RE: King v Burwell

RE: King v Burwell (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 12:06:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic LMAO Im happy for the six million people who wont lose their insurance. THe schadenfreude is there, oh yes....Im taking delight in the fact that the republicans have had 56 repeals voted down, and two SCOTUS against their machine. Of course republicans have done NOTHING to be divisive or hate filled, nothing at all. But you cant get over it...and that IS not my problem... The GOP/TP have also used their disinformation machines. Running political agenda 'stories' through the likes of FOX 'news' 24/7/365 to spread total lies and miss directions onto the American population. How many times have I had to correct the conservatives and liberterains on here? That they get their bullshit from one of these locations, and I have to explain not only what the law states (minus any political viewpoints I might have on it), but how it effects people. Just recently one poster whom is conservative, but a rather classy guy thought (an I paraphrase): "You can not opt out of the ACA, which is not right". To which I explained the law has an 'opt out' feature, however, there is a penality. Just like there is an 'opt out' for not paying income taxes, there is a penalty for being caught. Unlike Income Taxes, the 'opt out' for the ACA required the person to pay the higher of two amounts found within the text of the law. I would say that 98% of those whom are against this law, have never read it. That's right, they are against something good, but have no clue on the concept. When ever I have asked them to explain it, they either A ) get it wrong or B ) reply "I don't know". I like the ones that try for option 'A', since they are fun 'to school' with the facts and reality. Some of them actually support the ACA after the explanation. I don't have any reason to lie, since one could look the law up online. Pushing a political ideology after the bill was made into law is rather irrelevant. Allows my answer(s) to come across as authentic and genuine.

Sanity -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 12:13:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Then why did they not attempt to tweak it when it was open for debate? You know as well as I they did not want to develop a healthcare plan at all. They still don't have alternative plan... Republican representatives have continually failed their constituents and put business interests ahead of the health of their voters. I am all for having the Republican half of this country represented... now if they would only elect those that will represent THEM. Butch I am not interested in rehashing those same tired lies and BS talking points. Some people are just not interested in or capable of honest discussion about certain things, and theres just not enough time in a day to mindlessly go down those same rabbit holes again and again Though I will posit that the Republicans have failed to represent conservatives, just not in the way that you believe

kdsub -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 12:21:47 PM)
Well they have not represented me anyway...and I could challenge you to show me one detailed Republican healthcare alternative plan agreed upon and ready to be presented to the American people... But you are right I won't waste your time because there is none. Butch

mnottertail -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 12:23:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Then why did they not attempt to tweak it when it was open for debate? You know as well as I they did not want to develop a healthcare plan at all. They still don't have alternative plan... Republican representatives have continually failed their constituents and put business interests ahead of the health of their voters. I am all for having the Republican half of this country represented... now if they would only elect those that will represent THEM. Butch I am not interested in rehashing those same tired lies and BS talking points. Some people are just not interested in or capable of honest discussion about certain things, and theres just not enough time in a day to mindlessly go down those same rabbit holes again and again Though I will posit that the Republicans have failed to represent conservatives, just not in the way that you believe Since there are no real conservatives, there is no representation. That is no posit, it is fact.

joether -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 12:28:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Then why did they not attempt to tweak it when it was open for debate? You know as well as I they did not want to develop a healthcare plan at all. They still don't have alternative plan... Republican representatives have continually failed their constituents and put business interests ahead of the health of their voters. Did you not live on Planet Earth between the fall of 2009 to March of 2010? There was total opposition by the minority party in Congress, that being the GOP/TP. They used all the usual games, lies, miss directions, and bullshit to push false and semi-true stuff onto their supporters. The supporters, 99% of them whom didn't read the President's original bill, nor the House's or the Senate's, accepted what the GOP/TP and the conservative media fed them without checking on one detail. The supporters were feverish in attacking what would be called the Affordable Card Act (actually, that's the shorten version of "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" of 2010). Or have you forgot that hag, Sarah Palin stating it would usher in 'Death Panels'? Yeah, what conservatives then and now know of the ACA, and what is actually *IN* the ACA are two different things! The funny thing is, a decent chunk of stuff found in the ACA was on the Republican version of healthcare back when they held total power in 2001. Then 9/11/01 took place, and it was easier to sell 'fear' than 'good health' to Americans. However, if you look in the history books, you'll find the people that supported stuff in the original healthcare documents that got into the ACA, are totally opposed to them down. Its like saying your afraid of even a small puddle of water to trying to swim across the widest length of the Atlantic Ocean. The only ones that dont understand the bullshit are 'The Low Information Voters'. quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I am all for having the Republican half of this country represented... now if they would only elect those that will represent THEM. Seeing as its a few days from month #7 since the Republican/Tea Party took control of Congress; why dont you go ask them what they hold up is? Not like they have accomplished much for the American People (i.e. the 99%) since starting in session.... Though I doubt even one of them would answer you. First, they would check your bank account. When it registers below the minimal $5 million, you are treated like the rest of the 99% of their voters: ignored. Its really sad that you have so much faith in an organization that isn't even aware that you exist. An if knew you did, can find easy excuses to simply ignore you. If you ever did by extreme chance manage to stop them long enough for a question and their answer; it would be for them to say "Hey is that the zombie of Ronald Reagan over there (points)" and then scrambles into a nearby car to get away while your not looking. The GOP/TP have come to be understood as the party without morals, integrity, accountability and responsibility. Many conservatives and libertarians say they are against tyrannical powers; yet, those powers exist in massive numbers in the GOP/TP. What are they doing about that problem? Absolutely Nothing!

joether -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 12:45:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Then why did they not attempt to tweak it when it was open for debate? You know as well as I they did not want to develop a healthcare plan at all. They still don't have alternative plan... Republican representatives have continually failed their constituents and put business interests ahead of the health of their voters. I am all for having the Republican half of this country represented... now if they would only elect those that will represent THEM. Butch I am not interested in rehashing those same tired lies and BS talking points. Some people are just not interested in or capable of honest discussion about certain things, and theres just not enough time in a day to mindlessly go down those same rabbit holes again and again Though I will posit that the Republicans have failed to represent conservatives, just not in the way that you believe There is really two types of conservatives, and maybe a hybrid third group. The first group are 'old school conservatives'. They are intelligent, educated, quite reasonable on most things as long as you respect their hard limits. "Modern day conservatives" are the newest crop to the GOP. They are often ignorant, foolish, easily manipulated, immature, and uneducated. Old School'ers hate modern day conservatives as being an insult to conservative thought and philosophy. Modern day conservatives do not even know old school'ers exist (or that FOX 'news' lies to them on a daily basis). We are fortunately that there exists two old school conservatives on this forum (your not one of them Sanity). Unfortunately we have to many 'modern day conservatives'. Would love to return them to the 'stores' as defects.... Anyways, old school conservatives are always interested in a good discussion. They do not insult nor name call. They go for the facts, not character assassinations. They want things to actually get done in government. Understanding that its a Democratic Republican and not a dictatorship, they will have to give ground to gain the things they want. When confronted with liberals and moderates, they will negotiate a good deal. If they are the ones in power, to give a fair trade; when not, to hope they can get a fair trade. All this is confusing to 'modern day conservatives' whom believe their way in the right and only way. They will not make trades with the 'evil, tree-hugging, fascists, hippy, democratic, vile, communist, god-hating, bible-hating, gun-hating, life-hating, socialist liberal!'. They believe they are right, because the GOP/TP says they are right. Why should they question non-liberal sources of the media? They hate the current President because of his being a liberal, anti-American, black, non-US Citizen, politician (but they are 'OK' with conservative politicians....). Old School Conservatives are interested in a good discussion. Modern Day Conservatives feel they are right, because they are right, and can never be wrong, because they are right. Even when the facts and evidence is shown to their faces to the contrary! I wish there were more old school'ers than modern day conservatives on this forum. The caliber, depth, and length of such conversations could be quite impressive.....

MercTech -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 1:00:36 PM)
Too bad on the court ruling. If the ACA had been shot down perhaps we could have had health care legislation instead of a mandatory insurance tax with no change to the health care system.

joether -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 1:23:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Too bad on the court ruling. If the ACA had been shot down perhaps we could have had health care legislation instead of a mandatory insurance tax with no change to the health care system. The level of ignorance you display here as it concerns the ACA is stunning.... You are NOT an old school conservative.... There is no such thing as a "....mandatory insurance tax..." found anywhere in the text of the ACA. Where did you get that information from? FOX 'news'?

bounty44 -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 1:52:18 PM)
i assume merctech is referring to the penalty people have to pay for not having insurance Einstein. and no I don't want to hear about exemptions from the mandate. that's beside the point. that said, as to notions of "the republicans don't (or didn't) have an alternative"---there were some then, and there are some now. to state otherwise is either disingenuous, ridiculously partisan, or a little lazy. but more importantly, the very idea that the government needs to be involved in healthcare (at least to the extent they are) is something a large part of the country doesn't even buy into as a starter. so an appropriate reply for many of us to "the republicans don't have an alternative" (apart from that they do) is: so what?? its not in their job description. from the libertarian/conservative perspective, the solutions to problems like this don't belong in governments hands. to wit---allow more medical schools to exist, which leads to more doctors, which would likely create competition (lowering prices) and increasing access. as it is---doctors loathe Obamacare, are leaving their practices at a rate higher than in the past and there will be less medical school graduates to fill the positions than usual since the whole fiasco started. but its really not essentially about healthcare, or even access to healthcare, its primarily about liberal government growth.

mnottertail -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 2:20:53 PM)
oh, alternatives? elucidate, on these points, give us a listing and their effect. How come they are not public? How come they are not being worked on down there in rightwing dipshitville? Whats the inside scoop?

MrRodgers -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 2:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It seems normal, for certain leftists to find joy is in seeing a furtherance of hateful, bitter division .....oh really ? Scalia is a radical, rightist fascist and is as responsible for as much as any 'hateful, bitter division as anybody else. How about the context of the 2nd amend. ? In fact, the word state has meant any central govt. much more so than any divisions within it.

MrRodgers -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 2:36:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It seems normal, for certain leftists to find joy is in seeing a furtherance of hateful, bitter division .....oh really ? Scalia is a radical, rightist fascist and is as responsible for as much as any 'hateful, bitter division as anybody else. How about the context of the 2nd amend. ? In fact, the word state has meant any central govt. much more so than any divisions within it.

mnottertail -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 2:38:50 PM)
and coulter, and oreilly and breitbart, and trump, and limbaugh, and on and on ....hateful demonizing slithering shiteaters, the rightwing.

MrRodgers -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 2:43:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It seems normal, for certain leftists to find joy is in seeing a furtherance of hateful, bitter division .....oh really ? Scalia is a radical, rightist fascist and is as responsible for as much as any 'hateful, bitter division as anybody else. How about the context of the 2nd amend. ? In fact, the word state has meant any central govt. much more so than any divisions within it.

MrRodgers -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 2:45:36 PM)
Kind of a double post

Aylee -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 3:46:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Too bad on the court ruling. If the ACA had been shot down perhaps we could have had health care legislation instead of a mandatory insurance tax with no change to the health care system. Wouldn't that be nice. Why is the IRS involved in healthcare again?

Aylee -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 3:48:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It seems normal, for certain leftists to find joy is in seeing a furtherance of hateful, bitter division .....oh really ? Scalia is a radical, rightist fascist and is as responsible for as much as any 'hateful, bitter division as anybody else. How about the context of the 2nd amend. ? In fact, the word state has meant any central govt. much more so than any divisions within it. A radical AND a fascist? I would have considered those mutually exclusive.

Musicmystery -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 4:56:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It seems normal, for certain leftists to find joy is in seeing a furtherance of hateful, bitter division If health care for those who can't afford it = "hateful, bitter division," then the haters have some self-work to do.

cloudboy -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 5:59:59 PM)
6-3 Margin is a resounding victory. Frankly, no real conservative Justice should have voted to repeal this legislation because public policy is the job of Congress, especially on big ticket items. Conservatives are not supposed to be "active from the bench" and casually overriding legislation. The case also shows how the Right simply cannot move forward, and digs into the past like child that cannot get its way. Other examples of Conservative stonewalling include immigration, highway funding, health care, and global warming solutions. On all these bases, right wingers are the party of ZERO ideas and solutions.

cloudboy -> RE: King v Burwell (6/25/2015 6:03:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic the fact that the republicans have had 56 repeals voted down, and two SCOTUS against their machine. 56 repeal attempts .... all failures 2 Supreme Court attempts to have Oamacare declared unConstitutional ... both failures. That's an extraordinary record of failure - and I was under the impression that Americans had a low tolerance for failure and failures. Who in their right minds would let anyone with such a consistent unblemished record of failure near the reins of Govt? On this evidence the only possible outcome would more failure. Is that what Americans want? Childish is the word. Such behavior is a FAR CRY from LEADERSHIP.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875