John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare

John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (Full Version)

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

Message

KenDckey -> John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/9/2015 8:38:05 PM)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-lawsuit-john-boehner_55f0927ee4b002d5c077d492?utm_hp_ref=politics http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-republican-lawsuit-over-obamacare-move-forward-204737788.html;_ylt=A86.JySd.fBV5VQA03EnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTE0aTBnamxmBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDRkZYVUkyOF8xBHNlYwNzYw-- Judge Collyer held: “Neither the President nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent. Congress’s power of the purse is the ultimate check on the otherwise unbounded power of the Executive. . . . The genius of our Framers was to limit the Executive’s power “by a valid reservation of congressional control over funds in the Treasury.” . . . Disregard for that reservation works a grievous harm on the House, which is deprived of its rightful and necessary place under our Constitution. The House has standing to redress that injury in federal court.”

KenDckey -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/9/2015 8:41:24 PM)
https://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/burwell-order-sept-9-2015.pdf

JVoV -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/9/2015 9:14:25 PM)
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?

KenDckey -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 3:15:15 AM)
Did POTUS take away from other needed social and economic programs as authorized by Law? Where did their money go? Did the Congress authorize monies toward compliance with the Law and then POTUS change the law to suit himself? All this will come up in the merits portion of the trial I feel quite sure. It is called checks and balances. On the good side, it will set the precidence for all future battles between POTUS and Congress. No President will ever be secure in his actions again when he starts changing laws to his will. And that I believe is a good thing.

tweakabelle -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 3:15:59 AM)
Even without all the political machinations, the complexity of Obamacare seems staggering to me. When I contrast it to the simplicity of our national health scheme here, I have no doubt which system is better. Leaving aside the duplication of costs between the various healthcare providers, it seems very inefficient to have so much time and energy invested in devising marketing and administering the various plans with their differing levels of coverage. How the average consumer negotiates the maze is not immediately clear to me. Here we have a single payment - 1% of taxable income with a surcharge for high income earners - and it covers everything. So there's no stress for healthcare consumers about whether their condition is covered, or whether that coverage pays all costs or only a part of them. And that's it - no worries about what is covered and what isn't, no worries about the extent of coverage, no worries if one's insurance is going to hit the limit before one recovers, and none of the endless political games the Right is playing to subvert Obamacare. I get that the final shape of Obamacare is a compromise necessitated by the over-riding need to garner sufficient votes in Congress to ensure its passage into law. But I do shake my head and think; guys there's a much easier way to do this. The sooner Americans adopt a universal health insurance scheme, the better off US healthcare consumers will be.

Thegunnysez -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 4:43:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-lawsuit-john-boehner_55f0927ee4b002d5c077d492?utm_hp_ref=politics http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-republican-lawsuit-over-obamacare-move-forward-204737788.html;_ylt=A86.JySd.fBV5VQA03EnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTE0aTBnamxmBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDRkZYVUkyOF8xBHNlYwNzYw-- Judge Collyer held: “Neither the President nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent. Congress’s power of the purse is the ultimate check on the otherwise unbounded power of the Executive. . . . The genius of our Framers was to limit the Executive’s power “by a valid reservation of congressional control over funds in the Treasury.” . . . Disregard for that reservation works a grievous harm on the House, which is deprived of its rightful and necessary place under our Constitution. The House has standing to redress that injury in federal court.” Isn't that what Democats do? Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase and Jackson with "removal "both without constitutional support or congresional approval for money in advance?

Musicmystery -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 5:39:05 AM)
Has Congress been stealing money from Social Security for decades? Is a "little win" against affordable health care a "win" at all? Is this entire thread going to be rhetorical questions?

joether -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 5:48:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-lawsuit-john-boehner_55f0927ee4b002d5c077d492?utm_hp_ref=politics http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-republican-lawsuit-over-obamacare-move-forward-204737788.html;_ylt=A86.JySd.fBV5VQA03EnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTE0aTBnamxmBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDRkZYVUkyOF8xBHNlYwNzYw-- Judge Collyer held: “Neither the President nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent. Congress’s power of the purse is the ultimate check on the otherwise unbounded power of the Executive. . . . The genius of our Framers was to limit the Executive’s power “by a valid reservation of congressional control over funds in the Treasury.” . . . Disregard for that reservation works a grievous harm on the House, which is deprived of its rightful and necessary place under our Constitution. The House has standing to redress that injury in federal court.” In your 'quest' to destroy the ACA, your happy with anything Congress can do to undermine the system? Talk about a political hack that doesn't understand what could happen. So Congress limits or stops the ACA through funding. That's 20-30 million people that will likely be voting DEMOCRAT in the next election. Who knows what they might have done had the GOP/TP been intelligent; but cutting off their healthcare lifeline is not only enough to get them to the polls, but encourage others to vote with them! Given that you have never read the bill, you are simple told by others, how to think. In otherwords, your the worst concept that founding fathers had for this nation: just a political yes-man. Other people tell you what to think and do. Oh, you might think you have free will and all that bullshit; but untill you sit down an read the law you wish to bust so badly..... Its really sad the number of conservatives whom are benefiting financially from this law. They don't even realize its saving them from having their taxes raised..... Conservatives....the one political group in America that will vote against its own best interests because others told them to do so!

joether -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 6:03:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Was consent for moneys being paid not at least implied when Congress passed the ACA, inlcuding its subsidies? Yes. Of course those that created the ACA understood that if Congress would deal/fund with the ACA. They also understood the political football and the advantage the American people have if Congress got stupid. You take someone's only ability to get medication/therapy away; you just made an enemy for life! That person will make sure they get to each and every election and vote for any party/person then you want. While on the surface that might sound like a win for the ACA; long term it does more damage. What if the GOP/TP actually grew a brain and learned how to use it with that 'endless well of goodnees' they keep accusing themselves of possessing? They could be the ones that make good improvements on the ACA. But that might be hard if the people were screwed by their party just dozens of years earlier. quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Are insurance companies not operating in accordance to that law, passed by Congress, in full faith that such moneys will be provided to them? The insurance companies have to follow the law. In fact they followed the ACA in switching many people from previous polices to new ones that conformed with the law. Of course if you and others understood what those guidelines where, you might understand the humor of events like I do. That policies can not discriminate in price due to age, race, color, gender, a few other concepts. That's right, you might have had the same policy as someone else. But because of yours/their skin color, you/they had a better deal. Would you be pissed if they had a better deal? quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Is Congress violating the law by not providing funding when the ACA as a law demands it? If Congress can not file an actual budget, they are in violation of the US Constitution. Given all the screw ups by conservatives and their libertarian lackies (we call them the Republicans and Tea Party respectively). Most of their elected officials should be in a prison right now! But we are a forgiving nation, sometimes to our own denterment! The nature of the ACA that concerns Congress is administering subsidies for those getting bronze level healthcare plans (with a few obtaining deductions with silver plans). The type of people obtaining these subsides is either below, at, or close to the federal poverty level. So basically, its a buch of rich assholes (i.e. Congressional people) trying to take money set up for the poor, so it can be used to help some multi-national corporation that doesn't need free money from the USA....

joether -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 6:29:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Did POTUS take away from other needed social and economic programs as authorized by Law? The ACA allowed a more efficient use of the government's money towards healthcare. The ACA itself, being more about logistics rather than the perceived direct oversight of one's healthcare itself. By allowing Americas better access to healthcare, did they relieve the strain being experienced on other social policies at the local, state and federal levels. For example, someone whom would go to the ER to handle routine medical problems and not pay, caused a straight on that hospital's ability to help the common public. Under the ACA, that person could go see a medical doctor whom could handle their individual medical requirements; thus, freeing up the ER to handle ACTUAL emergency problems. In effect, lowering operating costs of hospitals around the nation long term. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Where did their money go? Whose money? Your not being clear here..... quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Did the Congress authorize monies toward compliance with the Law and then POTUS change the law to suit himself? Yes for the first part, no for the second part. When the ACA was pass, there was a provision within it that would allow the US Government to handle the portion of subsidizes about to be incurred on the states. The states in turn, could ask for this funding of money on their own. All the 'blue' and 'purple' states took up the funding. The 'red' states thought they would 'fight' the ACA by denying such funding. Like inexperienced bomb makers, it blew up in their faces! By their politically retarded ideology, cost their states billions of dollars. A concept I'm sure they did not inform their citizens was taking place..... Once a law is passed, the Executive branch for the most part can not change concepts. However, they can change concepts. There is no easy way of explaining this concept, frankly. The president (whomever their political party is) can and cannot change how laws are handled that Congress passes. At current, the GOP/TP will politically state its fighting the US President. But reality is: If they get the White House and Democrats, Congress, they'll have less political power in the nation. Therefore, subtly speaking, they have less incentive to screw to much with the powers of the President. What is a good reason to not screw around with this 'Executive Privilege'? Say a law is passed by Congress and the White House. Some time later it is discovered their is a serious problem with its execution. Rather than convene Congress to create ANOTHER bill to fix the problem, the US President states their privilege to fix the problem. Its a temporary fix until Congress can meet later to add correction with another bill. Happens more often then most Americans are aware on. Some Congressional staffer forgets to place funding for those newly promoted Captains in the US Army to receive their pay increases (as meager as it is). For the brief time that its a political football, the US President signs off the paper work adjusting 'the books' to handle the charge until Congress can meet to deal with the issue more correctly. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey All this will come up in the merits portion of the trial I feel quite sure. An this would be for...what....crime that was broken? You do understand that for someone to put on trial, they have to have actual evidence of wrong doing? You want to place the President on trial for creating a bill that helps 20-30 million US Citizens (most of whom are defined as 'poor' or 'lower middle class) obtain healthcare were there was either none or extremely limited; so that you could save $0.38 on your next Income Tax charge? Maybe we should be questioning your ethical and moral judgements, rather than the President's. Even going so far as to question your loyalty as a US Citizen..... quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey It is called checks and balances. Funny how its 'checks and balances' when your political party is on the defense; but its 'the president is doing things outside his duties' when on the attack. Curious observation, isn't it? quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey On the good side, it will set the precidence for all future battles between POTUS and Congress. No President will ever be secure in his actions again when he starts changing laws to his will. And that I believe is a good thing. This has always been a content concept since the Washington administration. Oh forgot, you don't actually study the finer details of administrations and Congresses going back two hundred and twenty plus years.....

joether -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 6:52:10 AM)
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. Many of the 'complexities' you are thinking, is centered on how Congress writes a bill. They do not write bills like college students write term papers. Everything is 1.5 to 2 inch margins, double spaced, numbered by line, and all concepts and definitions are explained in fullness. You remove the opening concepts, amendments, definitions of concepts/words, and 'table of contents' from the front. The appendixes, charts, graphs, ending material, from the back. Single space it, with 'letter' format margins, removing the number lines and minor editing changes; its basically a 630 page book. Kind of the same level as the first 'Game of Thrones' novel; just more dry and dull without any Red Weddings (or Death Panels) listed within it! quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle When I contrast it to the simplicity of our national health scheme here, I have no doubt which system is better. Leaving aside the duplication of costs between the various healthcare providers, it seems very inefficient to have so much time and energy invested in devising marketing and administering the various plans with their differing levels of coverage. How the average consumer negotiates the maze is not immediately clear to me. Most Americans bitch about the Income Tax forms being complicated. Not realizing that their 'bitchiness' stems from being unfamiliar with how the government understands information, rather than actually requiring heavily thinking. Most of it is simply accounting for one's gross income and variables with spending habits for the previous year. If the person took notes along the way, the process is really not painful. Healthcare between the United States and other European nations is different on one important concept: National Defense. If the USA dropped half of its Defense Budget into healthcare, it could drop costs for Americans considerably. Which is what most European nations have done. Yet, the trade off is easily seen now with regards to those European nations handling Russia's aggression and Syria's woos. Before you state how 'high and mighty' your healthcare system is in operation. Understand it comes with a subtle price tag! quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Here we have a single payment - 1% of taxable income with a surcharge for high income earners - and it covers everything. So there's no stress for healthcare consumers about whether their condition is covered, or whether that coverage pays all costs or only a part of them. And that's it - no worries about what is covered and what isn't, no worries about the extent of coverage, no worries if one's insurance is going to hit the limit before one recovers, and none of the endless political games the Right is playing to subvert Obamacare. Yes, raising the middle classes's taxes by just 0.7%, and the rich by 0.9-1.5% would easily pay for all the problems experienced right now. Is that person making $80,000/year REALLY going to notice $113 dollars being paid to fix problems and give them better healthcare? No of course not, until you state it costs them even a penny. Then they fly off the handle in a rage. Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage. Your typical libertarian..... quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I get that the final shape of Obamacare is a compromise necessitated by the over-riding need to garner sufficient votes in Congress to ensure its passage into law. But I do shake my head and think; guys there's a much easier way to do this. The sooner Americans adopt a universal health insurance scheme, the better off US healthcare consumers will be. If Democrats knew 'what' and 'how' the GOP/TP was going to behave, would have done with the President's bill and said 'fuck it' to tinkering with it. This nation would have a better system, with less actual problems (read: where improvements could help the ACA), and less GOP/TP in elected office. It would have been a win-win-win solution for Congressional Democrats....

Kirata -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 7:10:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage. Your typical libertarian..... It does not benefit your credibility to be continually advertising how disconnected from reality you are . K.

joether -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 7:25:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage. Your typical libertarian..... It does not benefit your credibility to be continually advertising how disconnected from reality you are . Its called a 'metaphor'. That you can not understand the concept, does not surprise me. That in your chance to post something useful, you once more showed how little you understand that concept as well!

bounty44 -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 7:27:00 AM)
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. and the multi-year phase in period didn't have anything at all to do with the laws complexity. and all those "navigators" the government hired to help people get enrolled and understand, yes, totally unnecessary. 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?? the fun flow chart floating around the internet? a model of simplicity: http://dailybail.com/home/obamacare-complicated-check-out-the-flow-chart.html 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.

bounty44 -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 7:29:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage. Your typical libertarian..... It does not benefit your credibility to be continually advertising how disconnected from reality you are . Its called a 'metaphor'. That you can not understand the concept, does not surprise me. That in your chance to post something useful, you once more showed how little you understand that concept as well! please go read the definition for "metaphor" and you will hopefully see what you have done there does not qualify. if you are going to be pompous and try to display some superior intelligence and criticize someone else's lack of ability to get a "concept", you might want to make sure you have your own concepts down right first. at best its exaggeration, at worst, its outright fabrication. in either event, its not an accurate representation of libertarian or conservative opposition to obamacare.

KenDckey -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 7:34:50 AM)
Yes this particular battle is over ACA, but is that the real issue here? No Please get over the ACA here. The true issue is that, as far as I can find and I have been looking, is the first time the Congress has sued a President. Under checks and balances, it is now up to SCOTUS as the supreme arbitor to make a determination. And I am sure it will go that high. In the future, it will also make it easier for Congress to sue the President (party affiliation isn't important on either side of potential cases). The concept is the suit. I may be anti ACA, but I didn't put this one in because of that. It is in over the suit concept.

Kirata -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 7:37:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage. Your typical libertarian..... It does not benefit your credibility to be continually advertising how disconnected from reality you are . Its called a 'metaphor'. That you can not understand the concept, does not surprise me. The particular figure of speech employed is irrelevant to a charge based on content, not form, and asserting the contrary only serves to support it. K.

joether -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 8:04:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage. Your typical libertarian..... It does not benefit your credibility to be continually advertising how disconnected from reality you are . Its called a 'metaphor'. That you can not understand the concept, does not surprise me. That in your chance to post something useful, you once more showed how little you understand that concept as well! please go read the definition for "metaphor" and you will hopefully see what you have done there does not qualify. at best its exaggeration, at worst, its outright fabrication. in either event, its not an accurate representation of libertarian or conservative opposition to obamacare. What do you think the defintion of metaphor is, dumbass? It is most telling of libertarians and conservatives on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). You can not even stated the name of the law; that should show anyone whom is more 'right' in this argument. You behave in the very manner to which I was describing when you state 'Obamacare'. Because defining it correctly or its abbreviation, is just to much for you. Have you read the law to which your attacking yet? Not anymore than someone: "Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage." Perhaps its not so much a metaphor in your case....

joether -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 8:08:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage. Your typical libertarian..... It does not benefit your credibility to be continually advertising how disconnected from reality you are . Its called a 'metaphor'. That you can not understand the concept, does not surprise me. The figure of speech employed is irrelevant to the charge, and your belief to the contrary supports it. If it was irrelevant, why did you make a post thinking it was? You talk out both sides of your mouth like most of the losers whom are to scared to even attack Mr. Trump right now. Have you read the ACA yet? Its been around for over five years. What is the excuse this time?

joether -> RE: John Boehner Scores A Little Win Against Obamacare (9/10/2015 8:20:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Yes this particular battle is over ACA, but is that the real issue here? No Please get over the ACA here. What is the topic of this thread, KenDckey? "John Boehner' and 'the Affordable Care Act'? Seems I'm talking about a concept, ON TOPIC, of a thread, YOU CREATED! If you don't like being thrashed by the facts and evidence; maybe, just maybe, you might invest some time in the future in....RESEARCHING....the information before creating the thread. That way you can avoid being beaten down over the obvious problems with your argument. In this case, that would imply you reading the ACA from cover to cover. Which is kinda of your duty as a US Citizen according to the founding fathers...... quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey The true issue is that, as far as I can find and I have been looking, is the first time the Congress has sued a President. Under checks and balances, it is now up to SCOTUS as the supreme arbitor to make a determination. And I am sure it will go that high. Oh, I guess you were in a coma in the 1990's..... The US Supreme Court has weighed in on the ACA. TWICE in fact. Seems the ACA is still law in the United States of America. That is because the high court understands what will happen if it rules how conservatives/libertarians want. The conservatives had to draw straws to determine whom would side with the liberals on both rulings. That they understand, as do I, what will happen. You however, do not. So you pray and hope for change by this organization. And will be continuously disappointed. That I explained it to you, directly, in the past, TWICE; shows how little you have learned. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey In the future, it will also make it easier for Congress to sue the President (party affiliation isn't important on either side of potential cases). The concept is the suit. I may be anti ACA, but I didn't put this one in because of that. It is in over the suit concept. So when the Liberals own Congress, it can keep that conservative/libertarian President effectively on a leash, eh? Let's be clear: Your anti-ACA because other people have told you to be anti-ACA. Not because you studied the ACA and made an informed understanding of the laws pros/cons. Further, if you have a problem with Liberals in control of Congress dictating terms to a US President you elected is wrong; please, justify the opposite. If your 'really' on the ball here, you'll realize its better to concede and admitting to it, then spending time to justify it. Since I'll destroy that argument as well!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875