quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
It required a waiver of the Medicaid rules. Maybe you should consult a dictionary. There was also a waiver of some Medicare advantage rules and some labor law stuff as well IIRC.

So, what's the dictionary for? The definition of "a bunch of," or the definition of "block grant?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
It required a waiver of the Medicaid rules. Maybe you should consult a dictionary. There was also a waiver of some Medicare advantage rules and some labor law stuff as well IIRC.

So, what's the dictionary for? The definition of "a bunch of," or the definition of "block grant?"

There is no law making Medicaid money a block grant! The W admin had to give Mass. a waiver to use that money in a different manner.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
It required a waiver of the Medicaid rules. Maybe you should consult a dictionary. There was also a waiver of some Medicare advantage rules and some labor law stuff as well IIRC.

So, what's the dictionary for? The definition of "a bunch of," or the definition of "block grant?"

There is no law making Medicaid money a block grant! The W admin had to give Mass. a waiver to use that money in a different manner.

Okay, we are not on the same page.

Bush gave Romney a waiver (which wasn't questioned by me) allowing MA to use Federal Medicaid funds in ways that other States were not allowed. That is, Bush allowed MA to use Federal Medicaid funds like a block grant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
It required a waiver of the Medicaid rules. Maybe you should consult a dictionary. There was also a waiver of some Medicare advantage rules and some labor law stuff as well IIRC.

So, what's the dictionary for? The definition of "a bunch of," or the definition of "block grant?"

There is no law making Medicaid money a block grant! The W admin had to give Mass. a waiver to use that money in a different manner.

Okay, we are not on the same page.
Bush gave Romney a waiver (which wasn't questioned by me) allowing MA to use Federal Medicaid funds in ways that other States were not allowed. That is, Bush allowed MA to use Federal Medicaid funds like a block grant.

So why did you try and contradict my statement in the first place?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Regarding what Romney signed:

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[22] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[23] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[24] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[25]



So, no massachusetts healthcare (which aca is (loosely) based on - has virtually nothing in common with what Romney signed.
Rather, massachusetts democrats used it as a stalking horse to replace it with the solution they provieded.

Romney signed:
Individual mandate
insurance exchanges
A ban on pre existing conditions
A ban on rescission for honest mistakes
And a bunch of other insurance regs that are in the ACA

IOW he signed a bill that is effectively the ACA despite your lies. That is why the lying sack of shit tried to pretend he had never been Governor of Mass. during last years campaign.

Are you done simply making shit up?

To recap:
It is a fact that Republicans proposed almost everything in the ACA, including all major provisions except for allowing children to stay on the parents insurance till age 26.
It is a fact that well after W was appointed President Republicans still embraced the plan and the Heritage Foundation was quite pleased when Mass. enacted the plan in 2003.
It is a fact that Republicans only changed their minds en masse on what would become the ACA when President Obama proposed actually passing such a law. Since it is odd that a plan backed by Republicans for over a decade and shown to be reasonably effective in Mass. would be rejected by the people who could reasonably take credit for it their must be some other reason for their sudden and completely explicable hatred of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Regarding what Romney signed:

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[22] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[23] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[24] The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.[25]



So, no massachusetts healthcare (which aca is (loosely) based on - has virtually nothing in common with what Romney signed.
Rather, massachusetts democrats used it as a stalking horse to replace it with the solution they provieded.

Romney signed:
Individual mandate
insurance exchanges
A ban on pre existing conditions
A ban on rescission for honest mistakes
And a bunch of other insurance regs that are in the ACA

IOW he signed a bill that is effectively the ACA despite your lies. That is why the lying sack of shit tried to pretend he had never been Governor of Mass. during last years campaign.

Are you done simply making shit up?

To recap:
It is a fact that Republicans proposed almost everything in the ACA, including all major provisions except for allowing children to stay on the parents insurance till age 26.
It is a fact that well after W was appointed President Republicans still embraced the plan and the Heritage Foundation was quite pleased when Mass. enacted the plan in 2003.
It is a fact that Republicans only changed their minds en masse on what would become the ACA when President Obama proposed actually passing such a law. Since it is odd that a plan backed by Republicans for over a decade and shown to be reasonably effective in Mass. would be rejected by the people who could reasonably take credit for it their must be some other reason for their sudden and completely explicable hatred of it.

Bullshit in its entirety.

As the Wiki said - whats in massachussets has NOTHING in common with what romney signed.

I've provided links by heritage, cato and other showing the evolution of their thinking on healthcare.
The original players trumps any thinkprogress disagree with your thinking entirely.

quote:


The sections Romney vetoed were dental coverage and an employer assessment if the employer did not provide a certain level of health insurance. He did sign every section I listed above.

The thinkprogress link that you tried to handwave includes the text of a Heritage Foundation press release congratulating itself on romneycare.

Are you ever going to give up trying to get away with simply making shit up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
yeah, you're not biased or anything.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
yeah, you're not biased or anything.....

Unlike you, I'm stating the FACTS as they are commonly known. The bill is called H.R. 3350, and everything within it at the time of the writing is true. Yes, I disagree with the bill on the grounds its just....ANOTHER....attempt by Republicans to undermine the ACA. It has nothing to do with 'doing what's right for America' and all to do with 'scoring political points'.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
yeah, you're not biased or anything.....

Unlike you, I'm stating the FACTS as they are commonly known. The bill is called H.R. 3350, and everything within it at the time of the writing is true. Yes, I disagree with the bill on the grounds its just....ANOTHER....attempt by Republicans to undermine the ACA. It has nothing to do with 'doing what's right for America' and all to do with 'scoring political points'.

Obviously, you meant is't an an attempt by Republicans and 20% of the House Democrats "to undermine the ACA."

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
yeah, you're not biased or anything.....

Unlike you, I'm stating the FACTS as they are commonly known. The bill is called H.R. 3350, and everything within it at the time of the writing is true. Yes, I disagree with the bill on the grounds its just....ANOTHER....attempt by Republicans to undermine the ACA. It has nothing to do with 'doing what's right for America' and all to do with 'scoring political points'./quote]
Obviously, you meant is't an an attempt by Republicans and 20% of the House Democrats "to undermine the ACA."

Those Democrats are playing politics by showing their more conservative voting constituents they 'hear their voices' and 'doing something about it'. Playing to the crowd essentially. Since its 39 Democrats, its 19.5%, not 20% DS. Its all just a game, since those House Democrats know the bill will not go anywhere just like the 43 failed attempts to defund the Affordable Care Act.

Still a sizable slice, no?

Are you saying that the 39 Democrats that voted in favor of HR3350 were playing political games, and weren't voting as representing their District? If you are (and it sure sounds like it to me), are you okay with that?


_____________________________

What I support:

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

(in reply to joether)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Bullshit in its entirety.

As the Wiki said - whats in massachussets has NOTHING in common with what romney signed.

quote:

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[22] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[23] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Are you saying that the 39 Democrats that voted in favor of HR3350 were playing political games, and weren't voting as representing their District? If you are (and it sure sounds like it to me), are you okay with that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Bullshit in its entirety.

As the Wiki said - whats in massachussets has NOTHING in common with what romney signed.

Lie as always.

Quoting wiki

quote:

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[22] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[23] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid

So exactly like I said.
He signed:
Individual mandate
insurance exchanges
A ban on pre existing conditions
A ban on rescission for honest mistakes
And a bunch of other insurance regs that are in the ACA

When will you cease making shit up every time you post?

quote:


It has now effectively been repealed, both indirectly by the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and directly by the 2012 amendment, which replaced RomneyCare's market orientation (which is similar to PPACA's market orientation) with rigid state-mandated price controls on health care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Are you saying that the 39 Democrats that voted in favor of HR3350 were playing political games, and weren't voting as representing their District? If you are (and it sure sounds like it to me), are you okay with that?

Are you ok with the Republican reps who always act to avoid being primaried by the tea party lunatics?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Bullshit in its entirety.

As the Wiki said - whats in massachussets has NOTHING in common with what romney signed.

Lie as always.

Quoting wiki

quote:

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.[22] Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[23] Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid

So exactly like I said.
He signed:
Individual mandate
insurance exchanges
A ban on pre existing conditions
A ban on rescission for honest mistakes
And a bunch of other insurance regs that are in the ACA

When will you cease making shit up every time you post?

Yeah. Here's the part you conveniently left out.

quote:


It has now effectively been repealed, both indirectly by the effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and directly by the 2012 amendment, which replaced RomneyCare's market orientation (which is similar to PPACA's market orientation) with rigid state-mandated price controls on health care.

The amendment in 2012 effectively REPEALED romneycare.
The ameendment in 2012 replaced romney's market orientation with rigid state-mandated price controls.


I will be happy to keep proving how you are a deceptive partisan hack.

quote:


So? What does what happened in 2012 have to do with the fact that the ACA is a republican plan proposed by, amongst others, the Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole? What does that have to do with whether Republicans abandoned the plan before W took office? Why do you think it is at all relevant to anything under discussion? Or are you throwing shit out there hoping to change the subject because you got busted making shit up yet again?

quote:

That's also why conservatives have accurately predicted the lost jobs, lost insurance policies, doctors leaving the medical industry, and higher insurance costs, etc., etc..