The Great ObamaCare Debate, Part 237: Back to Court - Page 417 - Politics and Economics

lol.. so why aren't these Governors turning away Federal funding for school and roads? Couldn't the law change one day and the states have to pay more? That is a terrible reason to refuse the expansion. If the law changed, the states could just opt-out anyway.

The chutzpah of this is what party would like to defund Medicaid? It's not the Democrats, the push is coming from the Republicans. So you have Republican governors saying they don't trust the Federal Government because we may someday have a Republican controlled federal government and it might restrict the Medicaid payments to the states.

It's pretty easy to say government is the problem when your team is actively trying to f*ck it up.

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 02-12-2014 at 01:39 AM.

02-12-2014 , 02:06 AM

#10402

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,535

Quote:

Originally Posted by markksman

Rick Perry says that Texas already does a fine job caring for people below the poverty level.

This is not true but he claims it anyways. It is wholly irrational to turn down this funding.

Actually it isn't clear at all that the states can opt out after accepting the expansion. There is a legal risk, look up reasoning put forth by Robert Alt and Dan Greenberg among others .

02-12-2014 , 02:29 AM

#10403

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,535

LOL regarding Obama moving back the mandates for certain employers until 2016. Reading stuff today where even some Obamacare supporters are sick of defending the law.

02-12-2014 , 02:33 AM

#10404

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by adios

LOL regarding Obama moving back the mandates for certain employers until 2016. Reading stuff today where even some Obamacare supporters are sick of defending the law.

I'm pretty sure most people are sick of Obama avoiding standing up for the health care law that carries his name. I mean, what's the harsh wounds inflicted by Obamacare that people are sick of defending?

02-12-2014 , 03:01 AM

#10405

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

LOL regarding adios' interpretation

02-12-2014 , 08:42 AM

#10406

DKay

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 495

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

I think this article sums up how most people feel.

"Barack Obama is guilty of fraud — serial fraud — that is orders of magnitude more serious than frauds the Justice Department routinely prosecutes, and that courts punish harshly. The victims will be out billions of dollars, quite apart from other anxiety and disruption that will befall them.

The president will not be prosecuted, of course, but that is immaterial. As discussed here before, the remedy for profound presidential corruption is political, not legal. It is impeachment and removal. “High crimes and misdemeanors” — the Constitution’s predicate for impeachment — need not be indictable offenses under the criminal code. “They relate chiefly,” Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 65, “to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” They involve scandalous breaches of the public trust by officials in whom solemn fiduciary duties are reposed — like a president who looks Americans in the eye and declares, repeatedly, that they can keep their health insurance plans . . . even as he studiously orchestrates the regulatory termination of those plans; even as he shifts blame to the insurance companies for his malfeasance — just as he shifted blame to a hapless video producer for his shocking dereliction of duty during the Benghazi massacre.

It is highly unlikely that Barack Obama will ever be impeached. It is certain that he will never again be trusted. Republicans and sensible Democrats take heed: The nation may not have the stomach to remove a charlatan, but the nation knows he is a charlatan. The American people will not think twice about taking out their frustration and mounting anger on those who collaborate in his schemes."

02-12-2014 , 09:39 AM

#10407

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

I'll take the under on "most people" for everything I own and anything I can borrow.

02-12-2014 , 09:59 AM

#10408

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKay

There isn't anything in this quote, just some vague "Obama lied" and now we're hysterical action. You really are a bad poster

02-12-2014 , 12:07 PM

#10409

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 100,193

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

LOL regarding adios' interpretation

He's talking about this article, which apparently is making the Drudge rounds: http://www.nationaljournal.com/white...acare-20140211

02-12-2014 , 12:09 PM

#10410

Oroku$aki

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 7,063

Quote:

Originally Posted by adios

Actually it isn't clear at all that the states can opt out after accepting the expansion. There is a legal risk, look up reasoning put forth by Robert Alt and Dan Greenberg among others .

Beside this legal risk of not being able to take away the medicaid expansion, I'd assume some people in these states would be displeased if down the road their state pushed to opt out. Then again, they apparently aren't concerned that their state didn't accept the medicaid expansion in the first place.

02-12-2014 , 12:45 PM

#10411

Namath12

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 55,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by markksman

Rick Perry says that Texas already does a fine job caring for people below the poverty level.

This is not true but he claims it anyways. It is wholly irrational to turn down this funding.

Texas has the highest per capita healthcare costs in the nation, or they did a few years back anyway. Probably bad to throw any money in their direction.

02-12-2014 , 07:31 PM

#10412

DKay

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 495

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

I'll take the under on "most people" for everything I own and anything I can borrow.

My mistake, thanks for pointing it out. I would revise to say "most intelligent people"

02-12-2014 , 07:37 PM

#10413

goofyballer

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 70,719

What insight would you possibly have into how intelligent people think?

02-12-2014 , 07:53 PM

#10414

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

ohsnap.jpg

02-12-2014 , 08:02 PM

#10415

DKay

banned

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 495

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

What insight would you possibly have into how intelligent people think?

You have poison ivy too?

02-12-2014 , 10:05 PM

#10416

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

WAPO's editorial board was surprisingly strongly against Obama's latest implementation change.

Quote:

The administration claims legal wiggle room in the Internal Revenue Code, which allows the Treasury secretary to make “needful rules and regulations” about tax collection, including those “as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law.” Treasury has used this provision to justify smoothing out the phase-in of other laws. But the administration is unilaterally making distinctions between large businesses and medium ones; the latter group, which will get hit hardest and scream loudest when the employer mandate kicks in, will be treated more leniently. The law is also explicit that the government should be enforcing penalties already; that’s the plainest interpretation of Congress’s intent. The administration shouldn’t dismiss that without exceptionally good reason. Fear of a midterm shellacking doesn’t qualify as good reason.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...5fb_story.html

02-12-2014 , 11:05 PM

#10417

jenningst77

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 4,108

Not really surprising

The law doesn't work well unless people/businesses are compelled to get insurance

02-12-2014 , 11:19 PM

#10418

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,535

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlelou

WAPO's editorial board was surprisingly strongly against Obama's latest implementation change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...5fb_story.html

King Obama has ruled and that is how it shall be.

02-12-2014 , 11:34 PM

#10419

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by adios

King Obama has ruled and that is how it shall be.

1. I think it's safe to say that we don't need to pretend this **** from you people is borne from principled support of a weak executive branch. The freakout over Obama's executive orders pretty well proved that.

So given that,

2. Isn't a delay of the employer mandate WHAT YOU WANT?

****ing Christ do any of you have any actual goddamn policy views?

P.S. Sometimes it's fun to leave EVEN THE LIBERAL WASHINGTON POST's editorial section and check out the harder news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nt-projection/

02-12-2014 , 11:42 PM

#10420

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by goofyballer

What insight would you possibly have into how intelligent people think?

McCarthy there is a birther and a "Dreams from my Father was secretly written by Bill Ayers" truther. So yeah, real finger on the pulse of moderate Dems

02-13-2014 , 01:16 AM

#10421

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 100,193

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

2. Isn't a delay of the employer mandate WHAT YOU WANT?

Yes but only in the sense that he's tribally identified with Republicans, therefore he wants anything that could potentially be a loss for Obama - with the added bonus that he gets to complain about the thing he wants.

Much like poker players say money is just about keeping score. Actual policy and real people's lives being affected only matter in the sense that they represent a win or loss for his team vs. their bitter rival.

02-13-2014 , 07:52 AM

#10422

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,535

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

King Obama has the power to rule by fiat, isn't that what you want? You should be a joyful subject of the king and all his power. Obamacare has been a great success for the king and his subjects. Just adding a few tweaks as he goes.

Last edited by adios; 02-13-2014 at 08:00 AM.

02-13-2014 , 07:58 AM

#10423

Roonil Wazlib

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 3,333

The froth is really flowing today, and it's barely light out

02-13-2014 , 08:19 AM

#10424

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,535

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roonil Wazlib

The froth is really flowing today, and it's barely light out

Firms Must Affirm Under Penalty of Perjury that Obamacare Not a Factor in Hiring/Firing Decisions

Quote:

THOUGHT POLICE: FIRMS MUST SWEAR OBAMACARE NOT A FACTOR IN FIRINGS
Is the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so.

[“That's the good thing about being president. I can do whatever I want.” – President Obama joking about getting a restricted-access tour of Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello.]

It is good to be the king!