ACA (Obamacare) updates for 2014

archer wrote: So, RR you complain that I didn't give you "something", and complain that LJ did give you something. The point is that Obama isn't doing anything that previous presidents haven't done, yet y'all act like he has gone rogue. Nor is this the first time that a law has been implemented in stages....

Fred, how many Democrats screamed when Romney brought health care changes to Massachusetts?

Lady Jazzer gave sh*t. A bunch of intelligible sentences that trailed off in drool. Ha. And you didn't give anything. "Look it up, I just did, executive orders have been used often to effect changes to existing laws, they cannot be used to make new laws."

Prove it or put up. ("Put up?" that didn't make any sense?)

homeagain wrote: FEAR was rammed down the COLLECTIVES throats...WMD, but yet when WILSON questioned
that assertion and provided proof...guess what happened? His WIFE WAS OUTTED....come on
I can do tit for tat and it's bullsh**>>>>JMO......SOMEONE HAD THE BALLS to finally get her'
done and everyone bitches....welcome to the REAL world....news flash...ITS NOT PERFECT.JMO

THIS is my finally post on this subject....unless someone wants to discuss KP for their possible
elective choice.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that what Obama is doing is similar to what Romney wanted to do when he said the first thing he'd do is scrap Obamacare. I was never clear how he was supposed to be able to do that since it was already law, and the Dems were adamant that Romney would have no right to ignore the law.

But now I guess Romney could of just kept delaying the employer and individual mandates like Obama is doing for employers and the Dems would of been fine with that. Yeah right.

So what's to stop a president from unilaterally fixing Medicare and Social Security? Would it be alright for a Dem president to double payroll taxes without a vote of Congress (well he already did that for Medicare to fund Obamacare, but that had a vote of Congress) or a Repub president to raise the retirement age to 70? Would everyone be fine with that? I don't think so. It seems pretty similar to me.

Reverend Revelant wrote:

archer wrote: So, RR you complain that I didn't give you "something", and complain that LJ did give you something. The point is that Obama isn't doing anything that previous presidents haven't done, yet y'all act like he has gone rogue. Nor is this the first time that a law has been implemented in stages....

Fred, how many Democrats screamed when Romney brought health care changes to Massachusetts?

Lady Jazzer gave sh*t. A bunch of intelligible sentences that trailed off in drool. Ha. And you didn't give anything. "Look it up, I just did, executive orders have been used often to effect changes to existing laws, they cannot be used to make new laws."

Prove it or put up. ("Put up?" that didn't make any sense?)

Google isn'tthat hard RR...... I would hand feed it to you when I get back to my computer, but by then you could have looked it up 6 times yourself. Have a good day, it's 75°, and I don't feel like humoring you. You sure get a kick out of playing dumb, or aren't you playin?

archer wrote:

Reverend Revelant wrote:

archer wrote: So, RR you complain that I didn't give you "something", and complain that LJ did give you something. The point is that Obama isn't doing anything that previous presidents haven't done, yet y'all act like he has gone rogue. Nor is this the first time that a law has been implemented in stages....

Fred, how many Democrats screamed when Romney brought health care changes to Massachusetts?

Lady Jazzer gave sh*t. A bunch of intelligible sentences that trailed off in drool. Ha. And you didn't give anything. "Look it up, I just did, executive orders have been used often to effect changes to existing laws, they cannot be used to make new laws."

Prove it or put up. ("Put up?" that didn't make any sense?)

Google isn'tthat hard RR...... I would hand feed it to you when I get back to my computer, but by then you could have looked it up 6 times yourself. Have a good day, it's 75°, andiI don't feel like humoring you. You sure get a kick out of playing dumb, or aren't you playin?

There's nothing humorous about making a statement and then you can't back it up. I think I remember you and LJ always complaining that Fred seldom supplies links.

I've supplied links and quotes since page one of this thread. You too good for that?

#ArcherFail

Awwwww, so I have to run home to give you a link to something you could easily look up yourself? What a diva you are, perhaps if you asked for the same from other posters I would take you seriously.

#doublestandard

#joiningfredonthedarkside

Not quoting anyone in particular, but I kinda get a kick out of this general attitude:

Well the health care system sucks in general, so lets try this or that, and give the "Federal" government command and control of pretty much 100% of it now. WTH lets give it a whirl and fix it as we go. LOL

No questions or analysis of whether "they" should have all this power or even do have the constitutional power to micro-regulate all healthcare. And stop using the word Insurance, its not relevant anymore.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-ho ... e-20140211

..."Ron Pollack, executive director of the consumer lobby Families USA and an ally of the White House, told The Washington Post he was "very surprised" by the latest delays. For workers at large companies that don't provide coverage, he said, "It's very unfortunate … that they don't have a guarantee it will be extended to them for quite some time."

Put me in the frustrated category. I want the ACA to work because I want health insurance provided to the millions without it, for both the moral and economic benefits. I want the ACA to work because, as Charles Lane wrote for The Washington Post, the link between work and insurance needs to be broken. I want the ACA to work because the GOP has not offered a serious alternative that can pass Congress.

Unfortunately, the president and his team are making their good intentions almost indefensible."

Can someone explain for me why it is a good thing to break the link between work and personal security for yourself and your family? That, to me, doesn't seem like it is a desirable outcome. What incentive is there to work and produce if your well being and that of your family isn't tethered to being productive? I mean, really, if you can obtain food, shelter, clothing and all the other necessities of life without working, why would you work?