Five Years, 50 Votes and Still No Viable Health Care Plan.

[greywar]

The way it was killed my mother. The way it is today would have saved her. This makes this an easy choice for me.

[borregokid]

Originally Posted by greywar

The way it was killed my mother. The way it is today would have saved her. This makes this an easy choice for me.

I am fairly convinced that most of the people that are against the ACA and are on Medicare, Tricare, VA, etc have never had a sibling , parent, spouse, or had to experience for themselves do I seek help, buy medicine for myself or pay bills and help the kids , or spouse. Anyone ever hear of trying to stretch a one month supply of medicine into two months? Anyone ever seen someone refuse to get into an ambulance because of the cost? Anyone ever seen a sibling or parent die because your family couldnt afford health care. Be honest if you are a conservative...ever seen that?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by borregokid

I am fairly convinced...

Your shoe-laces are untied.

Originally Posted by greywar

The way it was killed my mother. The way it is today would have saved her.

That's speculation and Wishful Thinking

Originally Posted by cxr89

Uh no. The topic at hand is that the republicans have voted 50 times to repeal the ACA.

That is the correct course of action.

Originally Posted by cxr89

And that they have not introduced any legislation to replace or reform the ACA.

They are not obligated to do so.

Just because Democrats stab babies with pitch-forks, it does not logically follow that Republicans or anyone else is required to do so.

Originally Posted by cxr89

And then because of your obsession with the American Hospital Association,...

And yet neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to refute one single sourced fact I've posted in the last 4+ years on the issue.

No doubt the fact that I'm 100% correct just kills you.

The difference between Obamacare supporters, and those who want real, true, effective, meaningful reforms can be easily illustrated with an analogy.

There's a house....every time it rains, water destroys the carpet and the furniture, and worsens the mold problem causing negative health effects.

Obamacare supporters want to needlessly take money from everyone else and purchase new carpet and furniture each time it is damaged because of the rain. Obamacare supporters have no interest in finding out why water keeps getting into the house, they just continue to whine incessantly demanding that someone pay for their new carpet and furniture.

The restivus.....we're looking at the hole in the roof and ceiling where the water comes in...we recognize that is the problem, and we understand that if we fix the hole in the roof, the rain will no longer damage the carpet and furniture.

Our solution is cheaper, more effective, has greater benefits, and is permanent.

Obamacare supporters don't even want the problem solved, they just want someone to pay for it wasting lots of money and resources while allowing the problem to get worse.

Originally Posted by cxr89

...your original post fails to answer the issue as to why the republicans haven't offered any solution to reform the healthcare system.

Asked and answered....again, which part of ...

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.

....do you not understand?Healthcare is not Interstate Commerce, therefore, Congress has no power or authority.

That's pretty clear even to dead people and small animals.

You don't even realize there is no "healthcare system" rather its healthcare systems....plural...you have 50 separate healthcare systems in the US.....actually more than 50 if you want to count Puerto Rico and the Islands......that's what intra-State Commerce means.

Originally Posted by cxr89

The ruling that you stated is 100% correct, but it does not change the fact that republicans have offered nothing on the table for health reform.

NY Laws 1934, c. 595, adding Article 14, §§452-461, to the New York Insurance Law. The 1939 legislature adopted a new codification of the Insurance Law, effective June 15, 1939, in which Article DC-C, §§250-259, was substituted for Article 14, broadened to include non-profit medical indemnity
corporations, and amended in other respects.

Alabama: Acts 1935, act no. 544, amended. Acts 1936 (Ext. Scss.) act no.169, Acts, 1939;
California: Stat. 1935, c 386, amended, Stat. 1937, c. 881, Stat. 1939, A. B. 1712;
Illinois:Rev. Stat. (1937) §§551-562;
Mississippi: Laws 1936, c 177;
Georgia: Laws 1937, no. 379, p. 690;
Maryland: Laws 1937, c. 224;
Massachusetts: Annotated Laws (1938 Supp.) c 176A;
Pennsylvania: Stat. Ann. (Purdon, 1938) tit. 15, a 49A, §§2851-1301—2851-1309;
Kentucky: Acts 1938, c. 23;
New Jersey: Laws 1938, c. 366;
Connecticut: Laws 1939, S. B. 51;
District of Columbia: S. B. 497, 76th Cong. 1st Scss.(1939);
Iowa: Laws 1939, c. 222;
Maine: Laws 1939, c. 149;
Michigan: Laws 1939, H. B. 145;
New Hampshire: Laws 1939, H. B. 232;
New Mexico: Laws 1939, c. 66;
Ohio: Laws- 1939, S. B. 181;
Rhode Island: Laws 1939, c. 719;
South Carolina: Acts 1939, H. B. 845;
Texas: Laws 1939, Subst. H. B. 191;
Vermont: Laws 1939;
Wisconsin: Laws 1939, S. B. 288.

Note: The Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin acts were passed in 1939 after bills had been defeated in 1937.

Which one of those "enabling laws" at the State level should Congress violate the Constitution and repeal first?

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I would think that 5 years would have plenty of time for Republicans to argue amongst themselves in order to present a PLAN, not a proposal.

I would think that 5 years would be plenty of time for you to sell all of your possessions and give the money to the poor......

.....why haven't you done that yet?

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

You have to be a special kind of rube to be looking for a government health care plan

A Special Snowflake Rube.

C-D needs a Most Obtusely Constitutionally Ignorant Award...

Mircea

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. Why hope Republicans would ignore health insurance lobbyists paid to keep this law in effect?

FDR supported the law....it's perfect in every way.

The Evening Independent - Google News Archive Search

139. Moratorium for Insurance Companies 139 [ The President's Statement on Signing a Bill Granting Insurance Companies a Moratorium Under the Anti-trust Laws. March lo, 1945 I HAVE given my approval to S. 340, the insurance bill, which passed the Congress last week. This bill grants the insurance business a moratorium from the application of the anti-trust laws and certain related statutes, except for agreements to boycott, coercion, or intimidation, or acts of boycott, coercion, or intimidation, until January i, 1948. The purpose of this moratorium period is to permit the States to make necessary readjustments in their laws with respect to insurance in order to bring them into conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in the Southeastern Underwriters Association case. After the moratorium period, the anti-trust laws and certain related statutes will be applicable in full force and effect to the business of insurance except to the extent that the States have assumed the responsibility, and are effectively performing that responsibility, for the regulation of whatever aspect of the insurance business may be involved. It is clear from the legislative history and the language of this Act, that the Congress intended no grant of immunity for monopoly or for boycott, coercion, or intimidation. Congress did not intend to permit private rate fixing, which the Anti-trust Act forbids, but was willing to permit actual regulation of rates by affirmative action of the States. The bill is eminently fair to the States. It provides an opportunity for the orderly correction of abuses which have existed in the insurance business and preserves the right of the States to regulate in a manner consonant with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the anti-trust laws. NOTE: On October 9, 1944, the Underwriters Association et al., 322 United States Supreme Court in U. S. 533, decided that the business the case of U. S. vs. Southeastern of insurance was commerce, and 587

Source: The public papers and addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. 1944-45 volume, Victory and the threshold of peace: compiled with special material and explanatory notes by Samuel I. Rosenman. [Book 1] Roosevelt, Franklin D. (Franklin Delano), 1882-1945., Rosenman, Samuel Irving, 1896-1973., United States. President (1933-1945 : Roosevelt)

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ppotpus/...;view=fulltext

So how dare you chastise and impugn the Great Tyrant?

The insurance companies never wanted the law.

But, hey....I defer to your finite wisdom, extreme short-sightedness, lack of memory, and zeal to endure suffering.

Carter removed banking restrictions, and then you ended up with Too Big To Fail Banks.

How's that working out for everyone?

Apparently, just peachy, because you and others now demand Too Big To Fail Insurance Companies.

I'll certainly be looking forward to that....

Mircea

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Mircea

I would think that 5 years would be plenty of time for you to sell all of your possessions and give the money to the poor......

.....why haven't you done that yet?

Well, having never stood atop every soapbox I could find for 5 years pledging to sell all of my possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor might be one reason.


Still having trouble with those big words like, informal fallacy, I see.