So is this why Trump buried Ivana at his golf course?

[JoeMemphis]

{chuckle} It's amazing what is no longer in the United States Constitution eh.

We can't change the second amendment!?!?

Ya, we can. It's called a fucking amendment.

The fact that it isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean IMO that it can’t be done legislatively at the federal level and certainly could be done at the state level. It would have to be an entitlement program at the Federal level because the Federal government can’t force you to buy a product. As long as state law doesn’t violate the federal constitution or federal law, they can either expand entitlements at the state level or force people to buy coverage. I frankly don’t know why states haven’t tried this before.

[gounion]

Okay GoU. You have convinced me not to favor the repeal of ACA. You can take all the credit for it. I simply will live under ACA and forgo taking any credit for it. (I said this 10 years ago). You say health insurance is affordable and costs are under control. Ok. I see no reason to replace or repeal ACA. You win.

Because you can't even say why you were against ObamaCare. You can't make ANY argument against it. It's hilarious!

The bottom line is that you've got money in Corporate Health Care, and you want to keep the gravy train going. Greed is what rules you.

[gounion]

The fact that it isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean IMO that it can’t be done legislatively at the federal level and certainly could be done at the state level. It would have to be an entitlement program at the Federal level because the Federal government can’t force you to buy a product. As long as state law doesn’t violate the federal constitution or federal law, they can either expand entitlements at the state level or force people to buy coverage. I frankly don’t know why states haven’t tried this before.

You don't have a clue as to how our government works. You've proved that over and over and over.

[bradman]

The fact that it isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean IMO that it can’t be done legislatively at the federal level and certainly could be done at the state level. It would have to be an entitlement program at the Federal level because the Federal government can’t force you to buy a product. As long as state law doesn’t violate the federal constitution or federal law, they can either expand entitlements at the state level or force people to buy coverage. I frankly don’t know why states haven’t tried this before.

i'd think it'd fairly obvious by now i'm not a big "states rights" fan.

Not much of a fan of gated communities either.

And now we want to turn States into gated communities?

Ya, fuck that.

[JoeMemphis]

Because you can't even say why you were against ObamaCare. You can't make ANY argument against it. It's hilarious!

The bottom line is that you've got money in Corporate Health Care, and you want to keep the gravy train going. Greed is what rules you.

I have no reason to argue against it. I’m not trying to repeal it. What’s hilarious is you can’t take yes for an answer. You would rather argue over something thats not a disagreement. How many times have I said in this post that I’m not the guy trying to replace ACA. I haven’t argued or suggested replacing ACA. You are the guy who wants to replace that which you say works so well. How stupid is that?

[JoeMemphis]

i'd think it'd fairly obvious by now i'm not a big "states rights" fan.

Not much of a fan of gated communities either.

And now we want to turn States into gated communities?

Ya, fuck that.

No. Not gated communities. If as you say health care is a “right”. You can make it so legislatively. At the Federal level or at the state level. All it takes is money. Making it a right doesn’t make it free. It will have to be paid for. It will affect how services are delivered. It will affect every patient and every provider. And in the end somebody will have to pay. So we can talk in theory but we won’t know for sure until someone does it here. My guess is that the timeline on the Federal level is many years out. The country is way too divided. So it only makes sense to me for a state to give it a go. I see no advantage to completely gut what we have without a proof of concept at the state level. Of course the only states that would even entertain such an idea are states controlled by progressives. Conservatives and conservative states won’t buy into M4A. So if it’s the no brainer solution, demo it in a blue state. At least we will have some kind of track record for performance in this country, for our population/demographic, under our laws, managed by our government and paid for by our taxpayers.

Anything else is just idle speculation. I personally wouldn’t risk the health care system. Certainly not when it’s possible to test the concept in a state. All it takes is people who believe enough in the idea and the commitment to shoulder the risk.

[gounion]

I have no reason to argue against it. I’m not trying to repeal it. What’s hilarious is you can’t take yes for an answer. You would rather argue over something thats not a disagreement. How many times have I said in this post that I’m not the guy trying to replace ACA. I haven’t argued or suggested replacing ACA. You are the guy who wants to replace that which you say works so well. How stupid is that?

You're the one that said you were against it, then you're for it, then you're against it.

Hilarious!

Fact is, ObamaCare has been a huge success for all Americans, and you can't even make any argument against it.

And yes, the people you vote for DO want to repeal ObamaCare. So THAT'S your argument. Defend it.

[JoeMemphis]

You're the one that said you were against it, then you're for it, then you're against it.

Hilarious!

Fact is, ObamaCare has been a huge success for all Americans, and you can't even make any argument against it.

And yes, the people you vote for DO want to repeal ObamaCare. So THAT'S your argument. Defend it.

Well since it’s been so successful for all Americans, I see no reason to replace it.

[gounion]

Well since it’s been so successful for all Americans, I see no reason to replace it.

Look, you don't want ANYTHING. You want the money to keep coming. Don't pretend otherwise.

[JoeMemphis]

Look, you don't want ANYTHING. You want the money to keep coming. Don't pretend otherwise.

I’m okay with ACA. Are you?

[gounion]

I’m okay with ACA. Are you?

No you aren't

It did what it promised to do, and quite well. It fixed some of the worst parts of our for-profit corporate insurance system, which the insurance companies wouldn't fix on their own.

But the for-profit insurance industry is still a disaster. We need single-payer. Hell, you won't even allow for a CHOICE - that Americans could choose to buy into Medicare. Or to have the corporations insure their workers with Medicare instead of for-profit insurance.

Why? Because you KNOW everyone will prefer Medicare to the for-profit companies.

You just can't make a cogent argument against it.

[JoeMemphis]

No you aren't

It did what it promised to do, and quite well. It fixed some of the worst parts of our for-profit corporate insurance system, which the insurance companies wouldn't fix on their own.

But the for-profit insurance industry is still a disaster. We need single-payer. Hell, you won't even allow for a CHOICE - that Americans could choose to buy into Medicare. Or to have the corporations insure their workers with Medicare instead of for-profit insurance.

Why? Because you KNOW everyone will prefer Medicare to the for-profit companies.

You just can't make a cogent argument against it.

ACA was wildly successful. Insurance is affordable. How can health care be a disaster? You say costs are under control. Why replace something you claim worked so well and solved the problem?

[gounion]

ACA was wildly successful. Insurance is affordable. How can health care be a disaster? You say costs are under control. Why replace something you claim worked so well and solved the problem?

I never said that.

I said it solved some of the WORST problems. So why were you against it? Why didn't anything that you said would happen if it was passed happen?

Why do you say you'd be against it if it was introduced today?

For-profit health care remains a disaster. We spend twice as much as any other country per capita, and we don't cover everyone. But you LIKE us spending twice as much, as some of that money goes right into your pocket, doesn't it?

[JoeMemphis]

I never said that.

I said it solved some of the WORST problems. So why were you against it? Why didn't anything that you said would happen if it was passed happen?

Why do you say you'd be against it if it was introduced today?

For-profit health care remains a disaster. We spend twice as much as any other country per capita, and we don't cover everyone. But you LIKE us spending twice as much, as some of that money goes right into your pocket, doesn't it?

You said it was successful and that people liked it. You said costs didn’t go thru the roof. So if the affordable care act made insurance affordable and keep costs under control and is popular today, why repeal it? Why replace it? You claim the folks on ACA love it. Folks who have private insurance like their plans. So I don’t see the need to fuck up what you claim is a successful, popular law when it’s kept costs from going theu the roof. What have I got wrong?

[gounion]

You said it was successful and that people liked it. You said costs didn’t go thru the roof.

Both are verifiable true. Again, please learn the difference between FACT and OPINION.

So if the affordable care act made insurance affordable and keep costs under control and is popular today, why repeal it? Why replace it?

Sorry, I'm not suggesting to repeal and replace it.

You claim the folks on ACA love it. Folks who have private insurance like their plans. So I don’t see the need to fuck up what you claim is a successful, popular law when it’s kept costs from going theu the roof. What have I got wrong?

First, the idea that I would repeal and replace it. I wouldn't.

Please try to keep up.

[JoeMemphis]

Both are verifiable true. Again, please learn the difference between FACT and OPINION.

Sorry, I'm not suggesting to repeal and replace it.

First, the idea that I would repeal and replace it. I wouldn't.

Please try to keep up.

I do know the difference between fact and opinion. You seem to struggle with it.

As far as keeping up with the discussion. I am not and have not called to repeal or replace ACA. I am fine with the current law. So if you aren’t calling to repeal or replace ACA, then after pages and pages of meaningless debate, you have finally gotten it thru your dense skull that, on keeping ACA, we have been in agreement all along.

[gounion]

I do know the difference between fact and opinion. You seem to struggle with it.

No, Joe, you really don't.

As far as keeping up with the discussion. I am not and have not called to repeal or replace ACA. I am fine with the current law. So if you aren’t calling to repeal or replace ACA, then after pages and pages of meaningless debate, you have finally gotten it thru your dense skull that, on keeping ACA, we have been in agreement all along.

No, you're not fine with it. You've said if it were being brought up today you would still be against it.

You can't explain why. You can't explain why you were against the things the law did. You pretend it wasn't a success.

You are completely unable to make a cogent argument about anything.

[JoeMemphis]

No, Joe, you really don't.

No, you're not fine with it. You've said if it were being brought up today you would still be against it.

You can't explain why. You can't explain why you were against the things the law did. You pretend it wasn't a success.

You are completely unable to make a cogent argument about anything.

I have said in more than one post why I didn’t support ACA when it was first proposed. That doesn’t mean that there are not provisions I would keep such as the eliminating preexisting provision exclusions.

You are welcome to go back and read what I what I posted. I gave my reasons for opposing ACA when it was offered initially and my concerns have not changed. However, Since it’s law, I am not in favor of repealing an existing law without a solution for people who currently depend on ACA. So if you are okay with ACA, we are not in disagreement on whether or not to leave current law in place. I have said that numerous times in the thread. Hopefully it is not beyond your ability to comprehend.

[Bludogdem]

You are welcome to go back and read what I what I posted.

Why? His primary distortion index will simply override any hope of understanding what you posted.

[JoeMemphis]

Why? His primary distortion index will simply override any hope of understanding what you posted.

True. Very true. You can lead an horse’s ass to water, but you can’t make him drink.

[gounion]

Why? His primary distortion index will simply override any hope of understanding what you posted.

I know, you're such a genius, greengrass, with your thirty or forty degrees.

You're such a fake, which is why Joe loves you so much. But go ahead and tell him why Medicare for All probably wouldn't work in one state. Go ahead.

[gounion]

I have said in more than one post why I didn’t support ACA when it was first proposed. That doesn’t mean that there are not provisions I would keep such as the eliminating preexisting provision exclusions.

You also said you wouldn't be for it if it were proposed today. So, no, you aren't for any provisions. But tell me, if the pre-existing provision is a good thing, why didn't the insurance companies simply start covering them on their own? After all, you think the corporations can do everything for the good of the people without the government telling the what to do, don't you?

You are welcome to go back and read what I what I posted. I gave my reasons for opposing ACA when it was offered initially and my concerns have not changed. However, Since it’s law, I am not in favor of repealing an existing law without a solution for people who currently depend on ACA. So if you are okay with ACA, we are not in disagreement on whether or not to leave current law in place. I have said that numerous times in the thread. Hopefully it is not beyond your ability to comprehend.

The people you vote for want to repeal it without any replacement.

Of course, you have no idea of how to improve our health care system. You would love to see it repealed without a replacement, because you'd probably make even MORE money, wouldn't you?

[Bludogdem]

I know, you're such a genius, greengrass, with your thirty or forty degrees.

You're such a fake, which is why Joe loves you so much. But go ahead and tell him why Medicare for All probably wouldn't work in one state. Go ahead.

I didn’t say that. You’re primary distortion strikes again. I did mention there might be an issue with the commerce clause. But we already learned you don’t understand the meaning of the word “might”.

I have Political Science/History degree from a rather tiny catholic college. I enjoyed a 32 year career in IT - predominantly related to Enterprise Business Model Systems.

[gounion]

I didn’t say that. You’re primary distortion strikes again. I did mention there might be an issue with the commerce clause. But we already learned you don’t understand the meaning of the word “might”.

The above is also known as "pissing backwards"

I have Political Science/History degree from a rather tiny catholic college. I enjoyed a 32 year career in IT - predominantly related to Enterprise Business Model Systems.

Oh, and there are a bunch more. You've been bragging on this board for years. About how the law school wanted to immediately make you a professor, how you're a Constitutional Scholar, how the CIA wanted to hire you right out of college.

Oh, and how you worked for the Humphrey campaign, in charge of Civil Rights, as I recall. That was the funniest of all.

[JoeMemphis]

You also said you wouldn't be for it if it were proposed today. So, no, you aren't for any provisions. But tell me, if the pre-existing provision is a good thing, why didn't the insurance companies simply start covering them on their own? After all, you think the corporations can do everything for the good of the people without the government telling the what to do, don't you?

The people you vote for want to repeal it without any replacement.

Of course, you have no idea of how to improve our health care system. You would love to see it repealed without a replacement, because you'd probably make even MORE money, wouldn't you?

You are just debating yourself here. I have posted what I support and why. The rest lives only in your dimly lit head.