanted.
Congress was the one who voted, and passed the law. The SCOTUS ruled on challenges to it.
The challenger lost.
There are no demons here, but I'm listening to Karl Rove now, and his buck up speech includes a good strategy. He's already getting righties fired up about repealing Obamacare after 2016.
He's babbling a bit, like he's bargaining. Not as bad as election night 2012 on Fox, now that was funny..."Romney by a landslide"....hehe...good times, good times...but my concern isn't just a hobby. I work for a medical insurance company, and my company has itself, and me, so far out on a limb with Obamacare, undoing it would be catastrophic to my company and millions of America.
Righties are all about the idea of "right or wrong, you break it, you bought it" when defending the decision to g into Iraq, but not so much on post Obamacare healthcare in America.
I am not really angry because that passed long ago. I never thought in a million years that the SCOTUS would rule differently. That does not change the FACT of what the law says and the SCOTUS ruled that it didn't say what it says. An acknowledgement of fact isn't necessarily anger it is frustration perhaps.
Who in the hell listens to Rove? I sure don't. SCOTUSCARE will NEVER be repealed but this decision will be used forever to allow the court to make law. For that reason alone it was a very bad decision. If they would have kicked it back to congress this congress would not have had the guts to let it stand they would have fast tracked a bill. The SCOTUS let congress off the hook.
That' a pretty decent take on things. The GOP lacks the balls to go against the ACA even though in principal, it is not overwhelmingly supported. It's a mess that is only going to get worse... like I said, I fear we're doomed anyway.... we're $17,000,000,000,000 in debt with nearly $60,000,000,000,000 n unfunded liabilities.
It's only a mater of when.
God, I logged off about 3 hours ago, and these righties are all whipped up.and you are celebrating on the corpse of the separation of powers that used to be in our federal government.
It seems the separation of powers has worked as intended as all three branches have weighed in on Obamacare and it is the law of the land
You are only celebrating because you agree with the outcome. You have no understanding or care for process or rules.
The process was followed
You just don't like the result
Congress passed Obamacare
The President signed it into law
The Supreme Court affirmed its Constitutionality
Government in action
The progressive wrote the law poorly
They realized their mistake, but were out of the majority
The SC basically gave them a pass for writing a crappy law
Rightwinger celebrates like a retard.
I feel your pain
Even the Conservative Supreme Court is against you
Cheer up...maybe the Court will back you on gay marriage
Is it my imagination...or do the true colors of righties always come out when the SCOTUS rules against them?
Of course they do on election night, when Obama won...
It's like "Romney by a landlside" all over again
That didn't happen in any of the states that set up exchangesThis is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare
.
When the court ignores black letter law, we're all in trouble.
Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.
Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.
And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.
States found out setting up the exchanges would bankrupt them. Big shock
That didn't happen in any of the states that set up exchangesThis is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.When the court ignores black letter law, we're all in trouble.
Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.
Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.
And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.
States found out setting up the exchanges would bankrupt them. Big shock
Of the 3 dozen states that go through the fed... It is because if they didn't...They couldn't afford the low premiums offered to the public and would have to hike prices to compensate. Plus ...the millions to set up their own exchanges.
God, I logged off about 3 hours ago, and these righties are all whipped up.It seems the separation of powers has worked as intended as all three branches have weighed in on Obamacare and it is the law of the land
You are only celebrating because you agree with the outcome. You have no understanding or care for process or rules.
The process was followed
You just don't like the result
Congress passed Obamacare
The President signed it into law
The Supreme Court affirmed its Constitutionality
Government in action
The progressive wrote the law poorly
They realized their mistake, but were out of the majority
The SC basically gave them a pass for writing a crappy law
Rightwinger celebrates like a retard.
I feel your pain
Even the Conservative Supreme Court is against you
Cheer up...maybe the Court will back you on gay marriage
Remember those 5 stages of grief?
They've invented some new ones!
How the hell do dems think we're going to pay for this monstrosity?
We'll be 20 trillion in debt by the time obama leaves office as it is.
Taxes are going to sky rocket for the middle class making it even more difficult to pay the ridiculous out of pocket expenses for medical care.
I expect a shitload of people to renounce their citizenship in the coming years and getting the fuck out of here with some of their savings intact.
I know I'm going to be one of them.
Obamacare is a hack, versus your solution of, just die already.And of course if you're against a super-expensive, poorly run government health care program, you want to "take away people's insurance" and "don't care about people's lives."
