I don't support what the Republicans did. They had plenty of chances to avoid this bad law (IMO), and failed every time. Shutting down the government over this is just dumb, IMO. But didn't the Dems use the "nuclear option" in the Senate to pass this? I seem to recall the Dems were wildly against reconciliation when they thought Bush might try it.
So I actually accept the law, not that I like it. And I'll wait and see what happens.
I don't support what the Republicans are doing either. I think should let the Dems take full control of this train and stop trying to delay the inevitable crash. They've made their point so they won't be blamed for the economic carnage. Joe Average needs to start feeling the effects of the ACA as soon as possible... pay the fines or pay the high premiums with crappier coverage. Then before the 2014 election they can run commercials of Obama's own words "You can keep your doctor/policy PERIOD... the average family will save $2500... and the ACA will help the economy". By the time the 2014 election rolls around, most people should know what this new law tastes like.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Metrics: only 15 % of the masses USA have any need for the free medical insurance paid for by sheeple USA. This is why support is weak ....duhhhhh. Watch the numbers as masses state by state come in......so far CT 1% and NV 3%........rack' um up when we see the numbers by state of those states that have elected to permit the rape of the youth to pay for freeloaders. BTW it will be the rustbelt with high takers I will bet. Metrics verified work.
pineinthegrass wrote: Again, you are just an insulter with no facts.
I don't support what the Republicans did. They had plenty of chances to avoid this bad law (IMO), and failed every time. Shutting down the government over this is just dumb, IMO. But didn't the Dems use the "nuclear option" in the Senate to pass this? I seem to recall the Dems were wildly against reconciliation when they thought Bush might try it.
So I actually accept the law, not that I like it. And I'll wait and see what happens.
I realize how narcissistic 'baggers are by nature...It's always how it affects YOU, or what YOU saw, or heard... But for the record, every comment made with the word "you" in it does not necessarily point to YOUR personally... Nor do I care if you take it as such. That just tells me your get irritated when comments about teabots and baggers are made because you are more into their warped sociiopathic views than not.
"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
Spoken like a true lemming....with a suicide-vest....
One has to ask why are the teabaggers so terrified that 30 million are now eligible to get what THEY'VE got? What are you offering as an alternative?...NOTHING.... What the teaggers are most afraid of is that A) the poor and people-without will GET IT; They will LIKE IT. We sure as hell know that it isn't because of some altrustic reasons. Baggers have only one motivation: "I've got mine...Sorry you don't...Screw you."
You may return to your copy-and-paste onslaught of lies and talking points from the Koch Brothers, Club For Growth, Grover Norquist, and whatever other source makes you feel superior -- and STILL doesn't stop it from being implemented....
Of course, the Republicans don't know what they will get, they are still negotiating. If they knew what they were getting, negotiations would be complete.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
LadyJazzer wrote: One has to ask why are the teabaggers so terrified that 30 million are now eligible to get what THEY'VE got? What are you offering as an alternative?...NOTHING....
BTW, I don't like the Republican plan either, but there is one.
Now you can go back to your calling everyone who dares disagree with you "teabaggers". Yeah, that's some great debating skills you have there. One lazy ass, insulting LJ reply to fit every subject.
"News coverage of the rollout of the Obamacare exchanges was dominated by technical issues that were embarrassing to the administration. As Steve wrote this morning, these are not mere glitches but reflect the hubris inherent in the idea that government can effectively run something as vast and diverse as America’s health care system.
But there is, in my view, an even more fundamental objection to government control over health care: anything run by the government inherently becomes political. The result is that the interests of politicians take precedence over everything else. For a case in point, see the United Kingdom. Over the last year or more, we have covered the unfolding scandal of Britain’s National Health Service, where appallingly bad care–not just inept, but callous–has led to many fatalities and has shaken Britons’ faith in the NHS.
Now, in a blockbuster news story, it has come out that the Labour government tried, with some success, to cover up the tragic failings of the NHS to serve its own political interests. The Telegraph has the story:
Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards. The dossier of emails, released under Freedom of Information, state that Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, was “furious” when “graphic details” of the care failings became public."...
They will LIKE IT. We sure as hell know that it isn't because of some altrustic reasons. Baggers have only one motivation: "I've got mine...Sorry you don't...Screw you."
