Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fixing/Removing ObamaCare
#1
Okay - it's as bad as I warned. The GOP plan is up - but unreadable because it addresses unreadable stuff. The new act starts by addressing subsection (b) of section 4002 of the ObamaCare act as amended by section 5009 of the 21st Century Cares Act. It says to amend the text by adding or changing stuff. It refers to paragraph 2 - but there is no paragraph 2. So somewhere in section 5002 of another act, something must have been added to make a second paragraph. But when I went to the 21st Century Cures Act, I couldn't find any Section 5002.

IN other words, in the first 13 lines of the attempt to fix what's broken - I am stymied.

Somewhere out there, there may be a resource where everything is hyperlinked so you can shuttle back and forth to make sense of things - but I haven't found it yet.
The links re out there - but find some better than the ones I did, and mybe you can take a first step. One thing I can tell you: Rand Paul walking around with a copy machine is really silly.
Reply
#2
So, what you are saying is that Rand Paul was Spot On all along?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#3
No - he was silly. I amended my first post before you posted - but there is no copying that makes sense. For anything to be put together which is readable may take a while.
Reply
#4
This ia all Obama's fault - he told Pelosi and her staff to put it together like this to make it impossible to read or to replace. Try to make sense of it yourself. I betcha you come away thinking just like me - and to my thinking, Rand Paul is, and was, irrelevant.
Reply
#5
(03-07-2017, 02:02 PM)WmLambert Wrote: This ia all Obama's fault - he told Pelosi and her staff to put it together like this to make it impossible to read or to replace. Try to make sense of it yourself. I betcha you come away thinking just like me - and to my thinking, Rand Paul is, and was, irrelevant.

Hey, quit making excuses for YOUR party.  If it can be done, it can be undone.  But first YOUR party needs to grow some Balls!  When are you going to finally throw up your hands and scream Enough!  Gah  Gah  Gah  Gah

This is  nothing more than Enabling on the part of millions of disgruntled Republicans, and like putting up with alcoholics, it doesn't work.  In fact, it encourages them.  When are you guys going to finally realize this?  My friend, sooner or later something has to give.

I'm just disgusted with the whole thing. S18
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#6
I guess you made no attempt to actually look at any of the bills. The text is unreadable - how would you go about getting rid of ObamaCare when it has changed the text in many, many other laws? It's not about the party dragging it's feet - it is sussing out all the landmines that have been planted. And planted with malice forethought to allow Democrats things to act all heroic about.

Form what Speaker Ryan said, the bill must be fleshed out in committees, fully transparently. The things like interstate shopping for policies may be added on as a one-page bill, but trying to decide the free market reaction before it happens is useless. It must go to reconciliation, or else the GOP won't have the higher number of votes needed to pass it. We may be able to pass interstate shopping without reconciliation. How could a Dem run in the next election voting that down?
Reply
#7
I stand by everything I said. No quibbling, or making excuses either. Just end the G-d damn thing and quit trying to fidget and whine. That's what they are doing. All this time they supposedly had a counter bill ready to do in case they gained control. That's what they said, and now look at them. And it was supposed to be a Free Market alternative. So where is it Bill!!

You, and the rest of Your party faithful should be driving up to DC and demanding they get their Shit together, or by G-d let them see you all set up stakes, and put their names on them. Let them know you mean business, for heaven's sake.

There is absolutely no excuse for this. And "Enabling" them is the worst thing possible. Gah
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#8
This one picture by Ramirez sums it up nicely. Dumbasses!

[Image: mrz030717-color_1_orig.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#9
(03-07-2017, 10:30 PM)John L Wrote: I stand by everything I said.   No quibbling, or making excuses either.  Just end the G-d damn thing and quit trying to fidget and whine.  That's what they are doing.  All this time they supposedly had a counter bill ready to do in case they gained control.  That's what they said, and now look at them.   And it was supposed to be a Free Market alternative.  So where is it Bill!!

Like I said. It must be done in several steps. Getting rid of ObamaCare is first - but how do you do that when the original Law has changed many, many other laws? If you pass a single page bill that says everything in the original bill is deleted - what does that do to the entire Healthcare industry? The regs are still there until individually addressed. The main things I want are able to be created with single-page bills - but all the ObamaCare landmines must be dug up and defused. That has been going on for six years to reach this point. Look at the bills and see what I mean.
Reply
#10
[Image: sbr030817dAPR20170308014509.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#11
Yeah, but the big difference here is that the ACA had to be passed so we could see what is in it

while the with the AHCA we get to see what is in it BEFORE it is voted on.

This is progress, is it not?

I expect the AHCA to go through a number of alterations before it finally gets to President Trump to be signed.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#12
Are conservatives really going to allow it to be said that they were responsible for defeating the repeal and replacement of Obamacare?
Reply
#13
Ted Cruz said if it ever got passed, the people would get addicted to the subsidies. Looks like he was right.
Reply
#14
The trick is to undo all the little bells and whistles that have been stuck onto everything, without abandoning basic coverage on those who need it. These are two conflicting desires. If we just end all ObamaCare policies, then people have no coverage. If we allow the marketplace to fill the void, it would be good for the long-term, but the short-term would be a disaster. It is valid to consider both issues. So far, the direction being taken makes sense. The first step is the most important: Bite deep into the intricacies of ObamaCare and begin to stop the damage. As the bits and pieces of ObamaCare get torn away, the Free Market can begin to fill the gaps. The farther along we go, the less intrusions we will permit. In the end, there should be no ObamaCare left. The second and third parts are all about voting rules in the House and Senate, and how to finish the job down the line, knowing the Dems will obstruct and ruin whatever they can.
Reply
#15
Looks to me like the GOP is owned by corporations. I guess both parties are, but, I no more want my employer knowing my every secret than I do Uncle Sam. This idea just sucks.

This nation is going to be worse than 1984 before I die:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/healt....html?_r=0
Reply
#16
Nah, as you know, I do not believe personal privacy trumps security and honor. Protecting an individual’s personal medical information from use by employer and others may seem intrusive - but lying by omission to anyone which results in a harm to the person being lied to - makes no sense. Either a pe4rson is good or not. Calling a good person bad is not right. But a bad person hiding being bad is worse. The crux is in doing harm. If discovering truth about a person is wrong, then that should be balanced against the harm done by hiding it. Most court decisions don't follow this logic. My test case is the pedophile who claims the privacy of the bedroom to avoid prosecution and not save the child..
Reply
#17
(03-11-2017, 09:04 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Nah, as you know, I do not believe personal privacy trumps security and honor. Protecting an individual’s personal medical information from use by employer and others may seem intrusive - but lying by omission to anyone which results in a harm to the person being lied to - makes no sense. Either a pe4rson is good or not. Calling a good person bad is not right. But a bad person hiding being bad is worse. The crux is in doing harm. If discovering truth about a person is wrong, then that should be balanced against the harm done by hiding it. Most court decisions don't follow this logic. My test case is the pedophile who claims the privacy of the bedroom to avoid prosecution and not save the child..

I cannot imagine what you mean by the "honor" part here Bill.  If someone wishes to have his/her medical information remain private, they are being dishonorable?  Further, are you saying that a person's body is not his property?  And if not, then who, or what, does it belong to: the State?

Case in point: Constitutional Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words what Virginia Foxx is advocating is a violation of the Constitution, or at least that's how I interpret it to be saying.  And to make an exception there must first be a "Probable Cause", to warrant a court order.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#18
(03-11-2017, 10:22 PM)John L Wrote: ..I cannot imagine what you mean by the "honor" part here Bill.  If someone wishes to have his/her medical information remain private, they are being dishonorable?  Further, are you saying that a person's body is not his property?  And if not, then who, or what, does it belong to: the State?...
Privacy should not be about the state - but the person. For instance, If a person is a murderer, we have many legalistic tactics that allow an obvious killer to walk free, because proof of that crime may have been tainted. Sure, I agree that personal privacy is great, but should it trump true justice? Most people will argue some violations of the law that performs a just act is bad, because it sets a precedence that may be used to hurt others. I say if laws are broken to find truth, then penalize wrongdoers who break the law - but don't throw away the truth that was uncovered in the process.

I guess the difference is in throwing the baby out with the bath water. A criminal may be discovered by serendipity or by accident, yet if it is found out when someone else does something wrong, why let that let a bad guy skate? If laws are broken to solve a crime, then there are two crimes. Penalize them both, but don't erase one because of some technicality in how that crime was uncovered.

Keeping health problems or other such private things out of public scrutiny is fine if it doesn't hurt others - but that freebie stops at that other person's well-being. You violate that - then your own privacy should not be sacrosanct. Should all those who know they have a disease be allowed to transmit it without burden?
Reply
#19
But you are contradicting your previous post here. And that's fine, since privacy really is first and foremost to a person's liberties. That is exactly the reason why Virginia Foxx if proposing the Constitution be violated, with business more important than the individual. That was what Patrick's point was making.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#20
Hey guys. No need to get in to a hussy over nothing over Obamacare. The GOP in the Senate will probably kill it anyway.  S19 

Don't you love the way the lawmakers and the President live in two separate worlds? S18
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Price Fixing Anyone? John L 23 1,652 03-19-2012, 10:21 PM
Last Post: Gunnen4u

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)