Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
3 days ago.
by Stillhere
Valveguy
#1

Obamacare is not "FREE" health care

People have finally realized that the word “free” is nowhere to be found in Obamacare’s “ Affordable Health Care Act”. Coverage under President Barack Obama's health care law won't be cheap. A study released Thursday by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation found that government tax credits would lower the sticker price on a benchmark "silver" policy to a little over $190 a month for single people making about $29,000, regardless of their age. For uninsured people who are paying nothing today, this is still a big cost that they're expected to fit into their budgets.

 
 

Member Comments

Stillhere

Its neither, its wealth redistribution GFY

Posted 3 days ago.

NasCarNut

ok then, healthcare program...smh

Posted 4 days ago.

BeRight

Nas, it is not a "program".

It is insurance.

Posted 4 days ago.

NasCarNut

how much more time, money, and energy will they waste to overturn a program for which they have nothing to replace it with??...

Posted 4 days ago.

NasCarNut

relax folks, they're not giving up yet...third times a charm ;)

Republicans in Congress are moving toward a plan to use a special budgetary process to repeal ObamaCare, after the Supreme Court ruled for a second time to uphold the controversial law.

Posted 4 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course I was being facetious. Politics should have nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions.

But it obviously does. This case follows the pattern of many others. Republican appointees vote the Republican Party line and Democratic appointees vote the Democratic Party line.

In case after case, the courts don’t decide on the basis of right and wrong. They decide on the basis of party affiliation. That makes them political tools, and their opinions should be judged in that light.

BTW: Scalia follows the party line as much as anybody. Judge his dissent accordingly

Posted 4 days ago.

Stillhere

Scalia criticized the court's interpretation, which he said "means nullifying the term 'by the State' not just once, but again and again."

He called the decision "interpretive jiggery-pokery," a "defense of the indefensible" and "pure applesauce."

And he wrote about the "somersaults of statutory interpretation" the court performed and said that "words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established by the State.'"

Posted 4 days ago.

BeRight

The financial news reports that the biggest winners in the SCOTUS decision are the hospitals.

They will make tons more money.

The biggest losers are the newly insured who think they will get care from a system that is already stretched.

Obamacare is not about health care, it is about insurance.

Posted 4 days ago.

Stillhere

Harry is pretending again i see. Party line has nothing to do with scotus or at least it shouldnt. Adherence to the constitution and the letter of the law is all that is required. If the law is poorly written, strike it down and make congress rewrite it in accordance with the constitution if they wish to try again. Divining intent is not the job of the scotus

Posted 4 days ago.

absolem

the extra and unexpected word at the end was a tx-exempt freebie and not required to be reported as the value falls well below the 1/100 cent valuse of most printed coupons.

Posted 4 days ago.

absolem

harryanderson...good morning. just think...it all began as not being a tax....ohhh wait...it became a tax..and a tax with exemptions and exclusions along with a myriad of modifications that allow it to be the artists canavs in which to craft a masterpiece of legislation. choice.

Posted 4 days ago.

harryanderson

John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy have betrayed the Republican Party that gave them their jobs.

Now is the perfect opportunity for Republicans to ensure that future SCOTUS appointees remain loyal to the Party.

The House should immediately bring Articles of Impeachment against Roberts. Maybe enough Democratic senators, hoping for a replacement chosen by Obama, will join the Republican senators in removing him. Then, McConnell should refuse to vote on any replacement until a Republican president gets elected.

Even if Roberts isn’t removed, future Republican appointees will understand that they WILL PAY A HEAVY PRICE if they stray from the Party line.

We must stop this ACTIVIST, LAWLESS, OUT-OF-CONTROL Supreme Court.

Posted 4 days ago.

Stillhere

Wrong NASCAR, the scotus didnt judge the actual letter of the law, they divined intent, NOT thier job

Posted 4 days ago.

Kunectdots

I'm sure Obama still carries some residual love in his heart for Chief Justice Roberts for s-crewing up the delivery of his first presidential oath of office.

Posted 5 days ago.

NasCarNut

The rule of law is as follows: Congress enacts the laws and if the law gets challenged on constitutional principles and the SCOTUS agrees to consider the challenge, then they issue a majority decision affirming or denying constitutionality of the law. That's precisely what has happened. And that's precisely what is defined as the rule of law in our democracy. 

Posted 5 days ago.

Stillhere

Take a victory lap lefties, the activist SCOTUS has sided with Obama, but remember, if the courts take powers they don't have in your favor this time, you should worry that one day they wont be on YOUR side.

Posted 5 days ago.

Ohwiseone

I like nuns too ! So what???

Posted 14 days ago.

absolem

So...???????

Posted 14 days ago.

Ohwiseone

So......??????

Posted 14 days ago.

BeRight

President Obama spoke in front of the Catholic Health Association and Keehan, whom he conceded he couldn’t have passed the ACA without. He went on to say, “And it’s true, I just love nuns, generally.”

Posted 15 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or