Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[colfax_m]

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.

Actually, I would. Here's the secret. You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean. Not once have you done that. Don't worry about it, leftists never do. It's not just you

No one is stopping you from explaining what you meant.

“you need to ask me” is like really passive aggressive.

 

[kaz]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

I am stating the fact that after 10 plus years....Conservative attempts to repeal Obamacare legislatively and judicially failed....

and the lie of "replace" has been so thoroughly proven to have always been a lie -- that Republicans don't even try to offer a better alternative that would have as much support as Obamacare still has.....despite it being fear-mongered for 10 yrs...

I bet you also think all of those voter fraud conspiracy cases are valid despite the courts laughing at those too....

Do you look as stupid as you sound?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....

Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???

 

[kaz]

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.

Actually, I would. Here's the secret. You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean. Not once have you done that. Don't worry about it, leftists never do. It's not just you

No one is stopping you from explaining what you meant.

“you need to ask me” is like really passive aggressive.

I know that no one is stopping me. That isn't what I said.

You really don't understand, do you Chauncy Gardner?

 

[colfax_m]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

I am stating the fact that after 10 plus years....Conservative attempts to repeal Obamacare legislatively and judicially failed....

and the lie of "replace" has been so thoroughly proven to have always been a lie -- that Republicans don't even try to offer a better alternative that would have as much support as Obamacare still has.....despite it being fear-mongered for 10 yrs...

I bet you also think all of those voter fraud conspiracy cases are valid despite the courts laughing at those too....

Do you look as stupid as you sound?

Refute a single thing I said instead whining like a bitch.......


in the 10 plus years.....has the ACA been repealed and replaced?

Nope.....


Have republicans offered a better proposal that garnered majority support among Americans -- or at least more support than what is currently for Obamacare? Nope....

So your hissy fit about facts is just that...a hissy fit

 

[colfax_m]

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.

Actually, I would. Here's the secret. You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean. Not once have you done that. Don't worry about it, leftists never do. It's not just you

No one is stopping you from explaining what you meant.

“you need to ask me” is like really passive aggressive.

I know that no one is stopping me. That isn't what I said.

You really don't understand, do you Chauncy Gardner?

“You have to ask me” sure makes it seem like you don’t think you can explain without it.

Go ahead and explain what you meant by it. Please. Thank you!

 

[kaz]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....

Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???

"Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."

I clearly answered that in my original point:​

​

Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​

"Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"

You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​

​

The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​

 

[kaz]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

Try AGAIN to read what I said.

"Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax"

You really can't read that, can you? Be honest. The color coding didn't help, did it? Again, be honest

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....

Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???

"Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."

I clearly answered that in my original point:​

​

Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​

"Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"

You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​

​

The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​

So you can read Roberts' mind?? Cool...

And no, I didn't make that assumption...why do you keep dodging questions like a pussy...

I said..why did Trump say his healthcare plan would cover everyone at a lower cost....was he lying or do you know of this plan??

 

[colfax_m]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....

Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???

"Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."

I clearly answered that in my original point:​

​

Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​

"Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"

You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​

​

The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​

The "whole thing" wasn't a tax. The individual mandate was a tax. The healthcare exchanges and the regulation of healthcare is not a tax.

The individual mandate is a tax. That's how the individual mandate is constitutional. That doesn't have anything to do with exchanges or regulation of healthcare.

Glad we can clear that up.

 

[kaz]

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.

Actually, I would. Here's the secret. You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean. Not once have you done that. Don't worry about it, leftists never do. It's not just you

No one is stopping you from explaining what you meant.

“you need to ask me” is like really passive aggressive.

I know that no one is stopping me. That isn't what I said.

You really don't understand, do you Chauncy Gardner?

“You have to ask me” sure makes it seem like you don’t think you can explain without it.

Go ahead and explain what you meant by it. Please. Thank you!

LOL, you can't not be a dick, can you?

I will point out that I am not begging to tell you what I think it means, you are begging me to tell you. You keep talking about it. I told you how to do that and you want to be a dick rather than do it. I don't care if you ask me or not. But your being a dick isn't going to get me to do something that YOU want ME to do. I'd say think about it, but that wouldn't really help in your case, would it? You could think the rest of the day about it and you'd come up with nothing

 

[kaz]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....

Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???

"Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."

I clearly answered that in my original point:​

​

Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​

"Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"

You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​

​

The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​

So you can read Roberts' mind?? Cool...

And no, I didn't make that assumption...why do you keep dodging questions like a pussy...

I said..why did Trump say his healthcare plan would cover everyone at a lower cost....was he lying or do you know of this plan??

Roberts SAID in his RULING it was a tax. How stupid are you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

Exactly!
Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

You’ve literally no sense of humor.
It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS. Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.

And again, the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.

Bullshit it was all about forcing people to buy something

 

[kaz]

"Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."

I clearly answered that in my original point:​

​

Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​

"Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"

You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​

​

The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​

The "whole thing" wasn't a tax. The individual mandate was a tax. The healthcare exchanges and the regulation of healthcare is not a tax.

The individual mandate is a tax. That's how the individual mandate is constitutional. That doesn't have anything to do with exchanges or regulation of healthcare.

Glad we can clear that up.

First of all, it was wildly uncommon for the justification for his ruling to be something that neither side argued. The Obama administration argued it was NOT a tax.

Second, there was no severability clause, so even if the mandate was a tax, the whole thing should have been tossed.

Roberts again came out with a bizarre argument and said well, they MEANT to put in a severability clause, but they ran out of time, so he'll pretend it was there. Then he didn't throw out the rest of the bill that clearly wasn't a tax even though he admitted that and pretended there was a severability clause.

As I said, Roberts cared about his career. Not the law, not his country. He just wildcatted the whole thing

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....

Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???

"Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."

I clearly answered that in my original point:​

​

Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​

"Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"

You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​

​

The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​

So you can read Roberts' mind?? Cool...

And no, I didn't make that assumption...why do you keep dodging questions like a pussy...

I said..why did Trump say his healthcare plan would cover everyone at a lower cost....was he lying or do you know of this plan??

Roberts SAID in his RULING it was a tax. How stupid are you?

"Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country"

Again...how you know this??? Did Roberts call you on the phone and say "Hey bro, I gotta career to think of...so I am gonna uphold Obamcare...but we're still buds right??

Or did you just read his mind??

And I see you keep dodging the question like a bitch......

Do you think Trump won't love you anymore if you have to concede he was always full of shit when it came to his healthcare plan??

 

[Wyatt earp]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house

 

[kaz]

So you can read Roberts' mind?? Cool...

And no, I didn't make that assumption...why do you keep dodging questions like a pussy...

I said..why did Trump say his healthcare plan would cover everyone at a lower cost....was he lying or do you know of this plan??

Roberts SAID in his RULING it was a tax. How stupid are you?

"Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country"

Again...how you know this??? Did Roberts call you on the phone and say "Hey bro, I gotta career to think of...so I am gonna uphold Obamcare...but we're still buds right??

Or did you just read his mind??

And I see you keep dodging the question like a bitch......

Do you think Trump won't love you anymore if you have to concede he was always full of shit when it came to his healthcare plan??

I've continually explained why I say this

 

[kaz]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house

Nice, I hadn't thought of that. That's a great point. Roberts obviously didn't care, he had one bizarre ruling after another to justify Obamacare, but that is yet another on the pile

 

[dblack]

Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.

Government in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.

Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?

Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.

Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either

You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.

Obviously. The question is: why?

In my view, things really started to go south with group health insurance. And pretty much every reform effort is aimed at doubling-down on that approach.

Ok so how do you suggest a new couple who just gave birth to a premature baby who needs hundreds of thousands of dollars of care to stay alive is supposed to pay for that?

How do you suggest a person pays the at least million dollars it costs to treat cancer?

Beats me. What's that go to do with the futility of group insurance?

So we don't have insurance. We don't have single payer.

How do people pay their medical bills?

Insurance itself isn't a bad idea, for catastrophes. It's low-deductible, group insurance that corrodes markets.