10 Top Reasons You Owe The Nation

[The T]

The most telling and damning reality of Obamacare is the growing number of Democrats who now realize the damage that it is doing and will do and who agree it needs to be reworked. For them the issue is not whether parts of it need to be repealed and redone but whether it is done piecemeal or just throw the whole thing out and start over as most Republicans favor.

I'm with the GOP on this one. Throw the whole thing out and focus on REAL and GENUINE healthcare reform that IS the prerogative of the Federal government so that the states can deal with it legally and effectively as is best for their people. The Federal government has never in its entire history devised a one-size-fits-all entitlement or social program that has not resulted in more negatives than positives. We don't want the Federal government in control of our healthcare.

Agreed. Throw it out...and interesting that many that supported it are now applying for Waivers from it...

False. Waivers to improve upon it, is not the same as Waivers to be excluded because you are against it which is what you seem to believe and would be incorrect.

How so? It's the LAW...How does exepmting one group of Americans from LAW benefit the rest that have to comply? (That is assuming that LAW is written to be equal)...

Justice under law was supposed to be EQUAL...

You have alot of 'splainin ta do Loocie...to convince me NOT to ignore you and your posts...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The CBO put the cost of the December tax cut/tax extension at 800 billion.

How does THAT compare in cost to the healthcare bill?

A strawman is when you take someone's real position and substitute a fictional position for it that is easier to argue against.

I've done no such thing. You need to bone up on what a strawman is before you misuse it for the thousandth time.

 

[RDD_1210]

Agreed. Throw it out...and interesting that many that supported it are now applying for Waivers from it...

False. Waivers to improve upon it, is not the same as Waivers to be excluded because you are against it which is what you seem to believe and would be incorrect.

How so? It's the LAW...How does exepmting one group of Americans from LAW benefit the rest that have to comply? (That is assuming that LAW is written to be equal)...

Justice under law was supposed to be EQUAL...

You have alot of 'splainin ta do Loocie...to convince me NOT to ignore you and your posts...

The problem is you don't understand what the waiver does. You hear the word waiver and think, they are just allowed to ignore this legislation. That is where you are incorrect.

Waivers are granted for a number of reasons, including allowing more time to get in to compliance or in order to explore the possibility of establishing an even better system on a state by state level that is more tailored to each individual states needs. Again neither of these options lets anyone just "opt out" of this healthcare reform. That is far from the case.

 

[The T]

False. Waivers to improve upon it, is not the same as Waivers to be excluded because you are against it which is what you seem to believe and would be incorrect.

How so? It's the LAW...How does exepmting one group of Americans from LAW benefit the rest that have to comply? (That is assuming that LAW is written to be equal)...

Justice under law was supposed to be EQUAL...

You have alot of 'splainin ta do Loocie...to convince me NOT to ignore you and your posts...

The problem is you don't understand what the waiver does. You hear the word waiver and think, they are just allowed to ignore this legislation. That is where you are incorrect.

Waivers are granted for a number of reasons, including allowing more time to get in to compliance or in order to explore the possibility of establishing an even better system on a state by state level that is more tailored to each individual states needs. Again neither of these options lets anyone just "opt out" of this healthcare reform. That is far from the case.

It still poses special Considerations on one entity over another.

Sorry. I don't buy the excuses. All the waivers portend to do is show how flawed it is to begin with...and if it wasn't flawed? WHY the need for waivers?

 

[RDD_1210]

How so? It's the LAW...How does exepmting one group of Americans from LAW benefit the rest that have to comply? (That is assuming that LAW is written to be equal)...

Justice under law was supposed to be EQUAL...

You have alot of 'splainin ta do Loocie...to convince me NOT to ignore you and your posts...

The problem is you don't understand what the waiver does. You hear the word waiver and think, they are just allowed to ignore this legislation. That is where you are incorrect.

Waivers are granted for a number of reasons, including allowing more time to get in to compliance or in order to explore the possibility of establishing an even better system on a state by state level that is more tailored to each individual states needs. Again neither of these options lets anyone just "opt out" of this healthcare reform. That is far from the case.

It still poses special Considerations on one entity over another.

Sorry. I don't buy the excuses. All the waivers portend to do is show how flawed it is to begin with...and if it wasn't flawed? WHY the need for waivers?

I just told you why the need for waivers. There are major changes that need to take place and the gov't has realized that not everyone can make those changes at the same speed. So, some were granted waivers to allow more time, while others were granted waivers to establish custom tailored solutions that exceed the standards set by the legislation.

Where exactly are you confused?

 

[The T]

The problem is you don't understand what the waiver does. You hear the word waiver and think, they are just allowed to ignore this legislation. That is where you are incorrect.

Waivers are granted for a number of reasons, including allowing more time to get in to compliance or in order to explore the possibility of establishing an even better system on a state by state level that is more tailored to each individual states needs. Again neither of these options lets anyone just "opt out" of this healthcare reform. That is far from the case.

It still poses special Considerations on one entity over another.

Sorry. I don't buy the excuses. All the waivers portend to do is show how flawed it is to begin with...and if it wasn't flawed? WHY the need for waivers?

I just told you why the need for waivers. There are major changes that need to take place and the gov't has realized that not everyone can make those changes at the same speed. So, some were granted waivers to allow more time, while others were granted waivers to establish custom tailored solutions that exceed the standards set by the legislation.

Where exactly are you confused?

Either a written LAW is equal to all or it isn't.

DO the math. Sorry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Medicare part D prescription drug bill, supported by Republicans under Bush INCLUDING the born-again phoney fiscal hawk Paul Ryan was a far worse bill fiscally and a major expansion of Medicare,

not a nickel of it paid for.

Where's the outrage over that? Where's the repeal effort from the Right for that?

When does Paul Ryan plan to pay for that?

 

[The T]

And WHILE we are at it? Why isn't the Congress subject to this? Those that participated in the crafting of this power grab?

Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill

 

[Dot Com]

Do you have any friends IRL PC? I ask because you are one bitter, republi/Koch Bros.- tool. :-(

 

[Greenbeard]

And WHILE we are at it? Why isn't the Congress subject to this? Those that participated in the crafting of this power grab?

They are.

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are--

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).​

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress' means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff' means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.​

Primary sources, people (also known as "read the [law]").

The "controversy" you're attempting to invoke isn't about Congressmen. It's indisputable that Congressmen and their staff members will no longer be eligible for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, they'll need to acquire individual coverage through an exchange. What you're talking about is the fact that the definition of "Congressional staff" in the legislation doesn't include committee staff, i.e. staff who are not employed by the "official office of a Member of Congress."

Is that what's keeping you up at night?

 

[RDD_1210]

It still poses special Considerations on one entity over another.

Sorry. I don't buy the excuses. All the waivers portend to do is show how flawed it is to begin with...and if it wasn't flawed? WHY the need for waivers?

I just told you why the need for waivers. There are major changes that need to take place and the gov't has realized that not everyone can make those changes at the same speed. So, some were granted waivers to allow more time, while others were granted waivers to establish custom tailored solutions that exceed the standards set by the legislation.

Where exactly are you confused?

Either a written LAW is equal to all or it isn't.

DO the math. Sorry.

Ummm, It is equal.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're not very bright, are you? Never went to college? Graduate high school at least?

 

[The T]

I just told you why the need for waivers. There are major changes that need to take place and the gov't has realized that not everyone can make those changes at the same speed. So, some were granted waivers to allow more time, while others were granted waivers to establish custom tailored solutions that exceed the standards set by the legislation.

Where exactly are you confused?

Either a written LAW is equal to all or it isn't.

DO the math. Sorry.

Ummm, It is equal.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're not very bright, are you? Never went to college? Graduate high school at least?

Again? *IF* a law is written it treats all the same. ASKING for waivers from such a law, and Gubmint granting such a waiver is NOT equal.

 

[Foxfyre]

And WHILE we are at it? Why isn't the Congress subject to this? Those that participated in the crafting of this power grab?

Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill

As soon as ya'll appoint me dictator with absolute authority for a year, I will immediately order a law that those elected to Congress will be personally subject to whatever laws they pass for anybody else--no waivers, no exemptions, no qualifiers, no add ons. And their own pensions/retirement plan and health plan will be voted by the folks in their state who send them to Washington. They won't have any say in that themselves.

I think that might keep a whole lot of problems from ever developing in the first place.

 

[Zoom-boing]

What happens when 2014 rolls around and those given waivers still can't meet the requirements for whatever reason? Easy peasy . . the 'temporary' waivers become permanent. Just wait for it.

 

[Greenbeard]

What happens when 2014 rolls around and those given waivers still can't meet the requirements for whatever reason? Easy peasy . . the 'temporary' waivers become permanent. Just wait for it.

The significance of 2014 in this context is that 2014 is when the health insurance exchanges go live. At which point current enrollees in limited benefit plans can choose a plan through their state's exchange.

 

[rikules]

Emily Miller writes on the day of infamy...I mean anniversary of Obamacare...
Here is the outline.

"These are the top 10 failures of ObamaCare, starting with those that have had the most serious effect already on the economy, jobs, and the American people.

1. Explodes the Budget Deficit

2. Kills Jobs

3. Lose Your Own Doctor and Health Plan

4. States’ Budget Deficits Grow to Possible Bankruptcy

5. Higher Insurance Premiums:

6. Crushes Businesses

7. Fewer Americans Have Access to Health Insurance

8. Senior Citizens Lose Medicare Coverage:

9. Overburdens Small Business

10. Tax Hikes
Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare After One Year - HUMAN EVENTS

OK, one more opportunity to you Lefties to apologize...
...and genuflecting would be nice.


Waiting.

i'm not a lefty
i am a social liberal/fiscal moderate

i have opposed the mandatory healthcare plan since day 1

i opposed it when hillary promoted it
i opposed it when obama got elected promoting it

i am opposed to ALL MANDATORY health plans/packages, including vehicular

other than you and emily saying it i don't really have any evidence that these 10 things have happened

perhaps things are different in your area but here in New England I don't believe those 10 problems have occured

 

[nraforlife]

it strikes me as curious that not a single thing on that list is fact. .................

proof???????????????

 

[RDD_1210]

Either a written LAW is equal to all or it isn't.

DO the math. Sorry.

Ummm, It is equal.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're not very bright, are you? Never went to college? Graduate high school at least?

Again? *IF* a law is written it treats all the same. ASKING for waivers from such a law, and Gubmint granting such a waiver is NOT equal.

Again, everyone is being treated the same. Anyone can apply for a waiver. Everyone will be required to meet the same set of standards, people will just take different routes to get there. You're not this dense, are you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ummm, It is equal.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're not very bright, are you? Never went to college? Graduate high school at least?

Again? *IF* a law is written it treats all the same. ASKING for waivers from such a law, and Gubmint granting such a waiver is NOT equal.

Again, everyone is being treated the same. Anyone can apply for a waiver. Everyone will be required to meet the same set of standards, people will just take different routes to get there. You're not this dense, are you?

Anyone can apply for a waiver, but not everyone is in the right 'crony' group that allows them to get one.

It will almost certainly be up the Supreme Court to give states the ability to opt out because the Annointed One has thus far not seen fit to allow that and he is ignoring a court order to do so.

 

[Greenbeard]

Anyone can apply for a waiver, but not everyone is in the right 'crony' group that allows them to get one.

Presumably you're talking about the annual limit waivers. Yet 94% of those waiver applications have been approved.

It will almost certainly be up the Supreme Court to give states the ability to opt out because the Annointed One has thus far not seen fit to allow that and he is ignoring a court order to do so.

Opt out of what? States aren't actually required to operate their own exchanges (see "SEC. 1321. STATE FLEXIBILITY IN OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EXCHANGES AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS") and, as Vinson recognized in his ruling, the Medicaid expansion is optional because Medicaid itself is a voluntary program that states choose to participate in. And if states want out of something like the individual mandate (which, of course, is levied on individuals and not the state itself), they can pursue the waivers for state innovation contained in the law, if they're able to meet the requirements.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about something akin to nullification--that dog won't hunt, Monsignor.