If they want to repeal the ACA they want to repeal what it includes, right?

[RandomVariable]

Is this a misrepresentation of position?

GOP CAMPAIGN, PAC TUSSLE OVER BLACK LUNG AD: There’s a tussle going on over whether West Virginia TV stations will continue to run an ad from a Democratic-connected super PAC hitting the Republican candidate running against Rep. Nick Rahall. Evan Jenkins’s campaign on Thursday blasted out a rebuttal to the House Majority PAC ad, which alleged Jenkins would repeal black lung benefits. (The rebuttal was based on this FactCheck.org piece that called the ad a “bogus attack” Bogus Attack in Coal Mine Country). Jenkins’s campaign got four stations had agreed to pull the ad. But after the campaign’s announcement, the PAC told POLITICO that its lawyers had contacted the stations and gotten at least two to continue running the spot. Representatives of the four stations in question did not return ME’s calls or emails Thursday.

Jenkins does not want to repeal black lung benefits, his campaign says. He wants to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but that would not repeal underlying black lung benefits, the campaign wrote Thursday in letters to the TV stations. “A repeal of the ACA would make it more difficult for some miners and surviving spouses to prove eligibility for the Federal Black Lung Benefits Program. But that would not repeal the benefits, which were created under a separate law.” Letter: http://politico.pro/1eX9YqP

UMWA weighs in: Repealing the ACA would repeal the so-called Byrd amendment, United Mine Workers of America International President Cecil Roberts said in statement attacking the FactCheck.org piece. “Previous law may have said they were entitled to them, but the truth is most never got them. The language Sen. Byrd incorporated into the Affordable Care Act changed that,” he said. Repealing the ACA “will have the practical effect of once again cutting off black lung benefits for many, if not most of those applying for them.”

Sanctions on Russia could be disruptive ? Exxon will disclose climate risks to assets - POLITICO Morning Energy - POLITICO.com

 

[Clementine]

They can repeal Obamacare, then pass the common sense laws. No sense keeping the most destructive piece of legislation ever written just because a few good things were attached.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

 

[Vigilante]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

 

[guno]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

the republicans pulled the same scare tactics back in 64 when Medicare was introduced

 

[Vandalshandle]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

the republicans pulled the same scare tactics back in 64 when Medicare was introduced

I know. I started my health insurance career in June, 1965 (or was it 1966?), one month before Medicare took effect, and I was told by executives of the company that life, as we know it, was over.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

Never ceases to amaze me. OBarryCare was "supposed" to insure the 46million folks that were too stupid to have coverage for themselves and their families - THEN, some 6 million LOSE their healthcare from their employers for a grand total of 52 MILLION uninsured.

Some 5 million have signed up - yet no one "knows" how many are actually signed up - which we all know means that it is less than 35% of those 5 million.

The American public DESPISES this crap and everything it stands for and, after the upcoming elections when the republicans take the Senate, repeal will begin and STILL the limp-wristed left tries to make us believe that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

My God - what simple-minded souls these liberals are........

 

[Vigilante]

Newest CNN/ORC Poll from March 7-9 2014 show 57% oppose it, 39% approve it!

And that's a LEFTY POLL! The REAL numbers have to be a higher disapproval!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Now, now, don't get your panties in a wad.... ACA is not going to be repealed. Get over it.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

Oh my, the wrong side of history!

Is this the same history of countries submitting to the socialist ideas that have failed every one of them? Is that the wrong side of history? Like the people not wanting a socialist Venezuela are somehow now on the wrong side of history while the country burns down? What side of history do you think the people that let Cuba drop into poverty and totalitarian control were on? The right side?

Why is it always your version of the right side of history always excludes common sense things like people building their own business and creating wealth? Why is the wrong side of history always the side that doesn't hand over your human rights to the government?

It's like you people consider the wrong side of history to be anything that doesn't go along with the total destruction of your individualism and life. Succumb to the right side of history and become a government puppet.

The wrong side of history, I have a better phrase. You're on the wrong side of your own demise that the socialists have deemed to be to your benefit. If you aren't working for free you're on the wrong side of history. The same history that has led every nation into failure.

History people, you don't want to be on the wrong side of Rome, Venezuela, China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Italy under Mussolini, Japan under a phantom emporer, for fuck sakes you on the other side of history people need to look no further than the UAE, Pakistan and Iraq.

History is full of failures if you want to be on the right side of them. On the other hand there is only one that didn't go with history being their guiding light and it resulted in the greatest country ever imagined.

History isn't so good for us to follow. Not going with history has always been our best option. History always ends up in human misery, except in one instance. Maybe we should follow that one instance.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm tired of the "one size fits all" bullshit.

You Liberals don't size up to this America.

You are dragging our country down to the least common denominator.

And for that I hope you fucking burn in hell.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Believe it or not, I think Obamacare is repealing itself. And yes, to answer the $6 million dollar question, we want to repeal the ACA and what it includes. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

 

[bripat9643]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

People who claim their opponents "are on the wrong side of history" are always Marxists. The idea that history has an agenda is a Marxist idea. Apparently the people who overthrew communism were "on the wrong side of history."

 

[bripat9643]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

the republicans pulled the same scare tactics back in 64 when Medicare was introduced

They weren't "scare tactics." They were accurate predictions.

 

[bripat9643]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

the republicans pulled the same scare tactics back in 64 when Medicare was introduced

I know. I started my health insurance career in June, 1965 (or was it 1966?), one month before Medicare took effect, and I was told by executives of the company that life, as we know it, was over.

He was correct.

 

[Vigilante]

Now, now, don't get your panties in a wad.... ACA is not going to be repealed. Get over it.

Since you know that as a fact, perhaps you could give us the winning lotto numbers?

 

[Stephanie]

Newest CNN/ORC Poll from March 7-9 2014 show 57% oppose it, 39% approve it!

And that's a LEFTY POLL! The REAL numbers have to be a higher disapproval!

well you see, those 57% don't count...only those who approve of it and Obama do

It's come down to, either accept it or get beat down for Opposing it

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is this a misrepresentation of position?

GOP CAMPAIGN, PAC TUSSLE OVER BLACK LUNG AD: There’s a tussle going on over whether West Virginia TV stations will continue to run an ad from a Democratic-connected super PAC hitting the Republican candidate running against Rep. Nick Rahall. Evan Jenkins’s campaign on Thursday blasted out a rebuttal to the House Majority PAC ad, which alleged Jenkins would repeal black lung benefits. (The rebuttal was based on this FactCheck.org piece that called the ad a “bogus attack” Bogus Attack in Coal Mine Country). Jenkins’s campaign got four stations had agreed to pull the ad. But after the campaign’s announcement, the PAC told POLITICO that its lawyers had contacted the stations and gotten at least two to continue running the spot. Representatives of the four stations in question did not return ME’s calls or emails Thursday.

Jenkins does not want to repeal black lung benefits, his campaign says. He wants to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but that would not repeal underlying black lung benefits, the campaign wrote Thursday in letters to the TV stations. “A repeal of the ACA would make it more difficult for some miners and surviving spouses to prove eligibility for the Federal Black Lung Benefits Program. But that would not repeal the benefits, which were created under a separate law.” Letter: http://politico.pro/1eX9YqP

UMWA weighs in: Repealing the ACA would repeal the so-called Byrd amendment, United Mine Workers of America International President Cecil Roberts said in statement attacking the FactCheck.org piece. “Previous law may have said they were entitled to them, but the truth is most never got them. The language Sen. Byrd incorporated into the Affordable Care Act changed that,” he said. Repealing the ACA “will have the practical effect of once again cutting off black lung benefits for many, if not most of those applying for them.”

Sanctions on Russia could be disruptive ? Exxon will disclose climate risks to assets - POLITICO Morning Energy - POLITICO.com

Conservatives want to ‘repeal’ the ACA because to do so would be perceived by the right as some sort of ‘victory’ over Obama, ignoring the fact that to do so would hurt millions of Americans who now have health insurance.

Of course conservatives have nothing to replace the ACA with should it be repealed, as their opposition to the Act is purely partisan, having nothing to do with its merits, given the fact it’s a republican plan.

 

[Vigilante]

Is this a misrepresentation of position?

GOP CAMPAIGN, PAC TUSSLE OVER BLACK LUNG AD: There’s a tussle going on over whether West Virginia TV stations will continue to run an ad from a Democratic-connected super PAC hitting the Republican candidate running against Rep. Nick Rahall. Evan Jenkins’s campaign on Thursday blasted out a rebuttal to the House Majority PAC ad, which alleged Jenkins would repeal black lung benefits. (The rebuttal was based on this FactCheck.org piece that called the ad a “bogus attack” Bogus Attack in Coal Mine Country). Jenkins’s campaign got four stations had agreed to pull the ad. But after the campaign’s announcement, the PAC told POLITICO that its lawyers had contacted the stations and gotten at least two to continue running the spot. Representatives of the four stations in question did not return ME’s calls or emails Thursday.

Jenkins does not want to repeal black lung benefits, his campaign says. He wants to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, but that would not repeal underlying black lung benefits, the campaign wrote Thursday in letters to the TV stations. “A repeal of the ACA would make it more difficult for some miners and surviving spouses to prove eligibility for the Federal Black Lung Benefits Program. But that would not repeal the benefits, which were created under a separate law.” Letter: http://politico.pro/1eX9YqP

UMWA weighs in: Repealing the ACA would repeal the so-called Byrd amendment, United Mine Workers of America International President Cecil Roberts said in statement attacking the FactCheck.org piece. “Previous law may have said they were entitled to them, but the truth is most never got them. The language Sen. Byrd incorporated into the Affordable Care Act changed that,” he said. Repealing the ACA “will have the practical effect of once again cutting off black lung benefits for many, if not most of those applying for them.”

Sanctions on Russia could be disruptive ? Exxon will disclose climate risks to assets - POLITICO Morning Energy - POLITICO.com

Conservatives want to ‘repeal’ the ACA because to do so would be perceived by the right as some sort of ‘victory’ over Obama, ignoring the fact that to do so would hurt millions of Americans who now have health insurance.

Of course conservatives have nothing to replace the ACA with should it be repealed, as their opposition to the Act is purely partisan, having nothing to do with its merits, given the fact it’s a republican plan.

What do you not understand that SUPPOSEDLY helping a few million people get CHEAP Healthcare, you are making 10's of millions of Americans, ALL MIDDLE CLASS, pay anywhere from 20-200+% MORE for their current medical coverage.... Oh, that's right you have to PUNISH the EARNERS, so the INDIGENT can have it for nothing!.... Yes, Socialism, in its earliest form, brings the vast majority down to the level of the poor, while bringing the poor just a notch or 2 higher than they were....haven't you idiots played the race card enough now, MOST Americans are sick of your bullshit! Beside, Obuma in HALF WHITE, we only hate his HALF BLACK SIDE!!!

 

[Vandalshandle]

The republicans are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. As soon as it is made clear to everyone that insurance companies would go back to declining people because of pre-existing health conditions, the game is over. My guess is that the republicans will fall back on condemning gay illegal senior pregnant female immigrants who are in favor of gun control.

People who claim their opponents "are on the wrong side of history" are always Marxists. The idea that history has an agenda is a Marxist idea. Apparently the people who overthrew communism were "on the wrong side of history."

True. I liked Groucho best....