Terrible two days for right wingers
 

First, the AHCA is validated, then same sex marriage is legitimized. All this from a right leaning SCOTUS. Fortunately the small minded, self righteous, backward right wing is being marginalized. Ocçasionally, I am heartened that this country's heart is indeed in the right place. Now the right can concentrate on important things such as getting us into another no-win conflict in the Middle East.

The Party Of Old People (formerly known as the GOP) has consistently been on the wrong side of public opinion, but now they find themselves on the wrong side of the law in both the marriage equality issue and Affordable Health Care for all.

Us right wingers knew this was coming. Now we get to sit back and watch as America continues to spiral downhill. The loss of traditional marriage has obviously impacted the country as we are witnessing in many scenarios. Kids don't know whether mom is mom or dad.
As far as obamacare, now we shall watch as premiums skyrocket, doctors leave practices, emergency rooms and hospitals can't handle the amount of people needing care. Let the progress begin

What do you expect for bunch of gay liberal democrat judges at all levels of courts. This is no big surprise. Amazing how judges can over turn even the will of liberal Cala nuts. To top it off Gay judge did it. If your gay judge wouldn't that be conflict interest? As for the aca same boat.

Excuse me but as for the ACA it was 6-3 both Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy sided with the 4 liberals on the court. Gay marriage was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy siding with the 4 liberals.

THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL COURT....

Roberts was appointed by George W Bush, and Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Liberal appointees? Hardly.

Interesting that Senator Barack Obama voted no on Roberts confirmation, the same Roberts that has stepped in twice to save the ACA.

Hopefully when SCOTUS and government employees are forced on ACA he will see the real story of just how bad this law is.

For our edification why don't you describe specifically What makes the AHCA bad. And so that we will know you are fair and reasoned, also the rare areas where it has succeeded. Thank you in advance. Best personal regards.

- - - l -

Cat got your tongue?

Hopefully the 2016 elections can rectify much of this.

Still waiting.

I Doubt Mrs. Clinton will reverse These things.

Not my post but I can answer that question. Nothing was changed with ACA that reduces healthcare cost, the real problem from day one. All the increased cost are now being added to deficiet instead of facing the negative pieces of the legislation. In fact some parts of it that generate the funds to pay for subsidies are being delayed or rolled back. The numbers clearly show it is like SS, Medicare, federal and state pensions, etc. A lot of promises for votes but no money to pay for them. Kind of like that country across the Atlantic with its banks shut down now.

While your question was addressed to another, hoping I can take a crack at this right off the top of my head.

Let me first say, the idea is a good one; one that both parties had kicked around for years. BUT...

1. The entire idea was, lest we forget, to reduce health costs; It has increased the costs with no end n sight.

2. Cost have not even all kicked in as of yet with all the extensions, and I consider this to be an albatross on the federal government. This should have been done by states as proposed a number of times.

Those two bother me.....everyone on both sides favored the covering of all....but we were told, clearly, that the idea was REDUCE HEALTH COSTS. they are continuing to increase.

I am happy that some who could not get insurance in the past now can, but the winners with this bill was the insurance industry. They have made and will continue to make billions on this

Now, it is too late to repeal to be honest...the cost will just get greater than it is going to be.

This needed to be done on a state by state basis with federal assistance, and maybe we might have blessed the overall costs as well as the individual health care costs.

Obama's ratings have been bumped up nicely. Now, one would think that if the President of the United States was looked upon more favorably that would be a good thing for all. All I can say is stand back.

Wrong premise......it was clearly aimed at expanding healthcare insurance to more people, with little mention or goals for reducing costs. If the Repubs had actually tried to contribute positively to the project maybe it could have gotten some focus on costs.

Oh, and where are their plans? They talked about repeal and replace but never had a replacement. SCOTUS did them a favor by not forcing them to present their non-existent plan.

ACA = Obama scam!
Costs will continue to rise. Health care quality will continue to be diluted.
End result? Paying more for less.
Just wait until more of the law takes effect in 2016.
Where is the $500,000,000 reduction in Medicare expenses that Obama said would offset paying for insuring the so called uninsured and uninsurable?

Ok....first of all, if you recall our President said two things about this plan. First, it would be so public that he would insure discussions would be on CSPAN, and secondly that he would involve both parties. He did neither.

The meetings were private and behind closed doors, and after some media complained, he had that famous dog and pony show when he invited the Republicans and then publicly mocked them. I have always felt his public mocking was a major issue in creating or widening the divide we have today.
The only people who attended meetings were lobbyists from the healthcare industry. Actually, if you recall, even most of the dem lawmakers did not know anything until the day they were told to vote.

These are facts...if you need historical links, will be glad to post them.

On the other issue, you are partly right. Game plan was both coverage and health costs. It had its birth in 1993 when both parties were trying to do what ACA does. Some minor differences, but it never got to the floor, but the President was very very clear about his goals in reducing healthcare costs.

But we all know that as long as Obama TALKS about a subject he feels he has addressed the issue.....for that audience or issue.
He cinsistently does NOTHING to fulfill any promises made.........unless they benefit his re-election (which is over thank GOD)......or benefits him or his kind of BSer!

I'm not sure but I thought the first A in ACA stood for affordable. I also remember something about my premiums dropping by $2500. but they went up $6000. instead and still climbing. Like everything else in politics one's opinion depends if one a payer or a payee. Just my opinion of course.

You left out the part in this frequently used rant of yours about old white men but I recognized you anyway.

Nope, it wasn't mine - although I agree with the quote completely. There are more liberals around than you than you think in The Villages. Golf time now!

Actually, there are probably less liberals in The Villages than I think. The few liberals that are here are just more vocal than most conservatives. I have yet to meet a liberal that didn't enjoy shouting down an opposing point of view.

Right we have two supreme court justices, Roberts and Kennedy, deciding every controversial case. You have to give it to "W", he put the right man in charge of the Supreme court. Since there isn't one moderate (whatever that is now) person running for president, nothing is going to change. They will appoint someone with their political views. This is a road to nowhere.

If costs continue to grow under ACA, but not as much as they would have done without it, does that make the ACA a failure? If you repeal it, and not replace it, what do you think health care insurers are going to do, when they lose 6-9 million customers?

The answer is single payer. If you think that insurance carriers process claims more cheaply, then farm that out to them. However, you set the price that they will be receiving. In the late nineties, it was reported that it cost the government 4 cents to process a claim, and insurance carriers 24 cents. That gap has to be a lot closer due to the number of seniors now versus then in Medicare.

Socialism! Who cares what you call it? If it cheaper, and works, what is the problem?
You think rates will change if insurance carriers can cross state lines, thereby creating competition, you are dreaming.