There's no secret to how that happened. It was a income redistribution play. If you must take from me and give it to someone else, fine but don't screw up my plan at the same time. The two biggest lies of the Obama years were:
If you like your plan you can keep it.
If you like your doctor, you can stay with him.
Pretty sure the heat death of the universe will defeat him.
You just said you hope some guy gets ill with no health coverage. Seems to indicate preference to me. You're a real prize, bitter one.
Cry harder. Cry so hard, in fact, that you get dehydrated and go into electrolyte imbalance, then die because the 'Thugs neutered healthcare and you can't pay out of pocket.
We're in agreement that the ACA could not mandate states to set up exchanges. With that in mind, Obama (and you) should not have expected all states to do so. Therefore the feds came in and did it but it still failed.
The ACA did not even attempt to mandate that states set up exchanges and it was not expected.
You don't even understand the legislation you're complaining about. Stop arguing about things you don't understand.
Don't bitch about Republicans nor setting up exchanges then
Huh? Not setting up exchanges is foolish, but not mandated. I'm sure you agree we should complain when people act foolishly.
This is a great example of someone not arguing honestly, by the way. You made a false claim about the law and when corrected did not acknowledge it, just shifted to another attack. It also shows you've been criticizing a law you don't understand basic elements of.
If you're genuinely interested in fostering honest debate here then change begins with you.
This is typical of your methods. You state things as fact without proof. If you think I made a false claim, copy/paste it and we can discuss it. You're too lazy to do that. For you it always immediately pivots to personal stuff. You can't keep it on the subject at hand. If you think I made a claim here that's not true, fine. Let's discuss it and not get into the personal stuff.
This is precisely why it was failed legislation. The federal gov't doesn't have the power to tell the states to set up exchanges or adopt Medicaid expansion. Being a constitutional lawyer Obama should have known that.
Republicans in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts did Democrats a huge favor by not throwing out Obamacare. It was clearly unconstitutional. Instead he did an end around which made little legal sense. He started by changing the words of Obama himself and called it a tax but if it's a tax then it's unconstitutional because all tax legislation has to begin in the House, not the Senate.
Odd that someone who just came out and said they weren't going to go back and read the thread is calling other people lazy. It's doubly odd that you called me lazy and then whined about people on here getting into 'personal stuff'. This is another example of you not arguing honestly, by the way. Whenever confronted with facts you can't handle you ignore them and then whine about how mean everyone is to you. It is deeply ironic that someone who employs that kind of defensive tactic could complain about people getting off the subject at hand, by the way. It's another example of your tendency to discuss things dishonestly.
As for what you said that was false here are two examples:
The ACA did not require the states to set up exchanges or expand Medicare. You were saying Obama should have known not to do something that he didn't do, which is a false statement.
This is a second false statement. The ACA did originate in the House. The senate bill as passed was amendment to a house bill that had been sent to them (HR 3590), which was then returned to and passed a second time by the House. This was litigated already and lost, as has basically every anti-ACA lawsuit.
Both of these cases are either you arguing against legislation you don't even understand the basics of or they are deliberate attempts to deceive others. In either case, arguing against something without knowledge or attempts at deception are both hallmarks of dishonest debate. I hope you can acknowledge your previous false statements and try to do better in the future but I strongly suspect you will try and weasel your way out of them. I hope you prove me wrong, because it would be great to have a conservative person here who was interested in honest debate. So far you have not shown yourself to be that person, but hope springs eternal.
Read up on the tax and why it's unconstitutional:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyash...ented-is-still-unconstitutional/#473a21af22b7
What I said is not "false". Debatable perhaps but not false.
I never said that ACA required states to set up exchanges, so why did you use that terminology to say that my statement was untrue? You can't copy and paste any untrue statement I made. You're an empty suit. All you can do is throw out personal attacks with nothing to back them up.
I'm glad we cleared that up. Now if you'd like to discuss the facts, I'm game. If you want to call me a liar or whatever then find some other kids to play with.
The federal gov't doesn't have the power to tell the states to set up exchanges or adopt Medicaid expansion. Being a constitutional lawyer Obama should have known that.
Your source of a Forbes op-ed is wonderful and all but I'll stick with the opinion of the federal courts as, you know, they are the ones that actually matter. This has been litigated already and the courts threw the argument out. To continue to state that it is unconstitutional when that argument has been considered and rejected by the courts is false. Had you said that the courts had ruled the other way but you disagreed that would have been better, but you made a claim that an aspect of the law that had been ruled constitutional was unconstitutional and did not qualify it in any way.
Again either you didn't know that this had already gone through the courts, meaning you shouldn't argue about things you don't understand, or you did know and decided to dishonestly leave that part out. Either way, not honest debate. If you are interested in honest debate please indicate whether you didn't know that what you were saying was false or that you knew and decided against mentioning it.
Haha, totally called that you would try and weasel out of it. This is your statement:
This statement is not ambiguous, it is clearly stating that Obama did not know that and took actions which were contrary to the first sentence. You should have the personal integrity to own up to that instead of trying to weasel out of it. As I predicted, you don't have that integrity, meaning you aren't actually interested in honest argument. My guess is the next step will be that you will once again deny the plainly obvious and then shift back to complaining about how mean everyone is to you, just as I predicted before.
I stated all along that the Supreme Court disagreed with me. Do you agree with all decisions made by the SC? In fact this gets me back to my original point. The Republicans did Obama a favor but twisting this around so as not to throw it out. So don't go around saying that Republicans have tried to thwart ACA at every step.
I stated all along that the Supreme Court disagreed with me. Do you agree with all decisions made by the SC?
In fact this gets me back to my original point. The Republicans did Obama a favor but twisting this around so as not to throw it out. So don't go around saying that Republicans have tried to thwart ACA at every step.
But the Repubs. have, or do you think it was the Dems. who filed over 60 lawsuits against the ACA? If it wasn't the Dems, who was it? Sea monkeys? Well, in your distorted view of the world, maybe starfish filed those lawsuits, eh?
The republican choice to attack a working ACA for political reasons proved to me long ago that there's nothing American conservatives hate more than America and Americans. ISIS could only dream of hurting the US as much as GOP politicians do.Your problem is unintentional on the part of Dems & deliberately created by Repubs. They could fix it tomorrow by funding risk corridors as specified in the act itself.
We all know that's the truth, even you. If the ACA fails it will be because Repubs forced it to fail.
So your defense "well you guys do it too"? In this site I called out someone for calling a group of people based on their political views "degenerates". That's what I'm talking about. I was one of the folks he included.
I don't get this weird level of vitriol. It's been present in conservatives for decades about liberals but now the constant toxicity seems to be infecting the left as well. It's gross.
Yes, Sea Ray's opinions on the ACA are misinformed and stupid. Yes, he argues childishly about them and is uninterested in honest debate. That doesn't mean that somehow the best outcome is for him to learn these lessons through some sort of horrible illness.
But the Repubs. have, or do you think it was the Dems. who filed over 60 lawsuits against the ACA? If it wasn't the Dems, who was it? Sea monkeys? Well, in your distorted view of the world, maybe starfish filed those lawsuits, eh?
SCOTUS's ruling had nothing to do with 'forcing states to set up exchanges' as that was not part of the legislation. Saying SCOTUS disagreed with you about an entirely separate thing is irrelevant. Its ruling also did not involve the origination clause, which was your second false statement.
So no, saying you disagreed with SCOTUS has nothing to do with your numerous false statements about the ACA because none of the false statements you made were related to their ruling. Nice try.
It should have been ruled constitutional as a simple exercise of the commerce clause power so no, Roberts didn't do Democrats any favors. Republicans have absolutely attempted to thwart the ACA at every step, but that's entirely beside the point.
You claimed you wanted honest debate. Part of honest debate is admitting when you make false statements and taking ownership of them. Are you willing to do that? So far you've only attempted to weasel out of it. Like I said, be the change you want to see. Just say these simple words: "those statements I made about the ACA were false and I apologize." How hard is that?
The right has been treating the lives of their targets and even their basic humanity as negotiable for decades. That the left has finally gotten so mad as to dare start using descriptive names shows a great deal of restraint.
If you don't want to be called degenerate, stop harming others just so you can keep believing in your fairy tale delusions about how you'll be whisked away by a handsome/beautiful task cut and ride off to the peak of the Laffer Curve happily ever after. Have the integrity to not start from your conclusion and instead look at what's going on rather than whatever, even editorials,
I despair of them learning even if the consequences happen to them, so I can't wish for him to get sick because it wouldn't do much good. I'm firmly in the camp of hoping that he somehow gets perspective so he has to live with knowledge of what he supported.
I will point out that he does treat other people's healthcare as disposable in order to preserve his delusions. It's one thing to argue childishly and be uninterested in honest debate, it's another thing to do that when it means supporting the eventual death and impoverishment of fellow human beings.
I never stated that Obamacare attempted to force states to set up exchanges. You still still can't find a quote that I made that's false. All you want to do is whine about Sea Ray and not discuss the issues
I never stated that Obamacare forced states to set up exchanges. You still can't find a quote that I made that's false. All you want to do is whine about Sea Ray and not discuss the issues
This is precisely why it was failed legislation. The federal gov't doesn't have the power to tell the states to set up exchanges or adopt Medicaid expansion. Being a constitutional lawyer Obama should have known that. Republicans in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts did Democrats a huge favor by not throwing out Obamacare. It was clearly unconstitutional. Instead he did an end around which made little legal sense. He started by changing the words of Obama himself and called it a tax but if it's a tax then it's unconstitutional because all tax legislation has to begin in the House, not the Senate. He did this because he didn't want to be the one to take this down. He wanted the voters and the legislatures to decide what to do with ACA. I strongly disagree but that's why the law still stands today.
As for funding risk corridors, if the law is that fragile then it's not a very good law. Truth is that it's not a good move politically for any politician to sign off on sending taxpayer money to health insurance companies that are already making tons of it. These politicians would get primaried out due to signing off on corporate welfare.