Thanks Democrats! In 47 Of 50 Cities, Obamacare Will Be Unaffordable In 2018 By Law's Definition

[TNHarley]

what standard? The Constitution.

Where in the Constitution? No where. You think just regurgitating "the Constitution" is an answer? It's not. You need to show where it says that. Because I've invoked the general welfare clause, and you've invoked...nothing. You just imagine the Constitution says something when it doesn't because you need that validation. You're so insecure in your argument. That's why I keep drilling down.

Of course i am not. I can just read the document and i understand basic, english terminology..

I disagree with your personal assessment of your own capabilities.

Equal on everything. Including payments taxes whatever. And we both know damn well that wont happen.

Equal on everything? Ummm...well, everyone does pay an equal Medicare tax rate. And everyone is entitled to the same benefits according to what they paid in. So this is just another example of you making shit up off the top of your head, and thinking that slapdash explanation is a sufficient answer. It isn't. It's an incomplete answer. So you don't even get an "F", you get an "I".

It DOESNT say that. Thats the damn point, silly. Do you even understand what the COTUS actually is? It doesnt just tell us our rights, it is also a RESTRAINT on the federal govt.
Anything not specifically mentioned in the COTUS is left up to the states. That IS in the Constitution.
I have no doubt you do. You are selfish and biased when it comes to the COTUS. This isnt our first discussion on that document.
Part B is based on income. Nice try.

 

[TNHarley]

ACA was a Constitutional disaster.
Fucking SC had to deem it a TAX for it to be "constitutional" what a hack job.

 

[The Derp]

I don't believe for a minute that the Republicans have done a single thing to undermine it.

Well that's because you're a piece of shit who knows nothing.

By eliminating the CSR's, Rubio made it impossible for insurers to serve less-densely populated areas, which led to them withdrawing from the exchanges. That was entirely, 100% because of what Rubio did. They were in the exchanges, then Rubio get rid of the CSR's (again, based on bullshit lies from his donors), and then they dropped out. So that's example #1 of how you're wrong.

Example #2 is the Medicaid expansion. Before the SCOTUS decision, Medicaid expansion was mandatory. Then you shitbag Conservatives sued to not make it mandatory, so the red state death panels refused Medicaid expansion which resulted in millions of people caught in the Medicaid gap when, if Conservatives had not sued, those people would qualify for Medicaid and not fall in the gap. So that's example #2 as to how you're wrong.

Example #3 is reducing the enrollment ad budget by 90% and taking the site down-during the enrollment period -how unethical, right?. This achieves the goal of not informing people of the exchanges so they don't sign up. And if they don't sign up, it results in higher costs for the people that do sign up, if they can and the site's not down for "maintenance". Why does the maintenance have to happen during Open enrollment? Why can't it happen the other 9 months of the year?

Denying all the above is flat out idiocy. Nothing else. You've been given three clear cut examples as to how Conservatives undermine the law - and that's not even getting down to the state level where state insurance commissioners, who take money from insurance companies, get to decide what is an acceptable increase in premiums. So if you have a Conservative insurance commissioner who is ideologically opposed to the law (and all opposition is ideological, not fiscal, economic, or health-related), that Conservative insurance commissioner will deliberately allow massive premium increases just to make it look like the law is the cause. But of course it isn't. It's the cause of the person who approves the rate hike.

 

[The Derp]

Point out its flaws and the myriad negative consequences as a result of it? Absolutely. .

But that's not what they did, nor what they are doing. They took active steps to undermine the law; by removing CRs; by refusing Medicaid expansion; by not telling people to sign up; by approving massive rate increases at the state level.

Then they lied about the negative consequences of the law; that it would kill jobs (it didn't), that it would raise costs (it didn't), that it would result in more people losing insurance than gaining (it didn't), that it would bankrupt Medicare (it didn't). In fact, there isn't one legitimate negative consequence of the law you can point to that wasn't caused by Conservative meddling. Not one.

That they were elected to do as well as fix it.

No they weren't. They were elected to repeal it entirely and replace it with...no one knows what, because Conservatives don't even know. I am fully convinced you all do not know what you want our health care system to be or how you want it to function. All you know is what you don't want which is a very childish and amateurish way to go about policy.

Conservatives can't fix something they don't understand. That's why despite 7 fucking years of screeching, you all couldn't even produce one single viable replacement or reform. What's the excuse for that? No excuses. The reason for the absence of a plan and leadership is because on a fundamental level, Conservatives simply don't know what health insurance is, what health insurance companies do, and how any of it relates to health care delivery.

They put in their rhetoric all right but they have done nothing to fix it though some have probably tried. And they haven't had the super majority that Obama enjoyed. Obamacare is the worst monstrosity ever forced upon the American people. As for what will make it ultimately collapse, read the OP.

A super majority isn't going to cure what ails Conservatism; ignorance. Obamacare is far from the worst thing ever, and all your screeching has failed to actually explain how it is. You just say it is and we're supposed to take your word for it. Well, why the fuck should I take your word for it? How have you established that level of credibility?

 

[The Derp]

It DOESNT say that. Thats the damn point, silly. .

General welfare includes health care. You have yet to explain why it doesn't. All you've offered is your own haphazard interpretation of a document you clearly don't understand or comprehend. The Constitution doesn't say any of the things you claim, because if it did, you would have already posted it by now. Instead, we are treated to the "take my word for it, I know things" approach so common among the derpy right. No. I'm not taking your word for it. Not now, not ever.

Do you even understand what the COTUS actually is? It doesnt just tell us our rights, it is also a RESTRAINT on the federal govt.

How so?

nything not specifically mentioned in the COTUS is left up to the states. That IS in the Constitution.

And general welfare is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Right after the part where it says the federal government can levy taxes and tariffs to provide for it. Arguing that health care isn't general welfare is something you people do, but don't bother to support it. You just insist it. And people who just insist are usually the ones who don't know what the fuck they're saying. You seem to be no different.

Also, I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune when it comes time for you to be eligible for Medicare.

I have no doubt you do. You are selfish and biased when it comes to the COTUS. This isnt our first discussion on that document.Part B is based on income. Nice try.

LOL! "Selfish and biased"? Whaaaaa? You are accusing me of doing the thing you're doing. You assert that the Constitution says one thing, yet you don't bother to support that assertion with anything other than your conviction.

Your conviction means nothing.

And you're the ones who insist on working with private insurers for Medicare supplement plans. Our position is that a single payer would eliminate the needs for supplemental plans. So Medicare-for-All would eliminate the third party insurers who are skimming off the top.

 

[TNHarley]

It DOESNT say that. Thats the damn point, silly. .

General welfare includes health care. You have yet to explain why it doesn't. All you've offered is your own haphazard interpretation of a document you clearly don't understand or comprehend. The Constitution doesn't say any of the things you claim, because if it did, you would have already posted it by now. Instead, we are treated to the "take my word for it, I know things" approach so common among the derpy right. No. I'm not taking your word for it. Not now, not ever.

Do you even understand what the COTUS actually is? It doesnt just tell us our rights, it is also a RESTRAINT on the federal govt.

How so?

nything not specifically mentioned in the COTUS is left up to the states. That IS in the Constitution.

And general welfare is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Right after the part where it says the federal government can levy taxes and tariffs to provide for it. Arguing that health care isn't general welfare is something you people do, but don't bother to support it. You just insist it. And people who just insist are usually the ones who don't know what the fuck they're saying. You seem to be no different.

Also, I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune when it comes time for you to be eligible for Medicare.

I have no doubt you do. You are selfish and biased when it comes to the COTUS. This isnt our first discussion on that document.Part B is based on income. Nice try.

LOL! "Selfish and biased"? Whaaaaa? You are accusing me of doing the thing you're doing. You assert that the Constitution says one thing, yet you don't bother to support that assertion with anything other than your conviction.

Your conviction means nothing.

general welfare doesnt mean individual. Nor does it mean local or regional.
You really asking me how the COTUS restrains the Fed govt?
Holy shitballs man.
Maybe we can discuss other things but def not the COTUS. lol
Good day

 

[The Derp]

ACA was a Constitutional disaster.

Nope. SCOTUS ruled that it wasn't. You need to let it go already. It's been over 5 years, time to move on.

Fucking SC had to deem it a TAX for it to be "constitutional" what a hack job.

So what? Who cares? So your big whiny complaint is an issue of semantics? That's what all your screeching adds up to...a semantic argument and you crying like a whiny little bitch about it only because your views weren't validated. Oh woe is the poor entitled Conservative brat who doesn't get to have his views validated! Wah wah wah. Fucking crybaby.

 

[TNHarley]

Turning legislation that isnt a tax into a tax so it is constitutional is semantics

 

[The Derp]

general welfare doesnt mean individual.

Why? Because you say so? Why the fuck should I take your word for it? Because it seems to me like you're grasping at straws here, substituting your own self-admitted legal knowledge-deficient assertion for fact. General welfare means general welfare. Good luck trying to get the courts to rule Medicare is unconstitutional. In fact, you guys tried to do just that in the 1960's and just like today, you used the same shitty argument that was laughed out of court.

So why revive the zombie argument? Because you have a compulsion to have your shitty views validated, and this is one of your shitty views.

Nor does it mean local or regional.

It specifically says "general". "General" is a general word that means "affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread." So you're just inventing a standard on the spot because your argument goes nowhere until you do.

If you have to qualify your argument like that, then it means your argument is shit and you're shit for making it.

You really asking me how the COTUS restrains the Fed govt?

And yet, for all your posturing you can't bother to scratch out one complete sentence.

INstead, you posture. Over and over, hoping that your posturing will somehow translate into a coherent answer. But it never does. You're not the first moron to make this assertion and you won't be the last. But every one of them will be laughed out, just like I'm doing here.

L. O. Fuckin'. L.

Maybe we can discuss other things but def not the COTUS. lol
Good day

So long you coward! Let's maybe have this debate again once you figure out what the fuck you're trying to say.

 

[The Derp]

Turning legislation that isnt a tax into a tax so it is constitutional is semantics

Pretending it makes a difference is semantics. So you're not even using the word correctly.

::facepalm::

 

[The Derp]

Who knew that Conservatives are such hypersensitive, insecure, entitled little brats?

Anyone with a TV and/or a working internet connection.

 

[debbiedowner]

lol right?

What's baffling to me is that you have all this fear-mongering about single payer health care, yet you're totally OK with the lack of competition in health care today thanks to insurance companies.

It proves this isn't even about health care for you, this is about your own personal inherent biases. Biases that seem to have been informed by 37 year old rhetoric from a long-dead Alzheimer's patient and his cadre of fradusters, phonies, and those in a permanent state of arrested development.

Funny how you don't hear Laffer's name anymore after the disaster that was Kansas.

Trump is signing an EO within a week or two that will allow end users to seek healthcare options across state line. This is a big deal if you ask me.

All I can say to that is bullshit.