[biker1]

And Obama had a majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate and was held hostage by some of his own senators for the current bill. Since the supermajority prevents a filibuster, they could have passed anything they wanted. How quickly some forget, or didn't know.

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

Current leader had the house and senate and still couldn’t come up with a viable healthcare plan.

[Paper1]

Originally Posted by davem4616

"...after about 5 years" is not true...first that calculation doesn't factor in the impact of compounding interest on the monies that you actually paid in over a 40 - 50 year period of of continuous contributions...which is what most of us in TV have done

secondly, receiving more than what you paid in is no more of a handout than a monthly Annuity payment is once you've received more in payments than you paid in to fund it... lifetime payments was the contractual deal that was promised and agreed to.

at least with an annuity we had a choice to buy in...there was no choice with Society Security

With all due respect you don’t understand how social security and Medicare work. Those small taxes you were paying were immediately being paid out to your parents and grandparents not an interest bearing account as you describe. It is called pay/go not a savings account with your name on it. Our grandchildren are paying our benefits. The term trust fund is a cruel hoax invented so politicians we elected and re-elected could spend the extra tax revenue that was collected. Like the cost of healthcare before we can fix it we need to have an honest discussion. See I’ve started by letting the secret out that Social Security trust fund is “Fake News” if you will.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by Marine1974

Free ? What part of FICA does one not understand?

It is essentially free because it does not come close to covering the actual cost or future obligations attached, its a great deal, unless you ending up being the one paying the credit card bill down the road,

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by PugMom

wait-a-sec: i specifically recall the president giving a speech maybe last month, maybe 2 months ago, where he clearly stated he was protecting pre-existing conditions, meaning they will be covered. i didn't see much of this anywhere except local FL tv stations. if i get time later, i'll go back & find the specific report, & try to post it up, if i'm allowed.

Our president made that claim again just last night as he addressed his supporters at the rally in Pennsylvania. In fact, he spoke those words slowly with emphasis. Am I wrong to believe him?

[dewilson58]

Eliminating Pre's is media brainwashing.


It's just trash talk...............Repub's are just getting rid of (or parts of) Obamacare.

[Viperguy]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

To eliminate = political suicide.


No one will do it.


Sky is not falling.

Exactly. Turn off your "News" source. This is all about the election. Scare tactics.

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by Dana1963

An Executive Order means nothing if The Supreme Court rules against the ACA.
While pre-existing conditions include life-threatening illnesses like cancer or chronic conditions like asthma or diabetes, insurance companies frequently consider care specific to women as a pre-existing condition and an excuse to deny health coverage. In other words, just being a woman could be considered a preexisting condition.

If SCOTUS rules the ACA is unconstitutional, then it is up to Congress to either fix the defect or promulgate a new law. Any other comments from politicians and partisans are nothing more than rubbish. If they did their jobs right the first time, this would not be an issue now.But this is what one party rule brought us.

[chet2020]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

Our president made that claim again just last night as he addressed his supporters at the rally in Pennsylvania. In fact, he spoke those words slowly with emphasis. Am I wrong to believe him?

Yes. Remember a month ago he held a special press conference with a "historic breakthrough" in the treatment of COVID-19? And now we know convalescent plasma hardly works at all. File this in the same category.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

If SCOTUS rules the ACA is unconstitutional, then it is up to Congress to either fix the defect or promulgate a new law. Any other comments from politicians and partisans are nothing more than rubbish. If they did their jobs right the first time, this would not be an issue now.But this is what one party rule brought us.

And should it occur, after another round of one party rule, we would be left with "bupkus"

quote from Nick Mulvaney...

"“I’m not sure where they got the authority to do it, but, I’m sure the lawyers had vetted this and the president had the executive ability to do this, but, keep in mind, any executive order is going to be fairly limited. You need legislation to do big things. If we could have fixed health care with executive orders alone, we would have done that back in 2017,” Mulvaney told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo on “Mornings with Maria.”

Trump'''s new health care initiative '''fairly limited''': Mulvaney | Fox Business

Ever since he was a presidential candidate, the administration has been promising the American people a “terrific,” “phenomenal” and “fantastic” new health care plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

But, in the 3½ years since he set up shop in the Oval Office, he has yet to deliver. And TWO of those years, one party ran both houses and could have done whatever they wanted

[biker1]

No. A majority in the Senate does not mean you can do whatever you want to. For many legislative issues, you would need to have a supermajority (60 or more votes) to prevent a filibuster. The last time a party had a filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate were the democrats during Obama's first term.

Originally Posted by Bucco

But, in the 3½ years since he set up shop in the Oval Office, he has yet to deliver. And TWO of those years, one party ran both houses and could have done whatever they wanted

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by biker1

No. A majority in the Senate does not mean you can do whatever you want to. For many legislative issues, you would need to have a supermajority (60 or more votes) to prevent a filibuster. The last a party to have a filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate were the democrats during Obama's first term.

What healthcare plan was put forward by this administration and failed to get a supermajority ?

[biker1]

Nothing was put forward but you already knew that so why ask? If you go back and reread my post, I was responding to the wrong information in your post. One reason nothing has been put forward is probably because of the deadlock for many issues in Congress. For many divided issues, the threat of a filibuster is enough to prevent any legislative progress.

Originally Posted by Bucco

What healthcare plan was put forward by this administration and failed to get a supermajority ?

[vilger]

Originally Posted by biker1

And Obama had a majority in the House, a super majority in the Senate and was held hostage by some of his own senators for the current bill. Since the supermajority prevents a filibuster, they could have passed anything they wanted. How quickly some forget, or didn't know.

Edward Kennedy, the 60th Democrat vote in the Senate died in August 2009. Scott Brown, a Republican, who nobody expected to win the special election replaced him in January 2010 thus killing the Democrats' super majority in the Senate. So the Democrats had a super majority for less than a year, and did not have one when Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. Because they lacked a super majority in the Senate in 2010, the House had to pass the Senate version of the bill that was passed in 2009 rather than going through the normal reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions.

[vilger]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Eliminating Pre's is media brainwashing.


It's just trash talk...............Repub's are just getting rid of (or parts of) Obamacare.

Really? If Obamacare is declared unconstitutional what makes you think that pre-existing conditions protection will magically remain? Because the President says so? The 2017 "terrific" Republican plan that John McCain voted against promoted high risk pools (high premiums) for those with pre-existing conditions.

[biker1]

The democrats had a supermajority on Christmas Eve 2009 when the bill was passed. You are correct that they lost the supermajority soon afterwards and couldn't revote on reconciliation but the Senate version of the bill would never have passed without the supermajority they held in 2009. The were arrogant enough to move forward with a partisan bill that was flawed. If not for John Roberts redefining the meaning of "tax" it would have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Parts have already been dismantled because of it's flaws.

Originally Posted by vilger

Edward Kennedy, the 60th Democrat vote in the Senate died in August 2009. Scott Brown, a Republican, who nobody expected to win the special election replaced him in January 2010 thus killing the Democrats' super majority in the Senate. So the Democrats had a super majority for less than a year, and did not have one when Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. Because they lacked a super majority in the Senate in 2010, the House had to pass the Senate version of the bill that was passed in 2009 rather than going through the normal reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions.