Obamacare sticker shock

I know, I know, I am so worried that with this forced wealth reallocation, that the country will fair poorly. Remember the ACA is the first in many such programs that will be lobbied for and thrust upon you. You will likely ask for them too. The AFA, ATA, AYA and ABA etc. They are all coming. The will all be called affordable and none will be. They are all based on one prime concept, that the group of people you elect know how to spend your money better than you, for the good of all. Don't forget that all effort and failure up until today was to make the next step, the ACA, work.

I am not worried though, I am not poor or middle class financially, they are the ones that will pay for this, not me, I was just wasting my time caring. I am just about done earning money, those that will pay for this are those that still have to go out and earn....forever...you know, the little kids and the current poor or middle (ha) class, those that make their income hour by hour.

archer wrote:

on that note wrote: if it was gonna be cheaper, we would not be forcing each other to buy it.

Oh and you wanted single payer, you did not compromise, you delayed it longer than you will live.

Unlike some of my conservative friends, it's not all about me. It's about this country's future.

lol
That is rich! Have your medical covered and add massive amounts of more debt to the budget. And how is that supposed to be good for America's future?

archer wrote: Fred...there is no "control" of the senate when Republicans can filibuster, I'm surprised you dont know that. The Democrats needed some Republican votes and with compromise they got them. But compromise made many democrats unhappy.....the objections to the ACA are pretty evenly divided between those who think it does too much and those who think it doesn't go far enough. Thats a good definition of a bi-partisan bill, each side gave up something to get it done. But that is never enough for Republicans. If they dont get their way they threaten snd bully till everyone is hurt.

Bovine Scat. Not one single Republican voted in favor of the ACA in the Senate or the House. The only thing bipartisan was the opposition to the bill - 34 Democrats in the House voted against it. And at the time, the Democrats did enjoy a 3/5 majority in the Senate. 58 Democrats and two supposed independents who were caucusing with them makes 60 votes and it took all of them to prevent a filibuster.

The Democrats in Massachusetts even changed their law on vacant seats in the Senate specifically to preserve that necessary 3/5 majority. The Democrat Senator hand picked by the Democrat Governor of Massachusetts voted with his party and against the will of those he was there to represent as demonstrated by the resounding defeat of the Democrat, who had been leading in the polls up to that point mind you, when the election to fill the vacant seat was held shortly after the Senate defied the will of the people in the dead of night to pass the bill rather than waiting for the citizens of Massachusetts to elect someone to fill the vacant seat.

The Democrats are now reaping what their tactics sowed 3 years ago. The defied the people and the people elected representatives to defy the results of their shenanigans.

PrintSmith wrote: Bovine Scat. Not one single Republican voted in favor of the ACA in the Senate or the House.
The Democrats are now reaping what their tactics sowed 3 years ago.

The defied the people and the people elected representatives to defy the results of their shenanigans.

Joseph Cao, R, LA, voted for the original ACA bill out of the house then did not for the senate version, so technically you are correct, The people elected the very same president 3 years later and defied the party that was trying to dismantle the bill, AND they replaced many of the Republicans who were against Obama's policies.....recent polls show many more Republican house seats being threatened in this next mid term election, perhaps as many as 17 which would equalize the house, So go dine on that bovine scat you seem so fond of.

Pelosi and company also said that they had a very good chance of taking back the House at this juncture two years ago and we see how well that worked out for them, don't we.

None of which changes the fact that the majority of the citizens of the States have never supported this (un)Affordable Care Act. Not when it was proposed, not while it was being debated, not after it was passed, not after it was signed into law, not after it was ruled unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause and constitutional under the taxing power (but it's not a tax, right?) and not as the Union prepares to be subjugated to the will of a single political party.

Tell me PS, since the majority of the American people favor increased background checks for gun ownership would you be OK with the Democrats in the Senate refusing to bring up a bill to fund the government till increased background checks are attached to it?

Although the question is directed at PS, my response is "go for it." Show the American people you don't trust them. Evie Hudak will face a recall in a couple months and will have to answer to both law abiding gun owners and people that see her texting during a rape case testimony.

HEARTLESS wrote: Although the question is directed at PS, my response is "go for it." Show the American people you don't trust them. Evie will face a recall in a couple months and will have to answer to both law abiding gun owners and people that see her texting during a rape case testimony.

Apparently she went to John McCain's seminar on what to do when you need to keep awake while on official business. She was there officially wasn't she?

Nice deflection though, very clever.

You brought up the subject of gun control as a threat to pass something and I brought up a local pompous a-hole that will face a recall because of their actions. The only deflection is you bringing up Mc Cain. Maybe you should push for a Mc Cain recall.

For those interested, watch the Brian Maass CBS channel 4 expose on this.