Does intent only matter when looking at the 2nd amendment? Because if we went off the words as written you would need to be in a "well regulated militia"
Promising to repeal Obamacare and replace it with "something better" is still very popular. When it stops being popular (read: useful), Republicans will either cast about for something actually better, or more likely just move on. In reality there is little will or ability to remove a freebie once it's ensconced, the people helped by Obamacare aren't particularly threatened by the prospect of "something better", and the people harmed by Obamacare . . . Well, let's just say the Pubbies' promises are the only game in town. That makes promises to repeal Obamacare and replace it with "something better" a win/win/win, whereas actually offering that "something better" has many ways to fail and/or to piss off voters.I believe the discussion was why are republicans NOT passing tweaks to improve the ACA, they claim to have ideas to fix healthcare yet they offer nothing. I'm sure most people would like a better plan than the ACA, where is the republican's plan and what is it?
Actually that isn't true. One could easily make the argument that having an armed populace allows that "well regulated militia" to be formed as needed. The Second Amendment does not state that one must be in a "well regulated militia" to gain the right to be armed, it merely states that a "well regulated militia" is necessary to the security of a free state.Does intent only matter when looking at the 2nd amendment? Because if we went off the words as written you would need to be in a "well regulated militia"
Promising to repeal Obamacare and replace it with "something better" is still very popular. When it stops being popular (read: useful), Republicans will either cast about for something actually better, or more likely just move on. In reality there is little will or ability to remove a freebie once it's ensconced, the people helped by Obamacare aren't particularly threatened by the prospect of "something better", and the people harmed by Obamacare . . . Well, let's just say the Pubbies' promises are the only game in town. That makes promises to repeal Obamacare and replace it with "something better" a win/win/win, whereas actually offering that "something better" has many ways to fail and/or to piss off voters.
Actually that isn't true. One could easily make the argument that having an armed populace allows that "well regulated militia" to be formed as needed. The Second Amendment does not state that one must be in a "well regulated militia" to gain the right to be armed, it merely states that a "well regulated militia" is necessary to the security of a free state.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No shit sherlock? Boy I would have never guessed. Point a gun at a citizen's head and saying "Pay up for health insurance or pay up in taxes" boy oh boy, I CANT BELIEVE THE UNINSURED RATE IS LESS!!! :awe:
Christ, this is the Special Olympics of not understanding logic.
Promising to repeal Obamacare and replace it with "something better" is still very popular. When it stops being popular (read: useful), Republicans will either cast about for something actually better, or more likely just move on. In reality there is little will or ability to remove a freebie once it's ensconced, the people helped by Obamacare aren't particularly threatened by the prospect of "something better", and the people harmed by Obamacare . . . Well, let's just say the Pubbies' promises are the only game in town. That makes promises to repeal Obamacare and replace it with "something better" a win/win/win, whereas actually offering that "something better" has many ways to fail and/or to piss off voters.
I wouldn't disagree that Scalia is a boob. He used to be one of my favorites, but it's like nowadays he doesn't even bother to come up with a rational explanation for his position. Even O'Conner could at least reference some foreign nation's laws to justify her position.Yeah, but the point is that that requires far more interpretation and parsing intent than the clause in the ACA requires, and Scalia is a boob.
I was thinking specifically of people whose premiums have gone significantly higher for the same or worse insurance.They can't just move on because there are still plenty of well funded right wing lawyers & hacks manipulating the media with some contrived lawsuit or another. The Party lost control of the message & now they get to wear it like an albatross around their necks.
I's not the only albatross, either.
People harmed by Obamacare? You mean people manipulated into thinking that they might have been, right?
Taxing someone a couple of hundred over the course of a year is not exactly a gun to the head. Are those fines/taxes even being issued at this time?
Sure is, & you win the Freedumb! Award.
Everybody pays when & what they can afford & everybody gets taken care of. People aren't flocking to the exchanges because there's a gun to their heads, but rather because it's a good deal they couldn't otherwise afford.
I believe 2014 was the first year of fines, so yes.
1% penalty for 2014 or flat rate of $95 per person, whichever is greater.
2% penalty for 2015 or flat rate of $325 per person, whichever is greater.
2.5% penalty for 2016 or flat rate of $695 per person, whichever is greater.
For some families, especially since it's per person - that is a RIDICULOUS climbing amount. We don't even know what 2017 will bring. But just look at how much it's climbing already.
No shit sherlock? Boy I would have never guessed. Point a gun at a citizen's head and saying "Pay up for health insurance or pay up in taxes" boy oh boy, I CANT BELIEVE THE UNINSURED RATE IS LESS!!! :awe:
Christ, this is the Special Olympics of not understanding logic.
Sure is, & you win the Freedumb! Award.
Everybody pays when & what they can afford & everybody gets taken care of. People aren't flocking to the exchanges because there's a gun to their heads, but rather because it's a good deal they couldn't otherwise afford.
Ahahaahahaha, right, and thats why they are flocking to the hospitals/doctors more than ever to USE their shit insurance too, right?
You're special.
wait.. who pays for these subsidies?
I thought it was from a surcharge on those that made $200k+?
if not..?
I wouldn't disagree that Scalia is a boob. He used to be one of my favorites, but it's like nowadays he doesn't even bother to come up with a rational explanation for his position. Even O'Conner could at least reference some foreign nation's laws to justify her position.
I was thinking specifically of people whose premiums have gone significantly higher for the same or worse insurance.
Not really. The architect of the plan is on tape expounding on just that specific issue - the intention was to put pressure on red states to set up exchanges. My point was that this clearly wasn't the intention of the Congresscritters who sponsored it and voted for it - some are in states that would not be expected to set up exchanges or expand Medicaid.
One issue with the ACA is people who jobs provide healthcare for them but not their spouse or children. Their spouse and children are disqualified from any subsidiary. So if their spouse or kids don't get insurance they have to pay a large fine. Regardless of how low income they are.
WOOT!
Now we're all set for Hillary to take over and give us a true government healthcare plan, or at least a true government option.
Obama started this, and soon Hillary can finish it the right way.
As for Scalia, he stepped all over his own previous statements with his little rant.
Scalia once said we must take a law as written in its entirety, not picked apart.
So now with this rant, Scalia believes just the opposite. Pick a law apart and ignore its meaning as an entirety.
In other words, Scalia a moron.
I'd like to see a high court decision over THAT.
God forbid SS marriage should be legalized nation wide and then Scalia should marry Thomas.
Can you imagine the couple next door as Scalia and Thomas?
Don't tell me anyone would want neighbors like that?
The cops would be called in every night for some domestic cat fight.
And there goes the neighborhood....
I think it's all too clear now what is wrong with the US Supreme Court.
Scalia and Thomas.
A screwed up bigot stuck in the 1950's, and a sex fiend, both sitting on the high court.
THAT, my friends, is what is truly wrong with America today.
Two sour apples sitting on the high court that should in no way have ever been allowed to do so.
One issue with the ACA is people who jobs provide healthcare for them but not their spouse or children. Their spouse and children are disqualified from any subsidiary. So if their spouse or kids don't get insurance they have to pay a large fine. Regardless of how low income they are.
Scalia is *not* a moron. He's an ideologue, a true believer in the divine right of Capital, an elitist, & all that it entails.