The truth about Obamacare Approval rating

Logarock
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

Splane to Lucie how the president himself gets to regulate this law from the white house without taking it back to congress for legal adjustments? Highly illegal really.

Every President develops means for executing the laws passed by Congress. Laws assume administrative changes in implementation. But to answer your question ... Congress HAS made many of the changes, so sorry, yes, it's "legal".

38 changes total at March 26, 2014,

21 Administrative modifications (President)

15 Changed by Congress, Signed by the President

2 Changed by Supreme Court

Quick Reference - Changes to ACA - Galen Institute

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

DarthMuerte
It was "free for you", but someone has to pay for it. Where do you think that money comes from? You empowered obama to steal it from other citizens and give it to you.

I volunteered to pay for it for other people. Yes, I know that sounds insane to some, but I am blessed to have a roof over my head, good food to eat and I can afford to buy everything I need and just about anything I want, so I don't mind paying extra to be sure that my country is one that doesn't turn poor people out into the street when they get sick.

And you also volunteered others in effect. And these others are now forced or fined into participating.

And you are quoting Jesus here as if doing so the rest of us should be shamed into a sort of pseudo-theocratic position on the issue. Which is a tactic used commonly by socialists these days.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Splane to Lucy what an administrative adjustment is in constitutional terms. Sounds like adjustment on the fly.

reply to post by Logarock


Are the Air Force or the CDC certified in the Constitution?

How about the National Weather Service?

Are you advocating that those be scrapped as well?

As to your other question, I would direct you to ask this guy, he's probably got a better idea than I do:

George W. Bush. While president, Bush issued 161 signing statements -- that is, official pronouncements that accompany the signing of a bill into law. In addition to commenting on the law generally, signing statements have been used to document the president’s constitutional objections to provisions contained in the law, and sometimes to announce how (or whether) parts of the law will be enforced. Bush was hardly the first to issue signing statements, but he was the most prolific.

According to the Congressional Research Service, Bush issued 161 signing statements, which is a smaller number than each of his three immediate predecessors. But 79 percent of Bush’s statements -- a much higher rate -- noted a challenge or objection to the law being signed, rather than offering relatively innocuous comments. Meanwhile, many statements contained multiple reservations, making the total number more than 1,000.

reply to post by Gryphon66


So the office of president is really Bureaucrat in Chief.

reply to post by Logarock


I imagine that there are many valid ways of thinking about the question; certainly American history offers a few.

However, Obama's efforts in the implementation of the ACA constitute nothing more than taking care that the law be faithfully executed, aka the Take Care Clause, aka US Constitution, Article 2, Section 3.

Do you prefer waterboarding to making sure kids can go to the doctor when they're sick?

ArtemisE
The logic is solid.

yeah, because forcing people to buy a product they can't afford, can't use, and don't need, is REALLY sound logic....

let's not forget that this law is yet another example of the federal government exceeding it's legal authority as prescribed by the constitution...

the american people should get together and file a class action lawsuit against the federal government (specifically, the congress, the senate, house, supreme court, and the president, and vice president)

i mean, let's think about this for a moment....the federal government is forcing you to buy a product from private companies, that they approve....and if you can't afford to buy the overly expensive plans, they sic the IRS on you, to steal money from you, that you coudln't spare in the first place.....

it's kinda like when i was a customer of commerce bank years ago....if i didn't keep a minimum of 100 bucks in my account, they would charge me 15 dollars.....so i call them, and after listening to 10 minutes of the guy rattling off a bunch of BS at me i was like "hey jackass, if don't have a hundred bucks to park in my account, and never touch, why in the f**k would you think i have fifteen bucks to just piss away? you see i spent my account down to 12 dollars..obviously because i needed to.....so how much sense does it make to charge me money, for not having money?"

i left commerce two days later...

anyway, it makes no sense..."buy this expensive thing that we want you to buy, or we're going to rob you" ...seriously, wtf?

how in the hell can you say anything about this is either "sound", or "logical"?

beezzer
reply to post by kx12x

 

Obamacare is nothing but a tax to promote wealth redistribution.

More people need to wake up.

wealth redistribution? the top 1% own 40% of the nations wealth....there should be a WHOLE LOT of wealth redistribution, people want their money back. people need to wake up that they have been screwed out of their salaries and wages for decades...time for a little Marie Antoinette justice

Rezzij
I'm still utterly amazed at the sheer level of indignation and objection from such a large amount of people on here - despite ATS being known for being populated largely [read: LARGELY, not solely, before anyone starts] by paranoid mental cases.".

Coming from the UK where we have the NHS, it strikes me as the only humane option. I wouldn't want to live in a society where we punish ill people for being poor. I can't even wrap my head around some of the objections on here. Disgusting, to be honest.

Fortunately Obamacare seems to be gaining some inertia now, and as time progresses the uncaring and selfish minority will be left behind.

edit on 1-4-2014 by Rezzij because: (no reason given)

aside from the wait times for proceedures, and some other issues related to quality of care/service. the NHS system is a better system than the ACA....everyone pays a little more in tax, and EVERYONE can go see a doctor, or whatever....no co-pays, no bulls**t deductibles, and premiums to worry about, everyone contributes, and everyone gets help (more or less) when they need it...

there is a huge difference between the ACA, and NHS....one requires you to buy a stupidly expensive product, that you may not even be able to make use of, under the threat of being robbed by the IRS for not being able to afford it....the other is basically crowd-funded medical services....

anyone with a few brain cells to rub together can figure out which one of those is better...

Benevolent Heretic
I volunteered to pay for it for other people. Yes, I know that sounds insane to some, but I am blessed to have a roof over my head, good food to eat and I can afford to buy everything I need and just about anything I want, so I don't mind paying extra to be sure that my country is one that doesn't turn poor people out into the street when they get sick.

i congratulate you on your good fortune...but lemme tell you what happens when you don't have insurance...

if you go to the ER, and you don't have insurance, they'll offer to set you up with charity care.....sounds good, right? sounds like it would take care of the bill, right?

nope....it covers the cost of the HOSPITAL bill....but the bill from the physician that saw you at the hospital isn't covered, and neither is the bill from the lab that they sent your blood out to....so yeah, it covered the four-hundred dollar bill for the hospital, but you're still on the hook for another thousand, or so dollars.......and if you have no job, but can't get on government programs, because they look at your household income, as opposed to your personal income...well, you're just screwed, because the collection agencies don't know the meaning of the word "quit".....

our nation doesn't turn anyone away when they're sick...not even poor people.....not even unemployed people....they just make them miserable, by harassing them relentlessly, because they have no money....if you're dead, they can't come after you anymore...

Agit8dChop
your just twisting your knickers over a politican being loose with his words when trying to convince congress?.. what are you new to the world or something?

trying to convince congress?

he said it to the american people....multiple times....at town hall meetings, and publicly broadcasted statements to the nation...he wasn't trying to convince congress, he was trying to convince all of us...by lying...

get a clue, man..

reply to post by Daedalus


The people who can't afford it the government is paying all or most. There checking your income level then if your lower income paying you to get insurance! Not exactly the holocaust.

I agree with the part about insurance profits, did a similar rant earlier in this thread. There was suppose to be a single payer option. Then the gov. Only has to break even. Not make someone a profit.


I'm pretty sure if you had bothered to read the paper work at commerce you would have known about the fee. Do you really think a bank that doesn't ask your yearly salary keeps up with how broke you are or not? That was a very ridiculous comparison.

reply to post by Daedalus


Can you name one us politician that hasn't lied?

Can you name one human who hasn't?

reply to post by Logarock

Logarock
And you also volunteered others in effect. And these others are now forced or fined into participating.

I don't have the power to volunteer others. I am just a citizen. Besides, if that's the case, then someone volunteered me to pay for the insane wars this country gets into. I don't approve, but it's part of living in a society with other people. My taxes also go toward the school system and I have no children who will benefit from it, but still, it's part of living with other people in a societal structure.

And you are quoting Jesus here as if doing so the rest of us should be shamed into a sort of pseudo-theocratic position on the issue.

I'm not shaming anyone. I'm explaining why I volunteer to help others. Because I believe it's the right thing to do. If you feel ashamed, perhaps you should take a closer look at that.

Which is a tactic used commonly by socialists these days.

That's just funny. Thanks for the chuckle.

ArtemisE
The people who can't afford it the government is paying all or most. There checking your income level then if your lower income paying you to get insurance! Not exactly the holocaust.

this makes absolutely no sense....the way in which it is worded...i have no idea what you're trying to convey...

I'm pretty sure if you had bothered to read the paper work at commerce you would have known about the fee. Do you really think a bank that doesn't ask your yearly salary keeps up with how broke you are or not? That was a very ridiculous comparison.

actually, it was changed with no prior warning. but that's not the topic of this thread...it is a perfectly valid comparison, as it's the same thing. charging people money for not having money. i'm pretty sure we didn't know about the non-compliance fine until AFTER the ACA was passed....after all "we need to pass it, to see what's in it" -rolls eyes-

ArtemisE
reply to post by Daedalus

 

Can you name one us politician that hasn't lied?

Can you name one human who hasn't?

edit on 2-4-2014 by ArtemisE because: (no reason given)

and that makes it ok for the highest elected official in the land to get on national television, and lie to people, to drum up support for a policy that is against their best interests?

I pledge to never sign up for this garbage tax.

reply to post by ArtemisE


The only real thing that is actually ridiculous are people trying to support a stuck pig like Obamacare. It was bleeding and dying before it even got started, and it is pouring blood from every lie that has come from it like the death of a thousand cuts.

Everyone knows it, and everyone can see it as plain as day. To attempt any other explanation for the ACA is only admission of following an extreme delusion. Who is the one laughing the loudest at the American people? Our president is.

The veracity of a sitting president to lie like this one has and continue on with thumbing his nose of defiance at anyone, anywhere standing up against the un American, illegal, and unconstitutional things that are included in the ACA, are worse in scope than many of the things that Chairman Mao started off with. People are not going to take the stick poking that the ACA does to them for very long.

I already know hundreds of people personally just where I live that will not sign up or even file their taxes anymore regardless of what the government officials try to do. Me included. To me, the IRS goon squads are nothing more than Obama's personal army that is doing his illegal bidding, just like HITLER did with his SS. Obama is worse because the ACA if it stays active will kill many more people than HITLER ever could have.

Keep propping up the stuck pig if you wish, but you will only get blood all over you. The smart ones will stay far away from it.

When government becomes so foul and corrupt like this one is, including congress, senate and all branches of government, and when they start buying expensive hollow point ammunition by the train car load, and arming all agencies with AR-15's including the IRS, which has never been done on the scale it is now, it's time to reject them and anything they say since they have rejected the constitution and have abrogated their authority over anyone in this country in doing so.

Good luck though, because what is coming down the pike I wouldn't wish on anyone..

I have to admit it does feel much better being screwed by the government than it did getting screwed by the insurance companies. No matter how the kool-aid drinkers candy coat this, our government is forcing free people to pay for the insurance of people who refuse to pay for it themselves.

ArtemisE
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Too true, but Obama and co arnt the only blame. Obamas people wanted a single payer option. That's where there's a bare bones policy paid for by tax dollars for anyone who can't afford a Cadillac plan. What we got was a mix of that and the GOP insisting that instead we pay insurance companies to do it for profit. Rather than the government doing it to break even.

Can you tell me how this was the result of GOP insistence when the bill passed without a single GOP vote? That means the Democrats were able to pass any bill they saw fit, does it not?

Senate vote: www.washingtonpost.com...

The Senate bill passed without a single GOP vote, after a 25-day floor debate marked by biting partisan rhetoric.

House: www.washingtonpost.com...

The House voted 219 to 212 to approve the measure, with every Republican voting no.

Any evidence whatsoever that this bill isn't exactly what the DNC wanted?