What Is The Republican Alternative To ObamaCare

[Procrustes Stretched]

An argument supporting the mandate is ruled invalid, another argument supporting the mandate is ruled valid. The mandate is ruled constitutional under one of two arguments.

No mandate was ruled unconstitutional as there is only one mandate.


how screwy is the rightwing? pretty damn screwy

One key provision of the PPACA is the "individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain “minimum essential” health insurance coverage."

 

[RKMBrown]

An argument supporting the mandate is ruled invalid, another argument supporting the mandate is ruled valid. The mandate is ruled constitutional under one of two arguments.

No mandate was ruled unconstitutional as there is only one mandate.


how screwy is the rightwing? pretty damn screwy

Ironic. Screwy left arguing against the screwy right for hating the left's screwy plan to screw over healthy people that don't need health care by forcing them to buy insurance they don't need to pay for the health care of people who refused to pay for health insurance even though they needed it, while simultaneously claiming this as a way to reduce costs of health care for everyone. ROFL

Then even after their screwy leader admits he blatantly lied, the screwy left continue to maintain his innocence. I know it's popular to pretend the scumbag in chief is magnanimous and all, but this worship thing needs to be curtailed a bit.

Obama went with the for-profit model. Dante is far more progressive on this single issue than Obamacare is Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Ok. Why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person? Are you a sock puppet? Are they hiring?

 

[LTCArmyRet]

An argument supporting the mandate is ruled invalid, another argument supporting the mandate is ruled valid. The mandate is ruled constitutional under one of two arguments.

No mandate was ruled unconstitutional as there is only one mandate.


how screwy is the rightwing? pretty damn screwy

Ironic. Screwy left arguing against the screwy right for hating the left's screwy plan to screw over healthy people that don't need health care by forcing them to buy insurance they don't need to pay for the health care of people who refused to pay for health insurance even though they needed it, while simultaneously claiming this as a way to reduce costs of health care for everyone. ROFL

Then even after their screwy leader admits he blatantly lied, the screwy left continue to maintain his innocence. I know it's popular to pretend the scumbag in chief is magnanimous and all, but this worship thing needs to be curtailed a bit.

Obama went with the for-profit model. Dante is far more progressive on this single issue than Obamacare is Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

once again, dante has shown himself to be a true oduma sheep, not gonna bail out of this burning craft until it crashes and brings the entire democratic party down with it. It may have been ruled constitutional, however, that does not mean it was a good idea, kind of like prohibition.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ironic. Screwy left arguing against the screwy right for hating the left's screwy plan to screw over healthy people that don't need health care by forcing them to buy insurance they don't need to pay for the health care of people who refused to pay for health insurance even though they needed it, while simultaneously claiming this as a way to reduce costs of health care for everyone. ROFL

Then even after their screwy leader admits he blatantly lied, the screwy left continue to maintain his innocence. I know it's popular to pretend the scumbag in chief is magnanimous and all, but this worship thing needs to be curtailed a bit.

Obama went with the for-profit model. Dante is far more progressive on this single issue than Obamacare is Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Ok. Why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person? Are you a sock puppet? Are they hiring?

Dante knows you're brighter than the dim bulbs you surround yourself with, but careful there dimwit...you could exposed as the one-eyed man in the land of the blind

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ironic. Screwy left arguing against the screwy right for hating the left's screwy plan to screw over healthy people that don't need health care by forcing them to buy insurance they don't need to pay for the health care of people who refused to pay for health insurance even though they needed it, while simultaneously claiming this as a way to reduce costs of health care for everyone. ROFL

Then even after their screwy leader admits he blatantly lied, the screwy left continue to maintain his innocence. I know it's popular to pretend the scumbag in chief is magnanimous and all, but this worship thing needs to be curtailed a bit.

Obama went with the for-profit model. Dante is far more progressive on this single issue than Obamacare is Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

once again, dante has shown himself to be a true oduma sheep, not gonna bail out of this burning craft until it crashes and brings the entire democratic party down with it. It may have been ruled constitutional, however, that does not mean it was a good idea, kind of like prohibition.

almost as demented as the Slave laws analogy.

Prohibition prohibited something. It was a religious conservative control issue sprung to life in law. Progressive in many ways, and populist. It was a mindset that wanted to exclude things and people.

The PPACA: "Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay."

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Obama went with the for-profit model. Dante is far more progressive on this single issue than Obamacare is Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

once again, dante has shown himself to be a true oduma sheep, not gonna bail out of this burning craft until it crashes and brings the entire democratic party down with it. It may have been ruled constitutional, however, that does not mean it was a good idea, kind of like prohibition.

almost as demented as the Slave laws analogy.

Prohibition prohibited something. It was a religious conservative control issue sprung to life in law. Progressive in many ways, and populist. It was a mindset that wanted to exclude things and people.

The PPACA: "Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay."

keep spinning, oduma care going down in flames, keep spinning. You'll see come next year with oduma becomes a true lame duck president and republicans control both houses of congress. The coup de gras will happen in 2016 when the presidency is won by a republican.

And do you think that repeating that line means something? You, along with oduma, just don't get it, do you? While the goal of providing affordable health care is a worthwhile endeavor, it is the manner in which it was attempted to be achieved that is despicable.

 

[RandallFlagg]

[youtube]T-G_I2fMxTM[/youtube]

Yeah, I get it. You're a socialist. Equating paying property taxes or supporting local schools to pregnancy is insane.

Now run along Che'


Oh, and for the record, I couldn't care less if every public school in America closed tomorrow. From 1st to 29th in the world. Yeah……that's "Progressive"

Privatize the schools... I like it. I get to keep my taxes and pay only for what I use. Cool. Oh but wait, then the parents of the poor kids will have to get jobs, oh that won't work well.

We, in this country, spend far too much time worrying about those who "live off the kindness" of others. I'm not talking about the sick or infirmed, I'm talking about the generations that have mooched their way through life.

At what point do we finally realize that we, the people, are being taken for complete fools? Screw 'em. You need help? We'll give you help for one year. After that, you starve.

We were "supposed" to be "insuring" the 18-25 million layabouts that have never had insurance, don't want insurance or couldn't care less about insurance. Instead, we are screwing working people over to the tune of 5.8 MILLION SO FAR - that number will increase ten fold next year - to somehow soothe the collective soul of the limp wrists currently in power.

Its BS and we all know it. This is about nothing more than making slaves of the American people to the damned government. And, quite frankly, that's all it's ever been about.

 

[itfitzme]

The problem that has occurred with the belief that Obama "lied" when he said that "if you like your current insurance, you can keep that insurance." is an error by the listener in believing that an unspecific statement meant what they wanted it to mean.

The date of the statement in question was Tuesday, August 11th, 2009. The bill was signed into law on March 23, 2010.

The PPACA has the following provision and the statement meant what is meant as defined in the PPACA.

The PPACA, page 43 reads;

PART II—OTHER PROVISIONS
SEC. 1251. PRESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAINTAIN EXISTING COVERAGE.
(a) NO CHANGES TO EXISTING COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE.—With respect to a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which an individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act, this subtitle and subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitles) shall not apply to such plan or coverage, regardless of whether the individual renews such coverage after such date of enactment.
(b) ALLOWANCE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS TO JOIN CURRENT COVERAGE.— With respect to a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which an individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act and which is renewed after such date, family members of such individual shall be permitted to enroll in such plan or coverage if such enrollment is permitted under the terms of the plan in effect as of such date of enactment.
(c) ALLOWANCE FOR NEW EMPLOYEES TO JOIN CURRENT PLAN.— A group health plan that provides coverage on the date of enactment of this Act may provide for the enrolling of new employees (and their families) in such plan, and this subtitle and subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitles) shall not apply with respect to such plan and such new employees (and their families).

Any insurance policy picked up after Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 is not subject to the statement made. The law says that any insurance picked up before March 23, 2010 is not affected by the law.

Just as well, it is a free market and insurance companies have every right to change what they offer.

So the question is if policies obtained before March 23rd, 2010, were canceled pursuant to the law.

If not, personal stupidity is not someone else's fault. This is no different than getting a ticket for speeding under the basic speed law. Personal failure to grasp the meaning of "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather" is one's own fault. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Guys, the mainstream of both parties are now massaging the bill, making it their own.

That means the socialists on the far left and reactionaries on the far right are minimalized.

You don't count anymore politically at the national level.

 

[RKMBrown]

Obama went with the for-profit model. Dante is far more progressive on this single issue than Obamacare is Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Ok. Why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person? Are you a sock puppet? Are they hiring?

Dante knows you're brighter than the dim bulbs you surround yourself with, but careful there dimwit...you could exposed as the one-eyed man in the land of the blind

Don't threaten me with a crown.

What's the deal with the 3rd person stuff. You writing a narrative?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ok. Why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person? Are you a sock puppet? Are they hiring?

Dante knows you're brighter than the dim bulbs you surround yourself with, but careful there dimwit...you could exposed as the one-eyed man in the land of the blind

Don't threaten me with a crown.

What's the deal with the 3rd person stuff. You writing a narrative?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

once again, dante has shown himself to be a true oduma sheep, not gonna bail out of this burning craft until it crashes and brings the entire democratic party down with it. It may have been ruled constitutional, however, that does not mean it was a good idea, kind of like prohibition.

almost as demented as the Slave laws analogy.

Prohibition prohibited something. It was a religious conservative control issue sprung to life in law. Progressive in many ways, and populist. It was a mindset that wanted to exclude things and people.

The PPACA: "Amid intense public interest, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which became effective March 23, 2010. The ACA sought to address the fact that millions of Americans had no health insurance, yet actively participated in the health care market, consuming health care services for which they did not pay."

keep spinning, oduma care going down in flames, keep spinning. You'll see come next year with oduma becomes a true lame duck president and republicans control both houses of congress. The coup de gras will happen in 2016 when the presidency is won by a republican.

And do you think that repeating that line means something? You, along with oduma, just don't get it, do you? While the goal of providing affordable health care is a worthwhile endeavor, it is the manner in which it was attempted to be achieved that is despicable.

You can see the future? Cool, what's tomorrow's number gonna be?

keeper post: election prediction:

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ok. Why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person? Are you a sock puppet? Are they hiring?

Dante knows you're brighter than the dim bulbs you surround yourself with, but careful there dimwit...you could exposed as the one-eyed man in the land of the blind

Don't threaten me with a crown.

What's the deal with the 3rd person stuff. You writing a narrative?

he's an idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The problem that has occurred with the belief that Obama "lied" when he said that "if you like your current insurance, you can keep that insurance." is an error by the listener in believing that an unspecific statement meant what they wanted it to mean.

The date of the statement in question was Tuesday, August 11th, 2009. The bill was signed into law on March 23, 2010.

The PPACA has the following provision and the statement meant what is meant as defined in the PPACA.

The PPACA, page 43 reads;

PART II—OTHER PROVISIONS
SEC. 1251. PRESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAINTAIN EXISTING COVERAGE.
(a) NO CHANGES TO EXISTING COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE.—With respect to a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which an individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act, this subtitle and subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitles) shall not apply to such plan or coverage, regardless of whether the individual renews such coverage after such date of enactment.
(b) ALLOWANCE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS TO JOIN CURRENT COVERAGE.— With respect to a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which an individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act and which is renewed after such date, family members of such individual shall be permitted to enroll in such plan or coverage if such enrollment is permitted under the terms of the plan in effect as of such date of enactment.
(c) ALLOWANCE FOR NEW EMPLOYEES TO JOIN CURRENT PLAN.— A group health plan that provides coverage on the date of enactment of this Act may provide for the enrolling of new employees (and their families) in such plan, and this subtitle and subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitles) shall not apply with respect to such plan and such new employees (and their families).

Any insurance policy picked up after Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 is not subject to the statement made. The law says that any insurance picked up before March 23, 2010 is not affected by the law.

Just as well, it is a free market and insurance companies have every right to change what they offer.

So the question is if policies obtained before March 23rd, 2010, were canceled pursuant to the law.

If not, personal stupidity is not someone else's fault. This is no different than getting a ticket for speeding under the basic speed law. Personal failure to grasp the meaning of "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather" is one's own fault. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

oh horse shit obama said if you want to keep your healthcare coverage you can PERIOD. AND HE EMPHASIZED THE PERIOD SO SHOVE IT UP YOUR LYING ASS.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Dante is still buying the hope and change, it's close, but more accurately stated, change and hope, which is exactly how the ACA was instilled. WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THIS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND HOPE IT'S BETTER which was predicated by Pelosi, "we have to pass it to see what' in it."

 

[RKMBrown]

Dante is still buying the hope and change, it's close, but more accurately stated, change and hope, which is exactly how the ACA was instilled. WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THIS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND HOPE IT'S BETTER which was predicated by Pelosi, "we have to pass it to see what' in it."

No one could be that stupid. I could believe he's profiting from it somehow, but ignorant of it? No chance. To defend the democrats puts you in one of two camps, mentally handicapped or criminal. There is no way in hell any intelligent person could defend this and be outside of those two groups.

 

[Trajan]

What better coverage? maternity care?

Yeah buddy!

That maternity coverage will come in handy for my Wife and me! I got snipped 30 years ago and my Wife had a hysterectomy in the 80s.

But what the hell….I guess you never know, right? I guess the idea of a 69 year old "father" isn't THAT far-fetched, is it?

Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) sarcastically asked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius if she had ever hear of a man giving birth during a House hearing last week, and numerous critical media accounts have picked up on the argument.

Harkin responded to this line of thinking on Tuesday by comparing the overall societal value of the coverage requirement to the value of public education, which is funded through property taxes:

HARKIN: Now, I must say there was a story the other day in the paper about somebody who said, “Now I got — I have to take this policy that covers maternity care. My wife and I are not having more children. Why should I have to have a policy that covers maternity care?” I got to thinking about that. I thought, you know what? Maybe because my wife and I do not have any more children and they are grown up, maybe I should not have to pay property taxes to pay for my local schools. Huh?

Why should I worry about it? Maybe only people who have kids going to the public school should pay for it. We are better than that in this country. *added by Dante: (pay attention tea party whackos) We are talking about being part of our society. It is to our benefit, my wife and I, to support our local schools because that is our next generation, we want them well taught. Same with health care. It is a values system.

Watch it:

[youtube]T-G_I2fMxTM[/youtube]

thats not an argument or explanation, you know that right?


what a bunch of claptrap, its always 'a tell' that they have squat when they trot out stupid analogies like school districts or obamas fav.- car insurance...... You didn't really read or think about what he said did you? You cannot be this dumb......or...

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Dante is still buying the hope and change, it's close, but more accurately stated, change and hope, which is exactly how the ACA was instilled. WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THIS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM AND HOPE IT'S BETTER which was predicated by Pelosi, "we have to pass it to see what' in it."

No one could be that stupid. I could believe he's profiting from it somehow, but ignorant of it? No chance. To defend the democrats puts you in one of two camps, mentally handicapped or criminal. There is no way in hell any intelligent person could defend this and be outside of those two groups.

Agreed

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yeah buddy!

That maternity coverage will come in handy for my Wife and me! I got snipped 30 years ago and my Wife had a hysterectomy in the 80s.

But what the hell….I guess you never know, right? I guess the idea of a 69 year old "father" isn't THAT far-fetched, is it?

Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) sarcastically asked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius if she had ever hear of a man giving birth during a House hearing last week, and numerous critical media accounts have picked up on the argument.

Harkin responded to this line of thinking on Tuesday by comparing the overall societal value of the coverage requirement to the value of public education, which is funded through property taxes:

HARKIN: Now, I must say there was a story the other day in the paper about somebody who said, “Now I got — I have to take this policy that covers maternity care. My wife and I are not having more children. Why should I have to have a policy that covers maternity care?” I got to thinking about that. I thought, you know what? Maybe because my wife and I do not have any more children and they are grown up, maybe I should not have to pay property taxes to pay for my local schools. Huh?

Why should I worry about it? Maybe only people who have kids going to the public school should pay for it. We are better than that in this country. *added by Dante: (pay attention tea party whackos) We are talking about being part of our society. It is to our benefit, my wife and I, to support our local schools because that is our next generation, we want them well taught. Same with health care. It is a values system.

Watch it:

[youtube]T-G_I2fMxTM[/youtube]

thats not an argument or explanation, you know that right?


what a bunch of claptrap, its always 'a tell' that they have squat when they trot out stupid analogies like school districts or obamas fav.- car insurance...... You didn't really read or think about what he said did you? You cannot be this dumb......or...

yet is speaks volumes

imagine that

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[youtube]T-G_I2fMxTM[/youtube]

thats not an argument or explanation, you know that right?


what a bunch of claptrap, its always 'a tell' that they have squat when they trot out stupid analogies like school districts or obamas fav.- car insurance...... You didn't really read or think about what he said did you? You cannot be this dumb......or...

yet is speaks volumes

imagine that

you're tone deaf