[speechlesstx]

How so? I was commenting on tom's answer, not on conservatives as a whole.

You called me "nasty" the other day after I made a sarcastic remark and called him cold for doing the same. Stop making it personal and learn what sarcasm is.

This whole Current Events board is based on 3 or 4 people hating everything liberal so you are in no position to admonish me.

Nonsense, there's just as much if not more hating all things conservative, if you don't like it here you don't have to show up.

[NeedKarma]

It's a good place to find out what the right-wings are telling their people what the talking points are for the day. It's entertaining to correct you guys on the misinformation you spew - it usually takes only 10 sec of reading a source, something you guys rarely do.

And yes, sarcasm can be cold and nasty. If the shoe fits...

[speechlesstx]

The irony.

[speechlesstx]

So if Obamacare is "the law of the land" as you lefties keep reminding us, why does he keep changing it, illegally I would add?

Obama Looks to Illegally Change Obamacare . . . Again | National Review Online

[talaniman]

Yet again the conservatives have found a new excuse to do nothing.

[speechlesstx]

You are the one that keeps saying it's the law, well is it or isn't it? Or is it whatever the president says it is?

[talaniman]

I have given you links already to the provisions in the law that specifically were written to address the glitch and problems that were foreseen. You chose to ignore instead of read, so your spin is bogus, and so is the source of your link this morning. Its spin for the uninformed.

We call that hollering loud and saying nothing in my barrio and prevents any reasonable discussion of facts, policy, and procedure. Case in point, your authors dismissing totally the written law as described by "the secretary shall" which implicitly is followed by a procedure to rectify, when applicable for good reason, the practical physical effects of implementation of said policy.

[speechlesstx]

Where exactly in the law does it give the president flexibility to extend mandates? Do you even know what mandate means, what the word "shall" means?

[paraclete]

how do you extend a mandate? an mandate means you have the authority to implement or rule, either he has a mandate or not. If a policy is taken to an election it is usually presumed that the victor has a mandate to implement that policy. What is happening here is the loser is in denial. You can argue over the detail but you can't deny the mandate. So the President had a mandate for the ACA and the legislature argued about the detail and even the judiciary doesn't deny the mandate or even the detail..

What I don't get is why don't you get on with cooperating in the implementation, if there is error you can help correct it

[speechlesstx]

What you don't get is this President has no regard for the law. This is entirely political, all about elections and power. Meanwhile the people got screwed, we lost the insurance we wanted and could afford, we're paying much more out of pocket, we may not get to keep our doctors, we get to fund more people's lifestyle who choose not to work thanks to the disincentive to work, more people on Medicaid and good luck using the websites that still don't work and may compromise your personal data due to shoddy security. What the hell should we cooperate in, getting screwed more?

[paraclete]

can't see he has no regard for the law he has used executive orders less than others, what you don't like is what you got, I can understand that because it isn't universal health care but a scheme that you get what you can pay for with a minimum standard, it is free enterprise gone mad. There are many ways health care can be provided, taxation is one, private insurers are another but obviously the insurers couldn't be trusted to regulate themselves and so they whorted their clients, to change that obviously meant it was going to cost someone and we have never known an insurance company to be ultimately out of pocket.

i can see the implementation was poorly handled but you must blame the industry for that, vested interests had to be served, you see he had a mandate to broaden access to health insurance. The way we handled is if you are not insured you get a tax surcharge and access to a certain level of benefit and effectively that is what you have done because the insurers wanted everyone in the scheme. When we did it everyone started to opt out of health insurance and just rely on the government benefit, obviously you couldn't allow that to happen because you have your states involved. The government should be setting caps on premiums

[speechlesstx]

Yes, he lags far behind his hero FDR who issued 3,522. It's not the use of EOs as much as it is the substance of them. The emperor is past pushing the envelope on legality.

[talaniman]

We had to build a floor first, but some rather go with a bare minimum, because its dirt cheap. Doesn't matter that its worthless if you need it.

[speechlesstx]

We had to build a floor first, but some rather go with a bare minimum, because its dirt cheap. Doesn't matter that its worthless if you need it.

And we're back to this line of reasoning even if that's one of things Obama did by fiat was decide those worthless plans were ok to keep after all...after most people lost them. That's the problem with this shameless political maneuvering Tal, it fixes nothing. What is the point of delay, it fixes nothing.

[paraclete]

well you can always fix it at the ballot box or can you?

[talaniman]

Obama's opinion and fix means nothing, since the states are the ones who ultimately decide the policy and laws they write, enforce, or change in there own states. I have already pointed out that the procedure for resolving state conflicts, and concerns, with the federal law (ACA), is an extensive one and rather lengthy, but was funded 4 years ago in every state. Some made better use of it than others, but if you have a problem with it, talk to your own state commissioners, or regulatory body (in Texas, you county official).

In addition "if you like your doctor you can keep them" is not up to you, but up to your doctor AND your insurance provider.

That's what you get when you have a free market capitalist private system collaboration, instead of a consumer based one. But we have had that argument before and sorry Speech if you have failed to acknowledge, or recognize, what your own state, and private insurance companies, and hospital groups, are doing right under your nose.

I read every link every poster provides, and you should do the same. Then you conservatives and TParty types wouldn't miss what some states are doing in collusion with private industry that takes not only money, but options and opportunities right out of your pocket.

[speechlesstx]

No, that's what you get when you have incompetent boobs building a cr@p sandwich for everyone based on a throwaway campaign line. YOu can keep shifting the blame and spreading the BS about it all you want but the Dems in the WH and congress own this.

[speechlesstx]

And this is how you guys "fix" things.

Attachment 45650

[talaniman]

LOL, its so easy to ignore that more will be helped than hindered. Your fix is to let the few be served, and the many be thrown back under the bus.

Some fix!!

[speechlesstx]

If Obamacare is so great why does he keep delaying it? It's a simple question, Tal, but then I understand your side's idea of "helping" others is forcing those of us who do work and take responsibility for our lives to subsidize those who won't in addition to those who CAN'T, because apparently money grows on trees.

And this is where liberalism has a very important choice to make. It's possible to defend Obamacare's overall goals while also recognizing its potentially perverse effects, and conceding that we should try to minimize the number of low-skilled workers exiting the labor market.

But it's also possible to argue that as a rich, post-scarcity society, we shouldn't really care that much about whether the poor choose to work. The important thing is just making sure they have a decent standard of living, full stop, and if they choose Keynesian leisure over a low-paying job, that's their business.

No Ross, it IS my business when you're taking my hard-earning money to pay for their laziness, but I do not expect any of you true believers to use your brains long enough to figure out how inherently unfair and ignorant that is, not to mention impractical. Ask Greece.