Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 11:03:46 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
You just can't get past the ACA can you Joe. And yes, using this lawsuit as a precedence, a Dem controlled Congress can keep a better fisical leash on a POTUS. Also for not following the laws. Once the lawsuit is won it could even be used as the setup for a potential impeachment.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 11:09:38 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
its taken ayear to get it this far. This only means it can move forward to its conclusion...SCOTUS...how long do you think it will take???


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 11:18:23 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
Lucy It will probably take a year and a half. If a Rep becomes President before then, it will probably move swiftly to its conclusion with a win. I don't think Congress is in a major hurry from a strategic standpoint. It will be interesting to follow tho.


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 11:31:53 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
A Rep will not become president before a year and a half. That is a given, at this point, and any point on the horizon.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 11:34:42 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

A Rep will not become president before a year and a half. That is a given, at this point, and any point on the horizon.



You are soooo mean...yeah yeah yeah the truth and all that but it is still mean.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 11:56:11 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

A Rep will not become president before a year and a half. That is a given, at this point, and any point on the horizon.

OK I think everyone knew that. but what about the lawsuits future implications?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 1:10:31 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
I think it is eventually not going to fly. The power of congress to spend is only imputed. I really don't see anywhere where they Congress itself (not Senate) can unilaterally tell you after the fact how to spend it. That is, they passed an unfunded law, where the subsidies and so on were not explicitly caged to be spent. By the same logic if the case is broadly determined, we will find that there is no clause that forces the president to spend money on whatever congress wishes. To some degree that is being done now, and he can do some impoundment. I think when they make an unfunded law, they are giving the Executive the power to execute it in the way he sees fit. If they have a bitch with where the money is coming from, they are legislators and should specify in their law the method of payment.

Ultimately, I think their lack of legislation is not an issue for the executive.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 1:24:46 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
If the Administration wants a slush fund, then maybe it should budget for more chingadera's We did that once in our budget just to see what the City Council would do, knowing it would be thrown out. It wasn't. It was only a $10,000 line but we used it for training. If more lower echelon groups within the Administration did that, then they might see an influx of funds to do with what they wanted. Otherwise, they should work within their budget as established by Congress and signed into Law by the POTUS. Otherwise it would be a violation of the law, would it not?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 1:54:49 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Budgets are not law. It would seem that a law saying we will fund subsidies for healthcare, and not specify where those funds must emanate from and the administration is given the power to uphold and execute those laws is following the law. Here is the thing, it aint lawsuit material, at SCOTUS level that is going to win.

Here is the opinion for them pre-written: You (of congress) have a remedy in the constituion, you are the legislative branch, pass a law describing the funding sources that disbursements are to be made from, or pass a law that no revenue may be used to pay for it.

The executive branch has an easy remedy. It will be vetoed, and you will once again be shown to be fuckheads.

Done. Its not just a good idea; it's the law.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 3:50:14 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Budgets are not law. It would seem that a law saying we will fund subsidies for healthcare, and not specify where those funds must emanate from and the administration is given the power to uphold and execute those laws is following the law. Here is the thing, it aint lawsuit material, at SCOTUS level that is going to win.

Here is the opinion for them pre-written: You (of congress) have a remedy in the constituion, you are the legislative branch, pass a law describing the funding sources that disbursements are to be made from, or pass a law that no revenue may be used to pay for it.

The executive branch has an easy remedy. It will be vetoed, and you will once again be shown to be fuckheads.

Done. Its not just a good idea; it's the law.



so the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law No: 113-76 (01/17/2014)) isn't a real law then. Hmmmm I thought Public Laws were laws. Least the last I heard.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547


< Message edited by KenDckey -- 9/10/2015 3:51:03 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 9:21:41 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Even without all the political machinations, the complexity of Obamacare seems staggering to me.


Its only complex because you didn't read the ACA. Once you read it and understand things, its really quite straight forward of a piece of legislation...



right, ~1000 page bills are always easy to understand.


Actually they are quite easy to follow. One of my first observations of the ACA was "Ah fuck, this is a monster!". Most bills are pretty well laid out. In fact, there is almost a standardized format from one bill to another. Metaphorically, its like reading the Wall Street Journal correctly. Yes, there is a correct way and many incorrect ways of reading the Journal. Yes, it is a bit different from the average newspaper in many ways. The Journal does teach how to properly and accurately sift through the publication to get to the parts you want quickly.

Reading 80 pages in the ACA within an hour and understanding everything, is not tough. If you ever took the time to read one of my 'short' posts, that likes 18 pages! Piece of cake!

Your just intimidated by size!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
and the multi-year phase in period didn't have anything at all to do with the laws complexity.


Bills going through Congress are designed so a 9th grader could understand them. We are not talking Ph.D. level scientific research white papers here. Where you need BS and MS under your belt just to understand all the fine-level details.

No, the ACA and other bills are set up so you can do a word search to find those sections your looking for quickly! Just look up 'grandfathering' of policies. Shouldn't take you more than fifteen minutes to find all the locations and read them. You seem think your a smart guy; so understanding what your reading shouldn't be a problem, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
and all those "navigators" the government hired to help people get enrolled and understand, yes, totally unnecessary.


Let's look at your first few sentences of this post. You seem to indidcate the whole of the document is complicated, long, and hard to understand. Yet, I'm telling you none of those things are correct. The administration understood that this bill would feel daunting to the average American. So a number of people were hired, trained, and even tested to see how well they could communicate information to US Citizens. Given that most businesses had to comply with the law sooner than ordinary US Citizens (i.e. insurance companies), certain groups of people were given priority over others. Most US citizens did not need much of the information until last year when the state exchanges opened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
plus, the many dozens into hundreds of hours that employers had to spend in order to understand it when, my goodness if they could have just "read it" and understood its physical construction (as opposed to the labyrinth it is), those employers could have gotten down to the actual business of their companies instead! what were they thinking??


People have to spend "...hundreds of hours...." to understand any new law that would or might effect them. That is why lawyers whom can explain very complex stuff in 'easy bites' get paid the big bucks! Many organizations from the Chamber of Commerce to the SBA held seminars and lectures to help business owners or representatives of businesses, learn the law's requirements. The good, conservative business owner may have on one hand hoped the GOP/TP would destroy the law; they also had to prepare in the event things did not go well.

In all actually the ACA helps small business owners with employees out the best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
the fun flow chart floating around the internet? a model of simplicity: http://dailybail.com/home/obamacare-complicated-check-out-the-flow-chart.html


While that is a nice aid to refer from time to time. That only helps those whom ACTUALLY READ THE BILL. Its like a newbie trying to understand 1st edition AD&D character sheet and asking 'What is THACO?". If they read the Player's Handbook, they would know it meant "To Hit Armor Class 0 (Zero).".

Yes, I conceded the image looks complicated and intimidating. Its really not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this is one of the more laughable things ive read on the forum, which is saying quite a bit given the delusional and non-sensical partisan dribble you frequently engage in.


Yet, all my information is correct, and you keep spewing forth moronic bullshit! When you laugh at me, it feels like one of those junior high school moments were you are trying to insult me. Yet, you do not understand when you have been insulted over the months on this subject and others. You have this silly notion that by attacking or insulting me, I'll shut up. Has it been working for you so far?

I can call you ignorant, BECAUSE, you didn't read the document. A document that is so easy, a freshman in high school could understand it. So why can't you understand it? Is your educational level not higher than junior high? Because your behavior certainly hasn't pass that grade yet....

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 9:31:33 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
You just can't get past the ACA can you Joe. And yes, using this lawsuit as a precedence, a Dem controlled Congress can keep a better fisical leash on a POTUS. Also for not following the laws. Once the lawsuit is won it could even be used as the setup for a potential impeachment.


You want to impeach the current US President? On....WHAT....grounds?

Oh, because he's black, right? Because blacks aren't allowed to be more educated and intelligent then you, right? That he got his signature law that will define his years in public office against ABSOLUTE and TOTAL Republican/Tea Party opposition, right?

You dont have a real argument! If you did, you would have stated it. WITH, the supporting information to back up your claim.

You do not have a led to stand on. Since I just bring up former President George W. Bush. That we impeached one US President for what, KenDeckey? Lying about an affair? But the next guy in the White House, we did not impeach. Because his lies got this nation into a warzone, thousands of our soldiers killed, ten times that wounded (many with long term injuries) and placed $4 trillion on our debt.

While your trying to devise the bullshit counter argument consider this: Both US Presidents had Republican controlled Congresses. Just to be a good sport here, after you get done trying to justify that bullshit, I'll ask about Mr. Bush's domestic issues that were equally unconstitutional. Not that you remember US History and how it might relate to the US Constitution.

Its a bad idea for any one of the three branches to have more control over the other two. So long as the balance is maintained, the country can function. What you are proposing is creating a tyranny; all because Mr. Obama is black.

If its not because he's black, explain why its been seven years and you....STILL....dont have a real argument?

That guy has beaten down your party at every step. Made them to look like fools on Libya. And many, many, other issues. And beaten down your parties two best shots at the West Wing in nearly eight years! Soundly I might add....


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/10/2015 9:49:33 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Budgets are not law. It would seem that a law saying we will fund subsidies for healthcare, and not specify where those funds must emanate from and the administration is given the power to uphold and execute those laws is following the law. Here is the thing, it aint lawsuit material, at SCOTUS level that is going to win.

Here is the opinion for them pre-written: You (of congress) have a remedy in the constituion, you are the legislative branch, pass a law describing the funding sources that disbursements are to be made from, or pass a law that no revenue may be used to pay for it.

The executive branch has an easy remedy. It will be vetoed, and you will once again be shown to be fuckheads.

Done. Its not just a good idea; it's the law.


Hasn't the GOP/TP tried to do that like fifty-seven times now?

The first one, says "We have to oppose this due to our idealogy". That's fine. Its expected. To perform it twice or three times is code for "Ok, we have to show our stupid and ignorant folks that vote for us, why they should vote again". Yeah, can understand that argument.

But FIFTY SEVEN TIMES!?!??!?!?!?!?

That's just desperate! Its also sad. An each of those bills took a pile of money to process. How much? Hard to say. I've seen CBO estimates of $32 million for a day of Congress. Figure 2-4 bills in a day. Go with just 3 bills (the average). That's 19 days at $32 million.....WASTED.

That's $60.8 BILLION wasted in taxpayer money. That's right, their party wasted this money on 'ideology'. Imagine if Democrats did that? Conservatives and libeertarians would be all over them for it. Yet, because Republicans and Tea Party did it, its 'OK'.....

What the GOP/TP fails to tell their 'Army of Morons' is what the CBO concluded in June: Scraping the ACA would create a $353 Billion deficit. The current US deficit is about $250 Billion. So scrapping the ACA would more than double our deficit and add twice as much debt as we are currently generating in a year. All the while blaming the administration for the high deficit. Can you say the GOP/TP has no morals? Goldfish are more intelligent and informed than the above average conservative in this nation!


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/11/2015 1:22:14 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
Yup, Just as I t hought. Joe can't get past the ACA and look at the broader implications of this lawsuit. Such narrow mindedness

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/11/2015 4:32:28 AM   
subrob1967


Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
FR

Meanwhile back at the ranch...
quote:

Sept. 8—Halfway through 2015, more than 22 percent of enrollees in the government-run insurance marketplaces had dropped their insurance coverage, according to new federal data.

About 9.9 million enrollees in health plans sold through marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) had effectuated coverage as of June 30. Those who had paid their premiums and had an active policy by mid-2015 comprised 78 percent of the 12.7 million enrollees who had selected coverage by the end of the special enrollment period for 2015.

The latest enrollment totals showed a steady decline from 10.2 million enrollees with effectuated coverage at the end of the first quarter of the year. Enrollees have a three-month grace period during which coverage is active without any premium payments. Providers have raised concerns that large numbers of people could obtain policies, receive expensive care, and never pay premiums, which would leave providers to cover care given during the final two months of the grace period, as required by federal regulations (insurers must cover care provided during the first month of the grace period).


http://test.hfma.org/Content.aspx?id=41053

Tell us again how great this is Joe

_____________________________

http://www.extra-life.org/

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/11/2015 7:25:15 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Budgets are not law. It would seem that a law saying we will fund subsidies for healthcare, and not specify where those funds must emanate from and the administration is given the power to uphold and execute those laws is following the law. Here is the thing, it aint lawsuit material, at SCOTUS level that is going to win.

Here is the opinion for them pre-written: You (of congress) have a remedy in the constituion, you are the legislative branch, pass a law describing the funding sources that disbursements are to be made from, or pass a law that no revenue may be used to pay for it.

The executive branch has an easy remedy. It will be vetoed, and you will once again be shown to be fuckheads.

Done. Its not just a good idea; it's the law.



so the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law No: 113-76 (01/17/2014)) isn't a real law then. Hmmmm I thought Public Laws were laws. Least the last I heard.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/3547




I see your befuddlement, appropriations are not budgets. We have not had a signed budget since 1997, but even then it is not a law, it is a statement of policy. You might be unnerved to find out that budgets are political eyewash deals, and are immediately disgregarded and appropriations bills are what makes money flow, and that is one reason the rightwing is not 'fiscally conservative', since they appropriate wildly but do not resolve that with revenue.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/11/2015 1:47:23 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Was consent for moneys being paid not at least implied when Congress passed the ACA, inlcuding its subsidies?
Are insurance companies not operating in accordance to that law, passed by Congress, in full faith that such moneys will be provided to them?
Is Congress violating the law by not providing funding when the ACA as a law demands it?


One of the powers of the House of Representatives is that it gets to decide if something gets continued funding. It can defund, if it wants.

Any legislation legally passed today isn't guaranteed existence forever (in practice, it sure seems like legislation, once passed, is eternal, though). Future Congresses can vote to repeal, defund, etc. The only consent implied is the consent of the constituents of those that voted in favor of that legislation. Future generations may, in fact, accurately represent those same constituents and vote to defund.

If legislation is passed by Congress to defund Obamacare, isn't that also implying consent of the majority of US Citizens to no longer pay those monies?


_____________________________

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 JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/11/2015 1:56:24 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
It implies no such thing. Among the many reasons that is an untutored tacit premise, it implies that Obamacare was wanted in the first place, as were several other laws being bitched about.

They can bill to defund and the president will veto, and it won't be over ridden. Not even the 57th time.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 9/11/2015 2:05:38 PM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/11/2015 6:52:26 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

They can bill to defund and the president will veto, and it won't be over ridden. Not even the 57th time.


Yeah but...wait till 58.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare - 9/11/2015 10:41:42 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
You just can't get past the ACA can you Joe. And yes, using this lawsuit as a precedence, a Dem controlled Congress can keep a better fisical leash on a POTUS. Also for not following the laws. Once the lawsuit is won it could even be used as the setup for a potential impeachment.


You want to impeach the current US President? On....WHAT....grounds?

Oh, because he's black, right? Because blacks aren't allowed to be more educated and intelligent then you, right? That he got his signature law that will define his years in public office against ABSOLUTE and TOTAL Republican/Tea Party opposition, right?

You dont have a real argument! If you did, you would have stated it. WITH, the supporting information to back up your claim.

You do not have a led to stand on. Since I just bring up former President George W. Bush. That we impeached one US President for what, KenDeckey? Lying about an affair? But the next guy in the White House, we did not impeach. Because his lies got this nation into a warzone, thousands of our soldiers killed, ten times that wounded (many with long term injuries) and placed $4 trillion on our debt.

While your trying to devise the bullshit counter argument consider this: Both US Presidents had Republican controlled Congresses. Just to be a good sport here, after you get done trying to justify that bullshit, I'll ask about Mr. Bush's domestic issues that were equally unconstitutional. Not that you remember US History and how it might relate to the US Constitution.

Its a bad idea for any one of the three branches to have more control over the other two. So long as the balance is maintained, the country can function. What you are proposing is creating a tyranny; all because Mr. Obama is black.

If its not because he's black, explain why its been seven years and you....STILL....dont have a real argument?

That guy has beaten down your party at every step. Made them to look like fools on Libya. And many, many, other issues. And beaten down your parties two best shots at the West Wing in nearly eight years! Soundly I might add....



Nope, Not interested in impeahing the current President. I am attempting to stimulate conversation about the future. Not the ACA, Not impeachment of the current President. But about the potential future impact of this move.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109