Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's entirely true, the Ds could have gotten it done a lot sooner. But - they still beat the Rs out of the gate.
I also wish that the ACA did more to control costs, but it at least does *something*. You know as well as I do that there will be a great deal of amending in the years to come.
There has already been a great deal of amending --- all done unilaterally by Obama to postpone bad political fallout.
Pass a law that is a mess. Then let's try and fix it, to only create more and more laws that restrict more and more liberty.
Most of the laws on the books, are there trying to fix other laws that don't work. We all know every law ever made is a restriction of freedoms, to someone.
as was noted many many times in the early debates about the law, there were plenty of good alternatives that didnt require 2700 pages of law, and 20,000+ pages of regulations to bring health insurance rates down, and make it easier for those that wanted health insurance to get health insurance, even those with preexisting conditions.
Ten years ago the R's controlled both houses of congress and the Presidency and could have done anything they wanted with their healthcare reform legislation.
They could have gotten rid of the pre-existing condition ban, allowed kids to stay on their parents plan until 27, allowed selling across state lines, gotten rid of free riders by some technique other than a mandate, you name it. They could have done it all up in a nice 20 page bill.
Ten years ago the R's controlled both houses of congress and the Presidency and could have done anything they wanted with their healthcare reform legislation.
They could have gotten rid of the pre-existing condition ban, allowed kids to stay on their parents plan until 27, allowed selling across state lines, gotten rid of free riders by some technique other than a mandate, you name it. They could have done it all up in a nice 20 page bill.
But did they do ANY of these things?
EVER?
Controlling all 3 phases of house senate and White House doesn't mean much. You need a super majority in US Senate in order to pass what you need.
Just look at Bush trying to propose social security reform in 2005 after his re election. He didn't have enough votes to over come filabuster in US Senate.
Ten years ago the R's controlled both houses of congress and the Presidency and could have done anything they wanted with their healthcare reform legislation.
They could have gotten rid of the pre-existing condition ban, allowed kids to stay on their parents plan until 27, allowed selling across state lines, gotten rid of free riders by some technique other than a mandate, you name it. They could have done it all up in a nice 20 page bill.
But did they do ANY of these things?
EVER?
FAIL.
Pre-existing conditions are a problem with a very small minority of the population.. And "kids" who are 26 arent kids anymore..
You cant allow them to cross the state line, state rights, and not even ACA gets rid of free riders..
But if all of that could have been done with a nice 20 page bill, then WTF is ACA THOUSANDS of pages?
Status: Plaintiff appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Apppeals on Jul. 5, 2013. Briefing completed Dec. 20, 2013. Oral argument scheduled for May 8, 2014. Summary: Pacific Legal Foundation has launched a new constitutional cause of action against the federal Affordable Care Act. The ACA imposes a charge on Americans who fail to buy health insurance — a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court recently characterized as a federal tax. PLF’s amended complaint alleges that this purported tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitution’s Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills (Article I, Section 7).
View all PLF videos related to this case The Origination Clause argument is part of an amended complaint filed in PLF’s existing lawsuit against the ACA, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, pending before Judge Beryl A. Howell, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
It wouldn't matter if it was proved conclusively that the health care slavery law would cause the world to implode tomorrow morning. It isn't going anywhere. It's here to stay. Another link in the chains around our necks.
The only thing that can be done now is avoidance. There are ways around it if one is willing to do what it takes. And I'd be willing if it killed me. There are several ways to give the finger to the whole pathetic-assed boondoggle.
To be fair, they simply repeated the newly made arguments by the Obama administration who argued that it wasnt a tax, until they got to the Supreme Court and then called it a tax.
The irony if ACA gets ruled unconstitutional because Obama called it a tax would be priceless..
And, IMO, a little 'salvation' for Justice Roberts.
I don't like the ACA , but I don't think it will be repealed by the Supreme Court. We now have an activist court, rather than a court that decides on rule of law. The ACA was unconstitutional from the beginning, but the court ruled in favor of it, irrespective of its unconstitutionality.
We have had an "activist court for many, many years. I know as far back as FDR when he "packed" the court" in order to claim the Commerce Clause for everything he did taking states rights away and making them federal.
Ten years ago the R's controlled both houses of congress and the Presidency and could have done anything they wanted with their healthcare reform legislation.
They could have gotten rid of the pre-existing condition ban, allowed kids to stay on their parents plan until 27, allowed selling across state lines, gotten rid of free riders by some technique other than a mandate, you name it. They could have done it all up in a nice 20 page bill.
But did they do ANY of these things?
EVER?
as noted a complete failure on your part. when was the last time the republicans had control of the house, the white house, and 60 votes in the senate at the same time? and since they didnt have all these things, they couldnt do what they wanted. go read up on senate procedures and rules.
as noted a complete failure on your part. when was the last time the republicans had control of the house, the white house, and 60 votes in the senate at the same time? and since they didnt have all these things, they couldnt do what they wanted. go read up on senate procedures and rules.
They certainly could have accomplished any of the improvements I've mentioned, since the Democrats were strongly in favor of them.
The Republicans simply weren't interested in any of these simple changes. Even when the Dems proposed them, Republicans fought bitterly against them.
In fact, many Republicans are still vowing to do everything in their power to take these enhancements away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
