Owning it
Charles Cooke of NRO talks of the partisan nature of ACA, comparing it to prohibition, which was passed on a bi-partisan basis. I have always thought that Obama, knowing he was a piker, was smart to let Pelosi and Reid handle the details. But it is passing strange that two such experienced players would not understand the gravity of passing such a bill without bi-partisan support. Peggy Noonan of WSJ said it very well yesterday:
The new president—and this was a key historic moment—decided not to act on the accumulated presidential wisdom of the ages, which is: Get the other party in on all big things. Give them a stake in it, use them for cover, show you have bipartisan juice, that you are truly national and not only the leader of one party, show you can wield your mighty power across the aisles. Get them bragging they passed it, with your leadership. Make them co-own it so that when certain parts don’t work, and certain parts won’t, they have deep motives to help you fix it.
Instead, a perfect storm of misjudgment, immaturity and lack of historical perspective, and a perfect storm of shortsighted selfishness (it’s all ours, it’s not even a little bit yours) brought forth a perfect storm of a health-care disaster.
It's beginning to seem much more likely that ACA will be repealed.
82 comments:
Laundreau's(D) plan is a poison pill.
That's why the D's like it. It's political cover and little else. It maintains all of the ACA.
Making Lemonade out of Lemons!
There is money to be made going after the bastards!
On Friday, the House of Representatives approved legislation sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) that would allow insurers to continue to offer policies on the individual market. The vote was 261-157. Thirty-nine Democrats voted for the Upton Amendment, which is an indication the Democrat united front on Obamacare is cracking.
ObamaCare largely eliminates the individual market and forces those policy holders into the health exchanges. On Thursday, Obama proposed extending the individual market for one year. The Upton bill would not only let existing policies continue, but insurers could sell individual policies to new customers. The White House has vowed to veto Upton's bill if it reaches the President's desk.
The president is a authoritarian prick.
The Upton Amendment is the real deal. The Landreau(D) faux bandaid is more democrat bullshit.
(an)
I would feel sorry for any other group that acted so foolishly, but not these current Dems who were warned over and over for years for which they returned the favor with the most disgusting charges of racism, selfishness, greed uncaring, and every other insult they could dig up. They deserve to have this bury them, and they burnt every bridge on the way into shitville. The hubris, arrogance, dishonesty, and raw partisanship can never be adequately repaid, but I'm loving what they are getting, because they insisted on keeping it all to themselves. Now choke on it.
Does Peggy Noonan still believe Obama gives a rats ass about the "accumulated wisdom of the ages"?
Pogo said:
"I don't care how much she criticizes Obama, I'll never read her again because she is so stupid she voted for Obama. "
I am in the same camp- I get the WSJ only on Saturdays and I pass right over nitwit Peggy's OPED.
Republicans need to stand back and watch. The ACA has become toxic, and Dems are fleeing from it.
Upton's bill would leave several massive problems unsolved:
The ACA requires that insurance policies include a lot of benefits that weren't previously included. This prevents consumers from being able to go back to what they had. Those policies have gone pffft.
Every state has an Insurance Commissioner and many laws regarding insurance. New policies and the related actuarial data have to be submitted for review months before they can be taken to market. And it takes months the prepares the actuarial calculations and policies, etc. In short, the old policies would take six months or longer to be re-created, priced, reviewed, approved and brought to market.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans have been told that their policies will expire 1 January, and have no ability to shop a competitive market for the equivalent of their old plans.
They, and we, are fucked.
Only full repeal will work, and before that can come about, there needs to be enough time for insurance companies to create new plans.
I'll say it again that I admire what Cruz did. I was disappointed to see all the GOP elites and comfortable right wing pundits calling for decorum, and quiet, and cowardly safe positioning in the face of an impending disaster on the American people. If your intended path to leadership is hiding and waiting for the enemy hurt people so bad they will see you as preferable, then you are not a leader, but just a gambler, and a cowardly one at that.
The democrats are assholes.
They want the ACA. They don't give a rip about people losing private health insurance that they like and paid for themselves.
The dems want to destroy the entire private market. oooo but now only after the 2014 midterms.
Check out this:
"Our straightforward, one-page bill says, if you like your current coverage, you should be able to keep it. The president should heed his own advice and work with us, the Congress, as the founders intended, not around the legislative process."
But Democrats said the measure was just another in a long line of attacks on the health care bill from Republicans who have voted repeatedly to repeal it.
"It would take away the core protections of that law. It creates an entire submarket of substandard health care plans," said Rep. Henry Waxman of California.
Substandard says who, asshole?
F you, you leftwing authoritarian fascist. Henry Waxman.
A bill that keeps Obama's promise "If you like your health care you and cheep it. Period."
causes democrats to bust a vein.
The democrats only want political cover. They want the ACA to cluster-FK our freedom. They are discouraged that they are reaping what they sew. And so they roll out more lies. The democrats are assholes.
The Republicans need to offer up a clear and complete set of market reforms that would replace Obamacare and address the problems it pretended to. People need to see there is s real alternative. Most won't abandon even bad leadership unless there is somewhere else to go. If you want people to jump off the boat, you need to point to the liferaft.
Repealing is the only solution. The law is too broken to fix piecemeal. The utter chaos in people's lives, the economic destruction, loss of jobs and crushing of private industry is not going to be fixed for many MANY years. Repealing and taking away the massive uncertainty would help. Just allowing it to continue to be cobbled together and allowing the President to break the law daily is only going to create more chaos and further throw us into a lawless situation.
Of course....I think that IS what Obama wants.
At this point, the R's need to continue to keep the Dems on record as supporting the ACA.
Unaffordable Corrupt Accounting.
The only fix for the ACA is a total collapse and then a total repeal. No way the demos will ever let that happen. The left's quest for the ultimate health care entitlement welfare state will never die.
The government shutdown gave Obama such a delicious opportunity to do what he does best, he went all out, attacking republicans. He didn't hold back.
Check this video from October 1st 2013, when Obama was walking on water... or at least the coalition of the willing enablers made him feel like was walking on water.
I doubt they have forgotten all that scolding. I sure haven't.
More scolding... I'm playing these just in case some people on our side have forgotten how we got here.
Lem-
The only area where Obama excels--Tearing down his political enemies. (and wrecking the nation in the process) but oh his ego is so important..
Bagoh- The Republicans need to offer up a clear and complete set of market reforms that would replace Obamacare and address the problems it pretended to.
Agreed. Not that the dems or the media would ever give the R's a fair shake.
I am convinced Obama resents Americans who have taken responsibility for getting their own health insurance. He does not understand the basic nature of insurance and why some people buy it and others don't.
He wants every single one of us to have the exact same coverage BUT he only wants the middle and upper income among us to pay WAY MORE for it.
Fuck them all. They should all be trotted out on the steps of the capital and hung, then shot, then burned, starting with you know who.
"starting with you know who."
Joe Biden?
We are trillions of dollars in debt so the only plan anyone should introduce would be one to eliminate government interference in the private insurance market and to reduce the size of the federal government by about 75%.
Anything else is just shuffling the deck chairs on Chick's favorite cruise ship.
Oprah says you're racist. Yea, that's the ticket.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/15/oprah-many-americans-hate-obama-because-hes-black/
The race card is the last refuge of a Democrat scoundrel.
But I repeat myself.
"He wants every single one of us to have the exact same coverage BUT he only wants the middle and upper income among us to pay WAY MORE for it."
Democrats are like the medieval lords, playing the top and bottom of society against the middle.
They want us all to be serfs.
Okay, I'll try to avoid using Noonan. Yes, she did vote Obama. Refresh my memory, who else did? I can only think of Chris Buckley now. Dear George Will didn't, did he? Probably Douthat and definitely David Brooks.
I bet Chris Wallace, Shepherd Smith and Megan Kelly voted for Obama.
O-care provides something it calls a "risk corridor", which is more like a NO-risk corridor that will "reimburse" insurers who underestimate projected rates for people going onto the exchanges --- all coming from more taxpayer dough, of course. It's a built-in bail-out for the insurance companies, as well as a perverse incentive for the insurers to make the rates look more reasonable than they will turn out to be, especially as there is no cap on this type of reimbursement. It looks like Obama is now planning to (illegally, surprise) extend the risk corridor to cover the insurers who would lose money (which is all of them) for going along with his latest "fix".
However, Rubio just announced that he is introducing legislation to repeal the provision in O-care that authorizes the risk corridor. Yeah, full repeal is what's needed, but I don't think they have the votes yet to get an override, so just keep hitting them, airing these little- known disgusting provisions, and let the Donks go on record FOR yet another Big Business bail-out.
Sorry, deborah. Great post, but...
It's become too maddening to me that Noonan and McArdle, Buckley and Brooks, and probably the vast majority of news media types voted for Obama, and now they're trying to tell me what a clusterfuck we're getting and I'm all...
No shit, Sherlocks!, figured that one out in goddamned 2007. Thanks for the razor sharp criticism of the guy you voted for and we warned you about.
Peggy especially. Former Reagan speechwriter. Wrote several books on the man. Then promptly orgasms for Obama.
Shit.
I wouldn't trust her now to wash my car or count to 5.
Washington needs a gargantuan enema.
Basta- thanks interesting.
Oh no, not my Megan Kelly. She would never.
Turns out it was a big fucking deal, after all, and the Demos are the ones who end up getting screwed the most.
deborah said...
I have always thought that Obama, knowing he was a piker, was smart to let Pelosi and Reid handle the details.
No, Choom is just plain bored by stuff that requires thought and work. Hearts, bad golf, and worse hoops are all that really interest him.
But it is passing strange that two such experienced players would not understand the gravity of passing such a bill without bi-partisan support.
Dingy Harry and Pelosi Galore are apparachiks. They don't really know how to do much except run their little fiefdoms; the idea you let the other side have a little credit so the thing will work is anathema to them.
We are EEEEEEEEvil in their eyes.
Same applies to Choom.
They thought this would be the next Medicare or Social Security and when have Democrats shared credit for those, even though SS especially (Rs were evenly split on Medicare) had broad support.
Okay, I'll try to avoid using Noonan. Yes, she did vote Obama. Refresh my memory, who else did? I can only think of Chris Buckley now. Dear George Will didn't, did he? Probably Douthat and definitely David Brooks.
Don't forget Kathleen Parker.
But I seriously doubt Megyn Kelly did.
No prob, Pogo, I wasn't offended. I recall being totally disgusted in the early days of the administration. She'd dinged him over something or other, then a couple weeks later she wrote along the lines of 'he has donned the mantle of authority.'
Megyn Kelly last night:
"the law requires the pregnant woman look at the picture of the fetus er the baby er whatever before she gets the abortion".
[note I am paraphrasing what she said but I think I captured the general tone].
Greta Van Susterin voted for him too I bet.
I'm pretty ashamed that I'm a lifelong registered Democrat, BUT the fact that I haven't voted for one since Carter has just become one of the greatest accomplishment of my life. I'm really quite proud of it, especially today. What's the best bumper sticker out there to express my pride?
bagoh20 said...
The Republicans need to offer up a clear and complete set of market reforms that would replace Obamacare and address the problems it pretended to.
HELLO!
A plan ( H.R. 3319) first proposed in 2004. By John Kerry, no less. Does not make all other existing plans illegal, aloows them in fact, and just provides a central site to acquire a plan if you chose or an employer choses. Covers all 50 states. No prior condition exclusions. It is exactly what Congress has had up to now. Uses an existing system that has worked for 50+ years now. No new senior bureaucracy is required, no new contracting offices, just some additional mid-level GS-grade clerks to handle increased volume....and likely a few more servers on the existing server farm.
Only additional issue would be some form of means testing, which could also apply to current plan holders as well. That might add 2 pages to the current six pages. SIX PAGES because it is already an existing entity and operating successfully for 50 + years.
Problem #1: It is being slammed by progressives and the main stream media is ignoring it, as well as the Republican Party per se. They are dumb fuckers because the plan could replace the PPACA entirely with one short paragraph added to maybe a page 8.
Problem #2: It does NOT add any additional political power infrastructure or require any serious new regulations. Progressives therefore hate it....they passed on it when Kerry proposed it in 2004...the only good idea he ever had.
It would be so much easier to just make health care illegal. Especially for poor people.
What's the best bumper sticker out there to express my pride?
One that says "HYPOCRITE".
R & B ... it would be so much easier to not keep trying to re-invent the wheel of health care when a working model already exists and has existed for over five decades. Wonder why no one but John Kerry thought of that between 2004 and 2010?
Former Reagan speechwriter. Wrote several books on the man. Then promptly orgasms for Obama.
I see those impulses as related. But you don't because your orgasms for Reagan were for him alone.
R & B...pot calling kettle much? And mistakenly at that given who you aimed that at.
Rhythm and Balls said...
It would be so much easier to just make health care illegal. Especially for poor people.
I think that's what Zeke Emanuel wanted.
Certainly Pelosi Galore, Dingy Harry, and the Choom Gang accomplished that.
The ACA was conservative in that it wasn't single-payer, or Medicare for All, or whatever. Check out the origins and history of the individual mandate. And it seems everyone agrees on (or at least has problems voicing disagreement for) no prior exclusions. Maybe even no lifetime caps.
But the latter two are what would raise costs in the first place. If the Republicans (or anyone, really) want to address changing plans, esp on the basis of, as I currently gather, cost concerns, then they need to find a way to offset what connects those things to the two latter, very favorable advances. Individual mandate is one (which they oppose(d)). Subsidies another (and I'm assuming they're not too fond of that).
So at the end of the day you're left with these nitty gritty details for anyone who wants to improve it or replace with something better, while at least not throwing away the best parts.
Personally I think better enrollment would do a lot, but that's probably going to take another year to see, or two, as insurers probably like to see consistent trends instead of just jumping on one year's trend.
You mean the hypocrite comment? I'm just having trouble understanding why Bag keeps talking about being a Democrat despite the last one he voted for being Carter. It's a weird thing for him to say he's proud of. But then, he's a bit of an odd guy.
Origins. lol. *burp*
R & B ... you are being disingenuous. Address what I proposed at 9:39 PM reference HR 3319. Give us the details why you believe it couldn't work?
All you are doing now is dancing around in the dark like most of the pundits and dimwitted Republicans with contorted rationalizations, yay or nay, for the PPACA.
Examine a real alternative, federally operated, but only for those who elect it, not mandatory for everyone. It doesn't need to be mandatory for all because it has already worked well for 50+ years. Means testing is the only issue to resolve. One page at most. 7 to 8 pages total, not 2500+.
Your argument please.
April changing the subject, as usual. Barf
More barf.
Please Ari. You're smart and honest enough to know I wouldn't back away from an anti-ideological plea for common sense compromise. (Or just plain common sense). But fair warning as my plate's a bit full tonight and this 11th hour revisitation of a Kerry proposal that I'd never heard about needs more discussion than what I can or don't have enough time to add right now. Is it the length of the ACA that's the issue? That length includes provisions so it makes sense to address those specifically, which we all can (or should) and are much more practiced at. But if those specifics include nationwide exchanges and is essentially the Congressional Health Care granted to everyone else, I've never had a problem with that. One of the Demos' rhetorical bombs was taunting the opposition to let the people have their congressional health care, and I was always fine with that as a possibility anyway.
Do you even read your own links?
"If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional."
R & B ...well good for you on what it takes to be a Democrat. Is it like a sorority? The party leadership has a litmus test for those of us who lean Democratic but vote with our brains not our asses? Tell me about it and how this is all determined?
I was a registered Democrat until 2004, but the last Democrat I voted for President was Clinton. In all those years I never voted a straight ticket, ever from local to national. I voted for John Conyers when he was my Representative, at the same time voted for Bush 43, and don't regret it...even though we differ on almost everything...but he was and is a good representative for his constituents, black, white or brown.
So go ahead , tell us what it takes to be a Democrat these days?
I read much more than the number of straws you can grasp at, April. Reversing course and endless parsing doesn't exempt Heritage from coming up with their own idea.
@Ari - what Ritmo is saying is "I got nothing."
R & B....sorry that's bullshit. HR 3319 is 6 pages long. With at most two added pages to set the PPACA aside and define means testing.
It is "the provisions" of the PPACA that are both unnecessary and ill planned...and mainly the whole mess was dreamed up to create another power center. No need for it except that.
If you never heard about Kerry's proposal in 2004, then you have read little I've written here or elsewhere on the subject for the past year. It is not exactly an unheard of concept, now or previously.
Michael...maybe so, but I'm trying to draw out a discussion vis a vis alternatives. If there's nothing, then so be it.
I was just going to say - stacked - how many pages is the ACA?
Zero input from Republicans. But hey- it's the Heritage Foundation's fault.
I have no idea what it "takes" to be a Democrat Ari and don't much care either as factional impurity is something they seemed to grasp the importance of long before Dick Armey funded and founded the intentionally leaderless (so as to be just as amorphous) Tea Party. They seem to be in expansion mode anyway so I think just making sure that you don't favor low taxes on billionaires at the expense of tens of millions at risk for bankruptcy or dying from denied coverage is really the only big criterion. You know: Basic human decency.
That said, that's not what I criticized Baggie for. (Actually it wasn't so much a criticism as an answer for how his so-called "pride" is best defined). He wants recognition for having been a Democrat, despite voting for worse ones than you did (Carter is worse than Clinton). That's a dissonant thing to be proud of. So if he's being humorous, then take my answer just as humorously.
But the fact remains that he does oppose the core human decency, rationalism and tolerance that matters here. He does think that the government needs to pay more attention to plutocrats than to the common man so I think that's where he parts ways with both me, Obama, and the majority who oppose that sense of prioritization.
MIchael, I'd never read it before. No need for you to be rude. (Unless that's all you've got). But I don't like being spoken for, and I'm supposing that you might not either. So unless squelching conversation is your aim, you might attempt to chill something else.
Ari, as I said, if it's granting congressional health care to all, I'm fine with it. I don't give a damn about the size of a bill one way or another. Reading things doesn't scare me and short documents are fine if the substance is there. Kerry has a way of making even the shortest statements more abstruse than anything imaginable, anyway.
R & B ...let me clarify and be succinct:
There never was a need for the PPACA. A much less convoluted alternative already existed, was proof tested, and the Democrats knew it. Yeah, "length" has something to do with it...6 pages versus 2500+. Hello?
A much less convoluted alternative already existed…
Which (said alternative) garnered just as much opposition as the ACA. Hello? Bueller?
Your only clarification is to ignore the entire politics of this. They opposed everything! Their goal was to do nothing.
That they (or you, or some obscure plains state R) now backtrack and say the Kerry act is a fine alternative, if anything, would seem to suggest that the passage and constitutional approval of the ACA has moved the political momentum to the side of those who would take any health insurance reform seriously, as NO Republican in 2009 did!
Your only contribution here is timing. Late timing.
R & B said ...
... fact remains that he does oppose the core human decency, rationalism and tolerance that matters here.
I think you have read little of Bogoh20's philosophy which he was repeatedly provided here on this site and previously on TOP. I'd work for the mother fucker for free just to help foster his ideals (yes I am familiar with CAD/CAM, etc.) however I am not moving to California so I guess that makes my offer just rhetorical.
On the other hand, I retired from military and federal service years ago and I STILL provide FREE direct consultation support to those I know who appreciate it (yes, in defiance of the
Anti-Deficiency Act that stipulates one cannot work for free). Last comprehensive analysis for response to a negative finding (by dipshits ignorant of CAD) that I provided was last week. For free. It is a matter of principle. I was offered 5 contracts for $100 per hour for full time and turned them all down..."free" was better and there were no "strings." It was had for them to grasp that I retired for a reason...I was sick of the shit. I was paid well for decades, I owe it in my opinion....and ever ever since August 1968 when I enlisted. I came home alive, and for that I owe forever.
Some of us do things just because. Period.
R & B said ...
Which (said alternative) garnered just as much opposition as the ACA. Hello? Bueller?
Link please. The opposition was scant compared to the PPACA. Show me where I am wrong. BTW...the current sponsor is Darrel Issa (R).
"Late" resurrection of a good idea is better than what we have (not very late since I've advocated it long before Issa wrote it up...if you read here and at TOP you'd know that)...unless you can tell me how it is working well and will work well in the future.
Now if you would just address the Provisions of HR 3319 with some thought. I will listen.
Jesus, the impossibly stupid and corrupt Ritmo shows up to make an absolute ass out of himself by crowing about his bleeding fucking heart.
Hilarious!
Another simpering idiot taken in by the Dems' attempt to acquire a shitload of graft.
Ritmo, you are the most comprehensively stupid, chattering idiot in America.
Rid yourself of the notion that you operate on anything but the most vile, ugly motives, and you will start to acquire a modicum of self-knowledge.
I think if you believe helping people is important, you don't denigrate the source of that help (whether it's the government, handing out a sandwich, the Salvation Army, the devil, what have you).
The only reason I can think of for resenting any of these other entities helping someone in need is if someone needs to promote and advertise his own charity narcissistically - as if it should be seen as the most important source.
Of course you've never behaved narcissistically, so I'm not including you in the types of people who might fit this picture.
But the fact remains that he does oppose the core human decency, rationalism and tolerance that matters here.
God alone know how a piece of shit like Ritmo would know anything about "human decency, rationalism and tolerance."
The little turd gets all sanctimonious! Load of laughs!
Rid yourself of the notion that you operate on anything but the most vile, ugly motives, and you will start to acquire a modicum of self-knowledge.
Speak for yourself.
Ari - your friend here is polluting the thread. Can we go to Evi's or something to has this out? The vile one (quoted above) is against discussing anything that would benefit anyone other than himself, and uses so many exclusive obscenities in advertising that fact that it's depressing to discuss in his presence. He's just a depressing, miserable man who derails any conversation that isn't about himself, his own shallow interests and entertainment.
It's a distraction to discuss policies when constantly interrupted by a fuck who can't understand them - and whose only priority is himself. My merely being here excites that lunatic in a way that goes beyond anything I'd care to have anything to do with.
If I had a dog that was so ugly it required having its ass shaved and walking it backwards, I'd name it "Shouting Thomas".
You dumb fuck, Ritmo.
Last night you really laid out your nightmarish stupidity in its full flower.
You want the Republicans to issue a "big, juicy policy."
There it is idiot. The utter stupidity, the profoundly utter stupidity that renders you incoherent and vile.
Your ideals are vile and stupid. Flattering yourself with vile and stupid ideals makes you a little monster.
Whenever Shouting Thomas barges in on my conversations I feel the way Jodie Foster's character in Silence of the Lambs must have felt when walking by the jail cell of sociopathic inmate Multiple Miggs.
Your vocabulary is impressive, Miggs. You must have gotten a 400 on your SAT or something.
When Thomas looks at his computer screen, his mind sees steel bars, scarring that view of the outside world.
Good, Ritmo.
This is all you are good for.
I reserve my most profound contempt for the fools who really deserve it.
Good night, fool. Blubber away!
I certainly have nowhere near the amount of inarticulate, resentful rage to inflict on others that you do.
Oh, like George Costanza, Thomas (Miggs) blew his load with a string of comments consisting of 50% expletives, and is now done for the night.
It's the high point of his performance.
And the high point of his existence.
Rhythm and Balls said...
The ACA was conservative in that it wasn't single-payer, or Medicare for All, or whatever. Check out the origins and history of the individual mandate
Oh, so Ritmo is the arbiter of what's Conservative? And because it isn't total regimentation that makes it Conservative?
That's rich.
And because the Heritage Foundation came up with something Pelosi Galore said was the individual mandate, that makes ChoomCare Conservative?
Even better.
Ritmo needs to hope people don't backtrack on his propaganda.
Keep in mind that the last politician who ignited this much excitement in Multiple Miggs Thomas was Donald Trump!
That should tell you something about what he knows of politics, life, basic decency or common sense. ;-)
You know, with all the good minds here, even the liberals (I'd hope), we should be able to have better conversations. What we seem to get is "feinting."
Yeah, I am familiar with both epee' and sabre' duels, as well as Taekwondo. A duel of only feints is most unsatisfying. I've had my as kicked by some of the best in fencing and karate, and one thing is certain... I learned something each time...and the next opponent paid for it :-)
I finally decided that a cavalry sabre' would be best when mounted on a stout horse and Karate best when backed up by a .45 ACP pistol. I got some jollies slicing watermelons and pumpkins in half at a gallop...beats shit out of dueling mats. BTW...the .45 ACP is a godly caliber...and we're not going to talk about how I know that.
Either all this or I am just a selfish little shit. Whatever.
Cognac now starting to take effect :-)
Ari - I'm fine with answering everything you've asked of me tonight.
But I didn't ask for Multiple Miggs Thomas to show up with his distracting fury. You have to wonder at some point what it is about a simple, constructive dialogue that enrages his little pea brain.
But the point is, everyone has their limits. I'll have even keep up a polite conversation with a woman in a check-out aisle even if her kid is throwing a tantrum. But when the tantrum-throwing kid turns and bites my shins and vomits on my shoes, it really is getting a bit late for me to continue carrying on as before.
I wonder how Obama is going to sell the fact that he is telling people not to obey the law. Why would the insurance companies agree to do this?
What gives a President the right to change a law without going to Congress?
What if people sue? In a class action against the actions of the government.
What happens if those 5 million people who lost their insurance can't get replacements because the website doesn't work and the insurance companies have not offered the same or comparable policies at the same price they can afford?
If the ACA is a tax as the Supreme Courts ruled how can the President refuse to collect the tax from some of the people but not all of the people?
It's like he wants to corrupt the IRS or something....errr....nevermind.
Now I think I understand why we never saw Obama's college transcripts. There were probably a few classes in Constitutional Law and obviously the Choom gang was using that time for its club meetings.
Trooper York said ...
What gives a President the right to change a law without going to Congress?
Simple. The fact that no one will enforce the law against him.
What if people sue?
Again, no court will entertain it, and if one does and rules, no one will enforce it. See prior point.
This administration has effectively replaced the rule of law with rule by edict. Only thin missing is a Crown or Party Secretariat.
The ObamaCare plan is to partially fund new costs by taking $750 million away form Medicare, even though its recipients paid premiums for many years before being old enough to use Medicare. The $750 million was supposedly coming from magical increases in efficiency. Or something.
here is the predictable result. Insurance companies dropping doctors because there is not enough money in Medicare to pay them.
Post a Comment