How does that compare with your property taxes, automobile insurance, college tuition, food bills, etcAZhitman wrote:All I can say is that if I look back at my premiums from 17 years ago (when I started here) and compare them to today, they're roughly double. That's a 100% increase in 17 years.
LOL, it certainly is a slippery slope, and it's a shame politicians feel they can do that with other issues. I agree healthcare insurance premiums have gone up drastically over the last 17 yrs, but that's because health care costs have increased insanely, and insurance companies are simply passing along the costs, especially over the last 5 yrs.. There are many reasons (that aren't Obamacare) to explain those huge cost increases. And you know many of them have little to do with politics. ACA is obviously not a cure-all, but doing nothing has proven to be just as bad if not worse.AZhitman wrote:All I can say is that if I look back at my premiums from 17 years ago (when I started here) and compare them to today, they're roughly double. That's a 100% increase in 17 years.
I find it hard to believe that a 1300% increase is the logical progression of that trend.
But apparently, that's ok with those who think it's the "gubmint's job" to take care of citizens.
Even if we assume that it is, and I now have a vested interest in the health and welfare of a bunch of other people, then it stands to reason that I should have a say in how they take care of themselves. And THAT is a slippery slope that has no place in America.
I wouldn't go quite that far!Bubba1 wrote:
I suggest you run for office. I'd vote for you.
Not for me and my family. Doing nothing means I stay where I'm at and avoid the 1300% increase in premiums. That's not inflation - that's punishment for non-conformity.Bubba1 wrote:ACA is obviously not a cure-all, but doing nothing has proven to be just as bad if not worse.
Unfortunately, the common-sense, fiscal conservatism and socially-liberal policies I support don't seem to go over well with either of the bands of stooges who keep voting a straight ticket.Bubba1 wrote:I suggest you run for office. I'd vote for you.
With proper regulation and oversight YES!Ace2cool wrote:You really believe the hospitals will stop charging what they do? Have food prices gonna back down now that gas is half of what it was when they hiked prices? Didn't think so.
That is exactly how social security works.Ace2cool wrote:And I take issue with the burden falling on my generation to take care of people in your generation that don't care about us in the first place.
Ace2cool wrote:........ It's the government forcing me to buy a service. Literally threatening me and my wellbeing if I don't comply.
More big government.telcoman wrote:With proper regulation and oversight YES!
Hmmm. I don't see a single thing in there that costs money. I also don't see anything in there that represents the government mandating you buy something from a private company.telcoman wrote:You drive, you must have a drivers license. You work, you must have a social security card. Want to use your local library, you must have a library card and provide proof of residence. Want to travel, you need a government issued passport.
telcoman wrote:...trillions being pissed away in the middle east in a war ( now a huge middle east clusterfvuck) that was started by a previous administration looking for WMD...
Yes, please do.telcoman wrote:Stop whining!
Correct but instead of wasting taxpayer money attempting to repeal it over 50 times, why not attempt to fix what is wrong with it?AZhitman wrote:The fact that it's "here to stay" doesn't mean it's a good plan.
Agreed!AZhitman wrote:I agree 100% that Congress is, for the most part, a worthless bunch of criminals, idiots, shady POSs, and clueless miscreants.
No!AZhitman wrote:I'll take that last post as a concession of failure.
Why hasn't the left made any attempts to fix it? Why so partisan?telcoman wrote:why not attempt to fix what is wrong with it?
That's a very good question, and applies to both sides of the aisle. Which is one of the many reasons I think we badly need term limits. It seems idiotic to keep voting for the same people who we've watched behave like children and expect them to suddenly act maturely and work together.AZhitman wrote:Why hasn't the left made any attempts to fix it? Why so partisan?telcoman wrote:why not attempt to fix what is wrong with it?
Why keep trying to overturn it instead of compromise to fix it?AZhitman wrote:It's easy to bash the Right for trying to overturn a bad law (nothing's permanent, that's flawed thinking), but the ACA has critics on the left as well. Where's the effort?
No, they're all out for themselves, and that's proof that it's simply not good for America.
The False Hope of a Limited Government, Built on Tax BreaksAZhitman wrote:But apparently, that's ok with those who think it's the "gubmint's job" to take care of citizens.
Even if we assume that it is, and I now have a vested interest in the health and welfare of a bunch of other people, then it stands to reason that I should have a say in how they take care of themselves. And THAT is a slippery slope that has no place in America.
Scalia on Obamacare: 'We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare'
The justice wrote in his dissenting opinion Thursday that the Supreme Court had made a "defense of the indefensible."
The decision, Scalia wrote, "rewrites the law." "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he wrote.
He continued: "Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act's limitation of tax credits to state exchanges," Scalia wrote.
The ruling rejects a lawsuit that aimed to gut federal health-care subsidies for people in 34 states. If the Court had ruled the other way, more than 6 million people would have been at risk of losing their coverage.
Scalia, who read his dissent from the bench, was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in his dissent. Scalia took issue with the majority's interpretation of the language within the Affordable Care Act. The law states that in order for people to qualify for health care subsidies, they need to be "enrolled in through an exchange established by the state." The majority upheld that by "state," the law referred to individual state exchanges or exchanges set up by the federal government. Otherwise, the majority opinion stated, state exchanges would drown in a "death spiral."
Roberts wrote that "it is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner."
Scalia heavily criticized this reading, saying that the majority has erroneously interpreted the word "state" to also mean "federal government."
"The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a state," he wrote. "Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is 'established by the state.'"
Scalia wrote that the justices who authored the majority displayed "no semblance of shame" in their opinion. His dissent is littered with jabs at his fellow justices. "Today's interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of," Scalia writes. He describes another aspect of the majority's analysis to be "pure applesauce."
AZhitman wrote:..... Whine at them for picking on your Doofus In Chief.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... re-opinionRogue One wrote:Scalia on Obamacare: 'We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare'
The justice wrote in his dissenting opinion Thursday that the Supreme Court had made a "defense of the indefensible."
The decision, Scalia wrote, "rewrites the law." "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he wrote.
He continued: "Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act's limitation of tax credits to state exchanges," Scalia wrote.
The ruling rejects a lawsuit that aimed to gut federal health-care subsidies for people in 34 states. If the Court had ruled the other way, more than 6 million people would have been at risk of losing their coverage.
Scalia, who read his dissent from the bench, was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in his dissent. Scalia took issue with the majority's interpretation of the language within the Affordable Care Act. The law states that in order for people to qualify for health care subsidies, they need to be "enrolled in through an exchange established by the state." The majority upheld that by "state," the law referred to individual state exchanges or exchanges set up by the federal government. Otherwise, the majority opinion stated, state exchanges would drown in a "death spiral."
Roberts wrote that "it is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner."
Scalia heavily criticized this reading, saying that the majority has erroneously interpreted the word "state" to also mean "federal government."
"The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a state," he wrote. "Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is 'established by the state.'"
Scalia wrote that the justices who authored the majority displayed "no semblance of shame" in their opinion. His dissent is littered with jabs at his fellow justices. "Today's interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of," Scalia writes. He describes another aspect of the majority's analysis to be "pure applesauce."
To try to to get rid of Rachel "Mad Dog" Maddow.telcoman wrote:your plan?
I can only pity you anymore. It is just too bad you insist on wearing your free government-issue blinders ... sad.telcoman wrote:Sorry!
I know the truth is tough for you but I just had to point it out to you.
Some good news for the ACA supportersszh wrote:I can only pity you anymore. It is just too bad you insist on wearing your free government-issue blinders ... sad.telcoman wrote:Sorry!
I know the truth is tough for you but I just had to point it out to you.
Z
And yet, you deny Ted Cruz's intelligence? He is far more of the legal expert and better lawyer than President Obama ever was or will be.telcoman wrote:AZhitman wrote:..... Whine at them for picking on your Doofus In Chief.
You mean the one who taught constitutional law and had his major accomplishment upheld twice now by the US Supreme Court and was reelected in 2012.
You're too funny and have been so wrong now for so many years.
Telcoman