Public Outraged Teens Let Disabled Man die

a reply to: butcherguy

Now I am hearing that Trump is out to kill people because he is refusing to subsidize the previously moneygrubbing insurance companies?

He's threatening to refuse to honor what is still the Law of the Land. In doing so, he will throw millions of American lives into peril.

Make no mistake, the insurance won't suffer. The consumer will, and in this case it will be sick and disenfranchised consumer.

a reply to: windword

There is a bit of irony here.
Ebenezer Scrooge paid his taxes to support the institutions he mentioned.
GOP types would like to cut taxes and leave the charities to pick up the slack (ie. W Bush's Faith Based Initiative).
Trump just plain doesn't care, as long as something, anything passes that cuts taxes for the wealthy.

Trump care = I don't care.

a reply to: kurthall

a reply to: windword

Make no mistake, the insurance won't suffer. The consumer will, and in this case it will be sick and disenfranchised consumer.

Nice to see that you admit that Obamacare is a failure and that we need to shovel money into insurance companies that don't need it....
In order to save everyone.

Some people think that the idea doesn't make sense.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Clever of Obama: enact his mandatory BS half the nation will rabidly oppose till its kilt, so then everyone can hate the persons that got the government out of everyones pocket.

This isn't about the mandate. It's about Trump refusing to pay the ACA guaranteed subsidies to the insurance companies, forcing them to "pull out" of insurance exchanges, leaving millions of American's drowning without insurance converge.

That is actually all about the mandate. Clever way to kill it actually.

If someone does something they shouldnt have, its not the fault of the people who undo it.

Meanwhile, how many of those millions actually NEED total coverage? If there's something it should cover when people actually NEED it for something. And it shouldnt be mandatory. Mandatory corporate crony payment BS is the definition of Textbook Fascism. Look it up!

originally posted by: windword
The consumer will, and in this case it will be sick and disenfranchised consumer.

Another interesting choice of word!!

I'm almost compelled to Flag this thread all this craziness.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That is actually all about the mandate. Clever way to kill it actually.

No, it isn't.

If someone does something they shouldnt have, its not the fault of the people who undo it.

Breaking stuff is easy. There is no honor in it. This is why Trump can't get his Bill through, it builds nothing and destroys American lives.

The difference between Trump and these teenagers who laughed while watching a man drown, is that they didn't falsely promise to save him, easily and better than the EMTs that they failed to call.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: windword

Make no mistake, the insurance won't suffer. The consumer will, and in this case it will be sick and disenfranchised consumer.

Nice to see that you admit that Obamacare is a failure and that we need to shovel money into insurance companies that don't need it....
In order to save everyone.

Some people think that the idea doesn't make sense.

Then Congress should change the law. They didn't. The President of the United States shouldn't refuse to honor the Law of the Land, that he swore to uphold, sending millions of American lives into peril!

a reply to: windword

Oh gee you managed to turn something that has nothing to do with Trump into a Trump hate post. Never saw that one coming.

a reply to: windword

Law of the Land....

Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally
House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.

On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.

The judge's ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.

Someone want to show us where in the Constitution it provides Them the power to force everyone to buy corporate insurance.

a reply to: butcherguy

Now I am hearing that Trump is out to kill people because he is refusing to subsidize the previously moneygrubbing insurance companies?

Trump could have, if he wanted to, pushed single-payer health care,

Trump continues to praise single payer -- a health care system in which the government pays for care for all citizens -- at least as it used in other countries. But he has spoken a number of times, if vaguely, about a private system and at one point said he does not support single payer in the United States. Since then, his responses have been less clear.
Donald Trump wants to replace Obamacare with a single-payer health care system, GOP congressman says | PolitiFact Wisconsin

He didn't push it to Congress. He hasn't pushed it publicly.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: windword

Law of the Land....

Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally
House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.

On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.

The judge's ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.

Someone want to show us where in the Constitution it provides Them the power to force everyone to buy corporate insurance.

Well, I'm not going to do your homework for you. I'll just tell you that the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional. Supreme Court tosses ruling in favor of ObamaCare mandate

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: windword

Law of the Land....

Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally
House Republicans won Round 2 in a potentially historic lawsuit Thursday when a federal judge declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer broke new ground by ruling the GOP-controlled House of Representatives had legal standing to sue the president over how he was enforcing his signature healthcare law.

On Thursday, she ruled the administration is violating a provision of the law by paying promised reimbursements to health insurers who provide coverage at reduced costs to low-income Americans.

The judge's ruling, while a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.

Someone want to show us where in the Constitution it provides Them the power to force everyone to buy corporate insurance.

Well, I'm not going to do your homework for you. I'll just tell you that the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional. Supreme Court tosses ruling in favor of ObamaCare mandate

Your link is to a case where the Obamcare Mandate was NOT Constitutional and was struck down.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Oh, sorry about that. I never claimed that there wasn't a fight! LOL

Here ya go!
Court Backs Obama on Health Law

In a Surprise Ruling, Chief Justice Sides With Liberals to Uphold Insurance Mandate; Republicans to Press for Repeal

WASHINGTON—Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court's four liberals Thursday to uphold the linchpin of President Barack Obama's plan to expand health coverage to nearly all Americans, a surprise conclusion to a constitutional showdown.

(Sorry about the paywall. I got the WSJ for 4 months for $.99)

a reply to: windword

(Sorry about the paywall. I got the WSJ for 4 months for $.99)

I've been planning on buying subscriptions to 4 or more Newspapers that still have investigative journalists employed. It gets tiresome reading re-headlined, re-spun, re-branded stories from online only, non-investigative sources.

Note: I didn't figure out until the bottom of page 1 that this is about administration plans to not follow current law. I'm slow.

a reply to: windword

You are making your own soup out of the dead
Beware, never exploit the dead.

a reply to: Spacespider


There's going to plenty more fodder for soup if Trump has his way.

a reply to: pthena

Note: I didn't figure out until the bottom of page 1 that this is about administration plans to not follow current law. I'm slow.

No worries. Plenty of veteran posters in this thread still aren't getting it.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm just kinda curious, how do you know the kids watching the victim drown were "black"? Do they appear in the video?

Obamacare is the law of the land.

It was passed in Congress by the Democratic Party.

It is a failure.

Suddenly, we are to understand that it is purely a Republican problem.

And we are being told that the Republicans need to 'work with' the same schlubs that gave us the failed program.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any faith that the Republicans can fix anything here in the healthcare insurance arena.

But I don't think the Democrats have any room to talk about someone else screwing anything up at this point.