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.
The problem in this scenario is that the referee was not doing that. He went into the play with a predetermined outcome in mind, then searched for ways to make it happen. Thus, "it's a tax, now it's a fee, now it's a tax", and "Congress obviously didn't mean for the law to say what it says", and so forth.Easy there fella, let me explain to you.
Affordable care act is made affordable through government subsidies. Healthcare is expensive just as cars and gas and housing is expensive.
The 30 states refused health care exchanges precisely because they hate Obama. Oh and you know what I find funny? Instead of controlling their own health care exchanges under their own control, the ceded that power to the federal government. "We hate Obama so much, we will refuse the money and let the government handle healthcare for our state citizens". Hahahaha.
You do not understand how the government works. SCOTUS did not write the ACA law. Congress did. For you to post that stupid comment about 9 people in a robe forcing the law on to people shows that you really do not understand the role of the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is the referreee, they are not the players. Referree is allowed to rule in a game. Referree does not play the game. He simply calls the ball as a in play or out of play.
Yes paying for pregnancy insurance when 55 or birth control for a man mandated by SCOTUS Care is stupid, as are the deductibles, and passing those cost on to the young shall come back to bite you DemocRATS in the ass, If there is any young with brains!
The insurance companies played a shell game, but go ahead and blame Obama because it makes you feel good even though you look ill-informed.
Myself, I'd rather see a different approach to healthcare reform. The US still pays about double of what the next most expensive country for healthcare pays and no, we don't have the best healthcare in the world. We are getting screwed. Obamacare did not cut healthcare cost.
Justices are NOT supposed to carry a desired outcome into a case. That's judicial activism. They are supposed to simply weigh each case on the merit of the law re: the Constitution. If the law clearly states, for instance, that federal subsidies are only to be given to exchanges founded by the states in accordance to a paragraph that defines those exchanges, they are not to reason, "I don't want to overturn this law, so I'll just pretend Congress didn't actually mean what they wrote".The problem in this scenario is that the referee was not doing that. He went into the play with a predetermined outcome in mind, then searched for ways to make it happen. Thus, "it's a tax, now it's a fee, now it's a tax", and "Congress obviously didn't mean for the law to say what it says", and so forth.Easy there fella, let me explain to you.
Affordable care act is made affordable through government subsidies. Healthcare is expensive just as cars and gas and housing is expensive.
The 30 states refused health care exchanges precisely because they hate Obama. Oh and you know what I find funny? Instead of controlling their own health care exchanges under their own control, the ceded that power to the federal government. "We hate Obama so much, we will refuse the money and let the government handle healthcare for our state citizens". Hahahaha.
You do not understand how the government works. SCOTUS did not write the ACA law. Congress did. For you to post that stupid comment about 9 people in a robe forcing the law on to people shows that you really do not understand the role of the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is the referreee, they are not the players. Referree is allowed to rule in a game. Referree does not play the game. He simply calls the ball as a in play or out of play.
Even if the referree went into the game with preset notion, it simply means that the person who appealed the call and wanted to change referree's mind did not understand the rules of the game.
No one understand the ball game better than the umpire who sits on top of his chair at Wimbledon. When the umpire calls the ball in or out, the player is supposed to move on to the next serve. Players don't say, remove the umpire because I don't like his calls.
That's not the way it works in a democracy. I don't like the SCOTUS citizens united ruling or the pollution control ruling they just delivered. It does not mean I can ask for removal of the SCOTUS.
Only republicans think they can demand the removal of judges because they didnt like the verdicts. You cant overthrow a judge if you don't like the verdicts. Is that clear?
Justices are NOT supposed to carry a desired outcome into a case. That's judicial activism. They are supposed to simply weigh each case on the merit of the law re: the Constitution. If the law clearly states, for instance, that federal subsidies are only to be given to exchanges founded by the states in accordance to a paragraph that defines those exchanges, they are not to reason, "I don't want to overturn this law, so I'll just pretend Congress didn't actually mean what they wrote".The problem in this scenario is that the referee was not doing that. He went into the play with a predetermined outcome in mind, then searched for ways to make it happen. Thus, "it's a tax, now it's a fee, now it's a tax", and "Congress obviously didn't mean for the law to say what it says", and so forth.Easy there fella, let me explain to you.
Affordable care act is made affordable through government subsidies. Healthcare is expensive just as cars and gas and housing is expensive.
The 30 states refused health care exchanges precisely because they hate Obama. Oh and you know what I find funny? Instead of controlling their own health care exchanges under their own control, the ceded that power to the federal government. "We hate Obama so much, we will refuse the money and let the government handle healthcare for our state citizens". Hahahaha.
You do not understand how the government works. SCOTUS did not write the ACA law. Congress did. For you to post that stupid comment about 9 people in a robe forcing the law on to people shows that you really do not understand the role of the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is the referreee, they are not the players. Referree is allowed to rule in a game. Referree does not play the game. He simply calls the ball as a in play or out of play.
Even if the referree went into the game with preset notion, it simply means that the person who appealed the call and wanted to change referree's mind did not understand the rules of the game.
No one understand the ball game better than the umpire who sits on top of his chair at Wimbledon. When the umpire calls the ball in or out, the player is supposed to move on to the next serve. Players don't say, remove the umpire because I don't like his calls.
That's not the way it works in a democracy. I don't like the SCOTUS citizens united ruling or the pollution control ruling they just delivered. It does not mean I can ask for removal of the SCOTUS.
Only republicans think they can demand the removal of judges because they didnt like the verdicts. You cant overthrow a judge if you don't like the verdicts. Is that clear?
Did you actually read the language of the law? You cut the sentence short. It says, "an Exchange established by the State under 1311" (emphasis mine). Go back and read section 1311, then explain how it applies to the federal government. If you DO read it, you'll understand why the justices had to say things like "Congress didn't really mean what was written".Justices are NOT supposed to carry a desired outcome into a case. That's judicial activism. They are supposed to simply weigh each case on the merit of the law re: the Constitution. If the law clearly states, for instance, that federal subsidies are only to be given to exchanges founded by the states in accordance to a paragraph that defines those exchanges, they are not to reason, "I don't want to overturn this law, so I'll just pretend Congress didn't actually mean what they wrote".The problem in this scenario is that the referee was not doing that. He went into the play with a predetermined outcome in mind, then searched for ways to make it happen. Thus, "it's a tax, now it's a fee, now it's a tax", and "Congress obviously didn't mean for the law to say what it says", and so forth.Easy there fella, let me explain to you.
Affordable care act is made affordable through government subsidies. Healthcare is expensive just as cars and gas and housing is expensive.
The 30 states refused health care exchanges precisely because they hate Obama. Oh and you know what I find funny? Instead of controlling their own health care exchanges under their own control, the ceded that power to the federal government. "We hate Obama so much, we will refuse the money and let the government handle healthcare for our state citizens". Hahahaha.
You do not understand how the government works. SCOTUS did not write the ACA law. Congress did. For you to post that stupid comment about 9 people in a robe forcing the law on to people shows that you really do not understand the role of the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is the referreee, they are not the players. Referree is allowed to rule in a game. Referree does not play the game. He simply calls the ball as a in play or out of play.
Even if the referree went into the game with preset notion, it simply means that the person who appealed the call and wanted to change referree's mind did not understand the rules of the game.
No one understand the ball game better than the umpire who sits on top of his chair at Wimbledon. When the umpire calls the ball in or out, the player is supposed to move on to the next serve. Players don't say, remove the umpire because I don't like his calls.
That's not the way it works in a democracy. I don't like the SCOTUS citizens united ruling or the pollution control ruling they just delivered. It does not mean I can ask for removal of the SCOTUS.
Only republicans think they can demand the removal of judges because they didnt like the verdicts. You cant overthrow a judge if you don't like the verdicts. Is that clear?
For Obamacare: "Established by the state" clause over which the King v Burwell case was fought is clear. State means federal government or the state government.
Remember second amendment? "Security of free state" does not mean local state. State means the federal government. WHy don't the RWers object to that 2nd amendment and continue to demand that states should decide whether the guns are lawful.
The judicial activism means changing the laws. SCOTUS did not change any laws. W Obamacare, the SCOTUS kept the law as is and wants congress to pass the laws.
W regards to GM, this was a constitutional issue. Neither the states nor the fed government has the right to ban marriages between two adults who are not blood related. So marriage case was settled on the basis that individuals are free to marry one other non-blood-related adult of their choosing.
This is not judicial activism. This is simply respecting the individual's right. Actually activism means SCOTUS interfering with the legal proceedings, not "leaving it alone as is". Tampering is activism, leaving it alone is simply not activism. Unless of course tampering actually prrotects constitutional right....then it's not activism, it is called following the constitution.
Did you actually read the language of the law? You cut the sentence short. It says, "an Exchange established by the State under 1311" (emphasis mine). Go back and read section 1311, then explain how it applies to the federal government. If you DO read it, you'll understand why the justices had to say things like "Congress didn't really mean what was written".Justices are NOT supposed to carry a desired outcome into a case. That's judicial activism. They are supposed to simply weigh each case on the merit of the law re: the Constitution. If the law clearly states, for instance, that federal subsidies are only to be given to exchanges founded by the states in accordance to a paragraph that defines those exchanges, they are not to reason, "I don't want to overturn this law, so I'll just pretend Congress didn't actually mean what they wrote".The problem in this scenario is that the referee was not doing that. He went into the play with a predetermined outcome in mind, then searched for ways to make it happen. Thus, "it's a tax, now it's a fee, now it's a tax", and "Congress obviously didn't mean for the law to say what it says", and so forth.Easy there fella, let me explain to you.
Affordable care act is made affordable through government subsidies. Healthcare is expensive just as cars and gas and housing is expensive.
The 30 states refused health care exchanges precisely because they hate Obama. Oh and you know what I find funny? Instead of controlling their own health care exchanges under their own control, the ceded that power to the federal government. "We hate Obama so much, we will refuse the money and let the government handle healthcare for our state citizens". Hahahaha.
You do not understand how the government works. SCOTUS did not write the ACA law. Congress did. For you to post that stupid comment about 9 people in a robe forcing the law on to people shows that you really do not understand the role of the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is the referreee, they are not the players. Referree is allowed to rule in a game. Referree does not play the game. He simply calls the ball as a in play or out of play.
Even if the referree went into the game with preset notion, it simply means that the person who appealed the call and wanted to change referree's mind did not understand the rules of the game.
No one understand the ball game better than the umpire who sits on top of his chair at Wimbledon. When the umpire calls the ball in or out, the player is supposed to move on to the next serve. Players don't say, remove the umpire because I don't like his calls.
That's not the way it works in a democracy. I don't like the SCOTUS citizens united ruling or the pollution control ruling they just delivered. It does not mean I can ask for removal of the SCOTUS.
Only republicans think they can demand the removal of judges because they didnt like the verdicts. You cant overthrow a judge if you don't like the verdicts. Is that clear?
For Obamacare: "Established by the state" clause over which the King v Burwell case was fought is clear. State means federal government or the state government.
Remember second amendment? "Security of free state" does not mean local state. State means the federal government. WHy don't the RWers object to that 2nd amendment and continue to demand that states should decide whether the guns are lawful.
The judicial activism means changing the laws. SCOTUS did not change any laws. W Obamacare, the SCOTUS kept the law as is and wants congress to pass the laws.
W regards to GM, this was a constitutional issue. Neither the states nor the fed government has the right to ban marriages between two adults who are not blood related. So marriage case was settled on the basis that individuals are free to marry one other non-blood-related adult of their choosing.
This is not judicial activism. This is simply respecting the individual's right. Actually activism means SCOTUS interfering with the legal proceedings, not "leaving it alone as is". Tampering is activism, leaving it alone is simply not activism. Unless of course tampering actually prrotects constitutional right....then it's not activism, it is called following the constitution.
IOW, you prefer to argue from emotion than engage in factual discussion. I understand.Did you actually read the language of the law? You cut the sentence short. It says, "an Exchange established by the State under 1311" (emphasis mine). Go back and read section 1311, then explain how it applies to the federal government. If you DO read it, you'll understand why the justices had to say things like "Congress didn't really mean what was written".Justices are NOT supposed to carry a desired outcome into a case. That's judicial activism. They are supposed to simply weigh each case on the merit of the law re: the Constitution. If the law clearly states, for instance, that federal subsidies are only to be given to exchanges founded by the states in accordance to a paragraph that defines those exchanges, they are not to reason, "I don't want to overturn this law, so I'll just pretend Congress didn't actually mean what they wrote".The problem in this scenario is that the referee was not doing that. He went into the play with a predetermined outcome in mind, then searched for ways to make it happen. Thus, "it's a tax, now it's a fee, now it's a tax", and "Congress obviously didn't mean for the law to say what it says", and so forth.
Even if the referree went into the game with preset notion, it simply means that the person who appealed the call and wanted to change referree's mind did not understand the rules of the game.
No one understand the ball game better than the umpire who sits on top of his chair at Wimbledon. When the umpire calls the ball in or out, the player is supposed to move on to the next serve. Players don't say, remove the umpire because I don't like his calls.
That's not the way it works in a democracy. I don't like the SCOTUS citizens united ruling or the pollution control ruling they just delivered. It does not mean I can ask for removal of the SCOTUS.
Only republicans think they can demand the removal of judges because they didnt like the verdicts. You cant overthrow a judge if you don't like the verdicts. Is that clear?
For Obamacare: "Established by the state" clause over which the King v Burwell case was fought is clear. State means federal government or the state government.
Remember second amendment? "Security of free state" does not mean local state. State means the federal government. WHy don't the RWers object to that 2nd amendment and continue to demand that states should decide whether the guns are lawful.
The judicial activism means changing the laws. SCOTUS did not change any laws. W Obamacare, the SCOTUS kept the law as is and wants congress to pass the laws.
W regards to GM, this was a constitutional issue. Neither the states nor the fed government has the right to ban marriages between two adults who are not blood related. So marriage case was settled on the basis that individuals are free to marry one other non-blood-related adult of their choosing.
This is not judicial activism. This is simply respecting the individual's right. Actually activism means SCOTUS interfering with the legal proceedings, not "leaving it alone as is". Tampering is activism, leaving it alone is simply not activism. Unless of course tampering actually prrotects constitutional right....then it's not activism, it is called following the constitution.
No, I didn't read the full text of the law nor am I going to read it to debate this issue with an internet troll on a public forum.
I am happy to enjoy the SCOTUS verdict and y ou are free to enjoy your butthurt as much as you like. Your choice.
IOW, you prefer to argue from emotion than engage in factual discussion. I understand.Did you actually read the language of the law? You cut the sentence short. It says, "an Exchange established by the State under 1311" (emphasis mine). Go back and read section 1311, then explain how it applies to the federal government. If you DO read it, you'll understand why the justices had to say things like "Congress didn't really mean what was written".Justices are NOT supposed to carry a desired outcome into a case. That's judicial activism. They are supposed to simply weigh each case on the merit of the law re: the Constitution. If the law clearly states, for instance, that federal subsidies are only to be given to exchanges founded by the states in accordance to a paragraph that defines those exchanges, they are not to reason, "I don't want to overturn this law, so I'll just pretend Congress didn't actually mean what they wrote".Even if the referree went into the game with preset notion, it simply means that the person who appealed the call and wanted to change referree's mind did not understand the rules of the game.
No one understand the ball game better than the umpire who sits on top of his chair at Wimbledon. When the umpire calls the ball in or out, the player is supposed to move on to the next serve. Players don't say, remove the umpire because I don't like his calls.
That's not the way it works in a democracy. I don't like the SCOTUS citizens united ruling or the pollution control ruling they just delivered. It does not mean I can ask for removal of the SCOTUS.
Only republicans think they can demand the removal of judges because they didnt like the verdicts. You cant overthrow a judge if you don't like the verdicts. Is that clear?
For Obamacare: "Established by the state" clause over which the King v Burwell case was fought is clear. State means federal government or the state government.
Remember second amendment? "Security of free state" does not mean local state. State means the federal government. WHy don't the RWers object to that 2nd amendment and continue to demand that states should decide whether the guns are lawful.
The judicial activism means changing the laws. SCOTUS did not change any laws. W Obamacare, the SCOTUS kept the law as is and wants congress to pass the laws.
W regards to GM, this was a constitutional issue. Neither the states nor the fed government has the right to ban marriages between two adults who are not blood related. So marriage case was settled on the basis that individuals are free to marry one other non-blood-related adult of their choosing.
This is not judicial activism. This is simply respecting the individual's right. Actually activism means SCOTUS interfering with the legal proceedings, not "leaving it alone as is". Tampering is activism, leaving it alone is simply not activism. Unless of course tampering actually prrotects constitutional right....then it's not activism, it is called following the constitution.
No, I didn't read the full text of the law nor am I going to read it to debate this issue with an internet troll on a public forum.
I am happy to enjoy the SCOTUS verdict and y ou are free to enjoy your butthurt as much as you like. Your choice.
Nice try, attempting to make this about me. Here's a clue, it's not. Yes, I read the applicable part of the law. It clearly defines what an exchange is, and it clearly defines it in this context as something a state sets up, not the federal government. Thus, you don't get to march around flapping about "established by the state" when that's not what the law says. It says "established by the State under 1311". That means something that you don't want it to mean, mainly that you don't get to interpret "established by the state" any way you want to. Like I said, if you prefer to argue from emotion and not fact, feel free to do so. Just don't expect to get any credibility for doing so.IOW, you prefer to argue from emotion than engage in factual discussion. I understand.Did you actually read the language of the law? You cut the sentence short. It says, "an Exchange established by the State under 1311" (emphasis mine). Go back and read section 1311, then explain how it applies to the federal government. If you DO read it, you'll understand why the justices had to say things like "Congress didn't really mean what was written".Justices are NOT supposed to carry a desired outcome into a case. That's judicial activism. They are supposed to simply weigh each case on the merit of the law re: the Constitution. If the law clearly states, for instance, that federal subsidies are only to be given to exchanges founded by the states in accordance to a paragraph that defines those exchanges, they are not to reason, "I don't want to overturn this law, so I'll just pretend Congress didn't actually mean what they wrote".
For Obamacare: "Established by the state" clause over which the King v Burwell case was fought is clear. State means federal government or the state government.
Remember second amendment? "Security of free state" does not mean local state. State means the federal government. WHy don't the RWers object to that 2nd amendment and continue to demand that states should decide whether the guns are lawful.
The judicial activism means changing the laws. SCOTUS did not change any laws. W Obamacare, the SCOTUS kept the law as is and wants congress to pass the laws.
W regards to GM, this was a constitutional issue. Neither the states nor the fed government has the right to ban marriages between two adults who are not blood related. So marriage case was settled on the basis that individuals are free to marry one other non-blood-related adult of their choosing.
This is not judicial activism. This is simply respecting the individual's right. Actually activism means SCOTUS interfering with the legal proceedings, not "leaving it alone as is". Tampering is activism, leaving it alone is simply not activism. Unless of course tampering actually prrotects constitutional right....then it's not activism, it is called following the constitution.
No, I didn't read the full text of the law nor am I going to read it to debate this issue with an internet troll on a public forum.
I am happy to enjoy the SCOTUS verdict and y ou are free to enjoy your butthurt as much as you like. Your choice.
Not really. If you wish to ignore the SCOTUS verdict and what it means, then you keep on reading the law for several more years as much time as you've got left on this planet.
My point is I've read enough about the law to know that "established by the state" can be interpreted as established by noe of the 50 states or established by the federal government. We often use the word state interchangeably in real life.
But I am so happy you read the law and are so educated about the stature. One question: Are you enrolled in health care plan right now? Is it ACA compliant? In other words, are you a hypocrite? Or are you uninsured and financially exposed?
LOL!
Nice try, attempting to make this about me. Here's a clue, it's not. Yes, I read the applicable part of the law. It clearly defines what an exchange is, and it clearly defines it in this context as something a state sets up, not the federal government. Thus, you don't get to march around flapping about "established by the state" when that's not what the law says. It says "established by the State under 1311". That means something that you don't want it to mean, mainly that you don't get to interpret "established by the state" any way you want to. Like I said, if you prefer to argue from emotion and not fact, feel free to do so. Just don't expect to get any credibility for doing so.IOW, you prefer to argue from emotion than engage in factual discussion. I understand.Did you actually read the language of the law? You cut the sentence short. It says, "an Exchange established by the State under 1311" (emphasis mine). Go back and read section 1311, then explain how it applies to the federal government. If you DO read it, you'll understand why the justices had to say things like "Congress didn't really mean what was written".For Obamacare: "Established by the state" clause over which the King v Burwell case was fought is clear. State means federal government or the state government.
Remember second amendment? "Security of free state" does not mean local state. State means the federal government. WHy don't the RWers object to that 2nd amendment and continue to demand that states should decide whether the guns are lawful.
The judicial activism means changing the laws. SCOTUS did not change any laws. W Obamacare, the SCOTUS kept the law as is and wants congress to pass the laws.
W regards to GM, this was a constitutional issue. Neither the states nor the fed government has the right to ban marriages between two adults who are not blood related. So marriage case was settled on the basis that individuals are free to marry one other non-blood-related adult of their choosing.
This is not judicial activism. This is simply respecting the individual's right. Actually activism means SCOTUS interfering with the legal proceedings, not "leaving it alone as is". Tampering is activism, leaving it alone is simply not activism. Unless of course tampering actually prrotects constitutional right....then it's not activism, it is called following the constitution.
No, I didn't read the full text of the law nor am I going to read it to debate this issue with an internet troll on a public forum.
I am happy to enjoy the SCOTUS verdict and y ou are free to enjoy your butthurt as much as you like. Your choice.
Not really. If you wish to ignore the SCOTUS verdict and what it means, then you keep on reading the law for several more years as much time as you've got left on this planet.
My point is I've read enough about the law to know that "established by the state" can be interpreted as established by noe of the 50 states or established by the federal government. We often use the word state interchangeably in real life.
But I am so happy you read the law and are so educated about the stature. One question: Are you enrolled in health care plan right now? Is it ACA compliant? In other words, are you a hypocrite? Or are you uninsured and financially exposed?
LOL!
You mean when medical bills where the number one cause of bankruptcy and the emergency room was primary health care at hundreds of times the cost of seeing a doctor at a clinic? Is that what you mean? Cuz if you do, you're an idiot.Or we could repeal that shit law and go back to the old less expensive and better plans than this shit health insurance with extremely high deductibles.Remember the "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance" lie? Well, starting last week, tens of thousands of small business owners are about to get hit with $100 per day / per employee fines for helping their employees pay for their private insurance! That's $36,500 for each person they try to help! It's very simple. The government wants everyone on Obamacare... and dependent on the government. So the IRS will now levy a $100 per day, per employee fine on any employer who helps their employees pay the cost of their private healthcare insurance. 10 employees? That's...
Employer Health Care Arrangements
You just don't understand your own bullshit so let me explain to you.
Yes you can keep your plan if you like it. It means if your insurance company sells the same plan known as grandfathered plan then you can keep it. If they don't keep the same plan going then you can't buy it.
Many insurance companies discontinued their legacy plans because they did not want to remain in the old system. This was not government's fault. This was the fault of insurance companies. There are companies that still offer watered down old non compliant plans you can buy. All you have to do is pay a fine and use the old shitty plans if you like them.
And no, the government doesn't give a FK if you enroll in Obamacare. You can pay a fine and stay out of Obamacare for all we care. No one really cares if you have insurance or not. Heck, I prefer you stay out of Obamacare so that my lines at the doctors' will be smaller.
I want all republicans to stay out of insurance plans and pay cash or get sick and die from your own health ailments. We absolutely have no problem with you rejected quality healthcare for yourself. I don't want to see you guys at the doctors.
Keep paying cash or go to Panama and Costa Rica to get hip replacement. We don't mind. Pay the fine to IRS and stay out of the OBAMACARE system if you hate it so much.
how did you win personally ?Unless you were a 1% I see NO INSURANCE co. with grandfathered in policies! Funny, we want you to just go away, anyway possible!...And since when is a FINE now a TAX not voted on by Congress, as the ONLY place a tax can be mandated is by Congress... another example of the administration making presentations before SCOTUS that it WASN'T A FUCKING TAX, and SCOTUS doing LEGISLATION from the bench, changing what law CONGRESS had approved...You're a fucking nutcase, but easy to bitch slap with a little truth!
It's not a fine, it's a tax. You can call it whatever you want. It's not a penalty it's a fee. It's not an offspring, it's a child. It's not a baby, it's our son. Call it whatever you want. The law says you have a different tax bracket if you don't have ACA plans.
OK I will give you another break. IRS is not going to collect fines from you. They haven't and they will more than likely not pursue anyone for ACA mandate fines. OK?
Now will you stay out of the Obamacare plans? It's obvious you don't like it. I hope ALL those opposed to ACA remain uninsured. We don't mind if you get your healthcare in Haiti or Guatemala. I am happy to live without you being a part of our healthcare system.
You should elect a republican president, keep the congress in reps' hands and then try to overturn the laws you hate. Good luck trying to unenroll 10 million Americans insured specifically under Obamacare. And I dare you to tell Americans prior to election that you will take away their healthcare.
Go for it and show me you can still win elections.
As stated previously, and which you can't deny HONESTLY, it was presented as a FINE OR PENALTY by the administration, which is plainly Unconstitutional, and CHANGED to a TAX by Roberts court, which is also plainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, making LEGISLATION from the bench.
What might be of interest is that 13% of the people in America took part in the American Revolution, there will be much more on the second one, if this shit continues!
It's a tax and SCOTUS has ruled it legal. There's nothing you can do about it.
And your threat of a revolution is ludicrous. Don't try to take on the US government with your own weapons. Have a happy life.
Of course there is, a NEW president could nullify it with an E.O. and as we see with the Manchurian muslim, nothing can be done about it. The president, as we have seen, does NOT have to obey Court or Congress laws. POOF, there goes your bubble! Apparently you don't realize that our military is made up of a vast majority of right thinking people. Most liberals are unpatriotic, and cowards! It's that entitlement thinking!
Your SCOTUS butthurt is showing.
Obamacare - Win
Gay marriage - Win
Housing discrimination lawsuit - Win
Confederate flag - Win
Immigration deportation slowdown - Win
Hillary Clinton leads in the polls - Win
Donald Tump dumped by all major corporations - Win
See that? That's called a severe butthurt. It's like an ass rape. I can never understand how much pain you must be going through right now. Stay calm and buy more weapons. Good luck.
how did you win personally ?It's not a fine, it's a tax. You can call it whatever you want. It's not a penalty it's a fee. It's not an offspring, it's a child. It's not a baby, it's our son. Call it whatever you want. The law says you have a different tax bracket if you don't have ACA plans.
OK I will give you another break. IRS is not going to collect fines from you. They haven't and they will more than likely not pursue anyone for ACA mandate fines. OK?
Now will you stay out of the Obamacare plans? It's obvious you don't like it. I hope ALL those opposed to ACA remain uninsured. We don't mind if you get your healthcare in Haiti or Guatemala. I am happy to live without you being a part of our healthcare system.
You should elect a republican president, keep the congress in reps' hands and then try to overturn the laws you hate. Good luck trying to unenroll 10 million Americans insured specifically under Obamacare. And I dare you to tell Americans prior to election that you will take away their healthcare.
Go for it and show me you can still win elections.
As stated previously, and which you can't deny HONESTLY, it was presented as a FINE OR PENALTY by the administration, which is plainly Unconstitutional, and CHANGED to a TAX by Roberts court, which is also plainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, making LEGISLATION from the bench.
What might be of interest is that 13% of the people in America took part in the American Revolution, there will be much more on the second one, if this shit continues!
It's a tax and SCOTUS has ruled it legal. There's nothing you can do about it.
And your threat of a revolution is ludicrous. Don't try to take on the US government with your own weapons. Have a happy life.
Of course there is, a NEW president could nullify it with an E.O. and as we see with the Manchurian muslim, nothing can be done about it. The president, as we have seen, does NOT have to obey Court or Congress laws. POOF, there goes your bubble! Apparently you don't realize that our military is made up of a vast majority of right thinking people. Most liberals are unpatriotic, and cowards! It's that entitlement thinking!
Your SCOTUS butthurt is showing.
Obamacare - Win
Gay marriage - Win
Housing discrimination lawsuit - Win
Confederate flag - Win
Immigration deportation slowdown - Win
Hillary Clinton leads in the polls - Win
Donald Tump dumped by all major corporations - Win
See that? That's called a severe butthurt. It's like an ass rape. I can never understand how much pain you must be going through right now. Stay calm and buy more weapons. Good luck.
No tell me, I am bored as hell, what do you get out of it since you are so chipper and gloat about it?how did you win personally ?As stated previously, and which you can't deny HONESTLY, it was presented as a FINE OR PENALTY by the administration, which is plainly Unconstitutional, and CHANGED to a TAX by Roberts court, which is also plainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, making LEGISLATION from the bench.
What might be of interest is that 13% of the people in America took part in the American Revolution, there will be much more on the second one, if this shit continues!
It's a tax and SCOTUS has ruled it legal. There's nothing you can do about it.
And your threat of a revolution is ludicrous. Don't try to take on the US government with your own weapons. Have a happy life.
Of course there is, a NEW president could nullify it with an E.O. and as we see with the Manchurian muslim, nothing can be done about it. The president, as we have seen, does NOT have to obey Court or Congress laws. POOF, there goes your bubble! Apparently you don't realize that our military is made up of a vast majority of right thinking people. Most liberals are unpatriotic, and cowards! It's that entitlement thinking!
Your SCOTUS butthurt is showing.
Obamacare - Win
Gay marriage - Win
Housing discrimination lawsuit - Win
Confederate flag - Win
Immigration deportation slowdown - Win
Hillary Clinton leads in the polls - Win
Donald Tump dumped by all major corporations - Win
See that? That's called a severe butthurt. It's like an ass rape. I can never understand how much pain you must be going through right now. Stay calm and buy more weapons. Good luck.
It doesn't matter, seriously. It's a complicated story.
