Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Dear Luddy Neddite: NOT TRUE. I am a prochoice progressive Democrat, I am NOT a rightwinger. And I am opposed to this bill. I believe Democrats and voters who support it, should pay for it and be under its mandates VOLUNTARILY. And the Greens have the right to set up single payer and be under that. and teh GOP/RW have the right to set up independent health care through churches, schools and businesses and be under that. Each person/party should fund its own policies and programs, not impose one way on others.
i am NOT a RW or GOP or conservative saying this.
I am a CONSTITUTIONALIST and I happen to be an extremely liberal prochoice Democrat. I am so prochoice, I defend prolife views and believe the GOP opposition has the right to pursue their own programs and fund those.
Please don't think for one second this is a RW thing.
it is a Constitutionalist issue, and the far left Greens, the libertarians, and the other independents against corporate benefits off govt are equally against this bill.
Being able to pay less and get better coverage is helping a lot of people. And, as we've seen, it has actually saved lives - such as those with ongoing catastrophic expenses.
I save every month but since I'm a liberal, that's a bad thing.
Being able to pay less and get better coverage is helping a lot of people. And, as we've seen, it has actually saved lives - such as those with ongoing catastrophic expenses.
I save every month but since I'm a liberal, that's a bad thing.
It is amusing the way you keep throwing out stuff like this thinking it proves something.
Now that the dust of the election is settling, what can those of us opposed to PPACA do to fight it? Is de-funding a realistic approach? What are the various states up to in terms of resisting the federal ambitions?
...what can those of us opposed to PPACA do to fight it?
Is de-funding a realistic approach?
What are the various states up to in terms of resisting the federal ambitions?
QW: LN has not explained where there are exemptions if someone shows "financial responsibility" the only exemptions I saw had strict religious guidelines which I found unconstitutional as govt regulating or discriminating based on religion. Can you please explain or get LN to explain what that message referred to? I will try to find it and add it.
You really don't know anything about ObamaCare, do you. Ifi you did, you would know that you must buy your own health insurance unless you cannot afford it. You would also know that you don't have to buy health insurance even if you CAN afford it and have the option instead, of showing financial responsibility.
IOW, you must take financial responsibility for your own health care insurance. I can't imagine how you think the opposite is true but really, that is YOUR problem.
Some republican governors are refusing to implement the state health insurance exchanges required by the Act, but that could prove politically problematic, particularly in a blue state like Florida with a relatively large low income working population, many of whom lacking health insurance.
And any effort to get rid of the ACA should also include a plan to implement a National replacement to afford all Americans health insurance, as by the time the political configuration again occurs favorable to repeal 2017 at the earliest the full effect of the ACA will be in place for some three years and no voter is going to tolerate low income working Americans losing their health insurance and going backwards to the days when millions are without coverage.
As House Speaker John Boehner correctly noted after the Election: "Obamacare is the law of the land."
Well said. I still think that the best hope for freedom lies within the liberal movement - among those, such as yourself, who still value individual freedom and limited government. Unfortunately, both major parties are currently dominated by the opposite mindset.
You really don't know anything about ObamaCare, do you. Ifi you did, you would know that you must buy your own health insurance unless you cannot afford it. You would also know that you don't have to buy health insurance even if you CAN afford it and have the option instead, of showing financial responsibility.
IOW, you must take financial responsibility for your own health care insurance. I can't imagine how you think the opposite is true but really, that is YOUR problem.
Dear Dblack and QW: here is the quote from LN about showing financial responsibility.
It seems this is limited to just showing you bought "insurance."
is there any way to explain to LN that the issue is not about "denying" financial responsibility but having freedom to show this responsibility "in other ways besides insurance."
For example, I use my income to pay for HOUSING and OTHER COSTS for other people; so I am not paying for their health care per se, but paying other costs while other people cover the health care other ways. But this does NOT count toward an exemption. Why not???
Being able to pay less and get better coverage is helping a lot of people. And, as we've seen, it has actually saved lives - such as those with ongoing catastrophic expenses.
I save every month but since I'm a liberal, that's a bad thing.
It is amusing the way you keep throwing out stuff like this thinking it proves something.
(Note to Emily - you see like an intelligent person, not given to the usual childish name calling here. Check the Kaiser site for extremely detailed and factual info. That's the same site that was poo-poo'ed for being "liberal" so if you feel that way, you could look at any of the other gazillions of sites. Also, I have posted numerous links in previous threads.)
This is why I've pretty much stopped reading most posts on this subject. And, its definitely why I will never again do research for anyone here.
All anyone can say is that ObamaCare is bad but if any evidence is posted about the benefits, as was posted concerning this, as we get are complaints about the source being liberal - even when its not.
I decided not to post links or do research for anyone here and that's the way its gonna stay. Any of you can make whatever you want of that but if you want info, you have the same access to the internet that I do. Use it.
OTOH, I did make a long list of things about ACA and I may still post that as a jumping off place for a real discussion.
But, I DO mean discussion. NOT, teacher is in, spoon feeding session. Sorry but I'm just up for it anymore.
See discussion defined for English-language learners »(Note to Emily - you see like an intelligent person, not given to the usual childish name calling here. Check the Kaiser site for extremely detailed and factual info. That's the same site that was poo-poo'ed for being "liberal" so if you feel that way, you could look at any of the other gazillions of sites. Also, I have posted numerous links in previous threads.)
Now that the dust of the election is settling, what can those of us opposed to PPACA do to fight it? Is de-funding a realistic approach? What are the various states up to in terms of resisting the federal ambitions?
Now that the dust of the election is settling, what can those of us opposed to PPACA do to fight it? Is de-funding a realistic approach? What are the various states up to in terms of resisting the federal ambitions?
I just found out, the deciding judge on the Supreme Court didn't just let it pass.
He actually CHANGED text so the wording would make the insurance mandates a TAX.
That is not proper legal procedure or jurisdiction of the Court. The proper way would be to reject it, and it would have to go all the way through Congress again to rewrite it, since it passed not as a tax paid to govt but as requiring people to buy private insurance.
Are there any legal groups fighting this?
Of course, the supporters of the bill are not going to challenge the Court for amending the bill for them. It is clearly outside of judicial power to do that, from what I was told.
Can this be confirmed? And what judicial or govt watchdog groups are possibly fighting this legally?
Heck, if the bill can just be amended manually, without going through Congress, why not change opt out to opt in?
And require that the parties/supporters/leaders who signed off and agree to this bill, be under it and fund it. While those who believe in other constitutional means of covering one's health care are free to fund/support other systems besides insurance mandated by govt.
Some republican governors are refusing to implement the state health insurance exchanges required by the Act, but that could prove politically problematic, particularly in a blue state like Florida with a relatively large low income working population, many of whom lacking health insurance.
And any effort to get rid of the ACA should also include a plan to implement a National replacement to afford all Americans health insurance, as by the time the political configuration again occurs favorable to repeal 2017 at the earliest the full effect of the ACA will be in place for some three years and no voter is going to tolerate low income working Americans losing their health insurance and going backwards to the days when millions are without coverage.
As House Speaker John Boehner correctly noted after the Election: "Obamacare is the law of the land."
No, the Constitution is.
The current health bill can be carried and funded by people who believe in it.
The opposing groups/states should have free and equal choice to fund other plans.
That is what is Constitutional.
Some republican governors are refusing to implement the state health insurance exchanges required by the Act, but that could prove politically problematic, particularly in a blue state like Florida with a relatively large low income working population, many of whom lacking health insurance.
And any effort to get rid of the ACA should also include a plan to implement a National replacement to afford all Americans health insurance, as by the time the political configuration again occurs favorable to repeal 2017 at the earliest the full effect of the ACA will be in place for some three years and no voter is going to tolerate low income working Americans losing their health insurance and going backwards to the days when millions are without coverage.
As House Speaker John Boehner correctly noted after the Election: "Obamacare is the law of the land."
No, the Constitution is.
The current health bill can be carried and funded by people who believe in it.
The opposing groups/states should have free and equal choice to fund other plans.
That is what is Constitutional.
Sorry but the Constitution doesn't allow states to just pick what federal laws they wish to follow.
Sorry but Roberts didn't change the text of the law. You can look it up in the U.S. Code its exactly the same.
Sorry but Roberts didn't change the text of the law. You can look it up in the U.S. Code its exactly the same.
It's true. They called it one thing, the Supreme court interpreted as another. It's an awesome arrangement. Congress can claim that they didn't raise taxes - even though the Court recognizes the obvious fact that they did. Roberts essentially endorsed flat out lying on the part of our legislators. Accountability is strictly for suckers.
The power to tax does not place any restrictions on what a tax can be called you dummy.
The power to tax does not place any restrictions on what a tax can be called you dummy.
Interesting. So they could call the tax a 'chair massage' if they wanted? And then Congress and the President could claim that their proposed legislation doesn't impose a tax increase, but instead gives us all free chair massages! Of course we'd all support such legislation, chair massages rock! But then, once the law is passed, we find out it was all just a hoax!.... no chair massages, just tax increases. Is that really the way you want government to work?
