Obamacare: The Last Straw?

The republicans have an edge in the Senate, but not total control. It takes 60 votes to break a Filibuster. The republicans only have 52 in the senate, so any new law will be bi-partisan. If a Filibuster can't be broken the law will never get to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Originally Posted by flghtr65

If Mitch McConnell can grow a set, he can ALWAYS do what Dirty Harry Ried did and use the nuclear option and say FU to YOU lyin libs like was done to the Republicans AND THE VOTERS, YA POS LIB ! But as we ALL know, turn about is fair play, until the lying libs are the one on the receiving end ! Break out MORE of that Kleenex lib !!!!

The republicans have an edge in the Senate, but not total control. It takes 60 votes to break a Filibuster. The republicans only have 52 in the senate, so any new law will be bi-partisan. If a Filibuster can't be broken the law will never get to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Not so fast, Fluffy boy. Harry Reid passed Obamacare through the budget reconciliation process. No filibuster there. Not ONE Republican voted for Obamacare. It's going down. Wave bye-bye, Fluffy! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Flighty's a liar. Not only was it passed via the budget recon process, it was amended 27 times (last I saw) via EO. President Trump could easily undo any of Obama's EOs. Last I read Obamacare funding was shady too.

You should thank Comey, that second letter to Congress turned the momentum to Trump. Originally Posted by flghtr65

You should google "Gruber". You really don't want to be the last liberal to realize that all that you and Obama have been spewing for the past years, and continue to spew, was a complete and undeniable lie. Originally Posted by nwarounder

Good liars do that. Deny it was a lie. Change subject. Play word games. Blame someone else. Make excuses.

All part of fliar65's toolbox.

Good liars do that. Deny it was a lie. Change subject. Play word games. Blame someone else. Make excuses. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Bad ones do that also, and then get their fat asses handed to them in the General Election!!!!

If Mitch McConnell can grow a set, he can ALWAYS do what Dirty Harry Ried did and use the nuclear option Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Budget Reconcilliation is a legislative process for a budget amendment for an existing law. It is not for creating a law. To get a law passed you need 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster. Rey, do your homework before you post. Again, thanks for serving.

From the Link:

As leader of a 48-member Senate Democratic Caucus next year, Schumer will command enough votes to block majority Republicans from getting the 60 votes needed to proceed on most major legislation. As such, Schumer and his Democrats will be the only backstop against Trump and the GOP next year when Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

Budget Reconcilliation is a legislative process for a budget amendment for an existing law. Originally Posted by flghtr65

You are now getting on board with reality.

Here's the offer:

Do you want a reformed new law or do you want us to gut this one?

...As leader of a 48-member Senate Democratic Caucus next year, Schumer will command .... Originally Posted by flghtr65

You've discussed this with Schumer have you?

"Chuck Schumer: Passing Obamacare in 2010 Was a Mistake"

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...istake/449700/

You should probably sit on the porch for awhile and give it a rest.

Schumer doesn't "command" a damn thing! 25 of those 48 are up for re-election in 2018 ... (2 call themselves "Independents"). Now the Dems are getting ready to shoot themselves in the other foot by putting a Muslim in charge of the DNC!

It's your kind of thinking that cost HillaryNoMore the election and swept the country with control of much of the State legislatures, governors, House, Senate, and the White House...

.. to the Republicans.

"When are you going to wake up and smell the coffee"?

You've discussed this with Schumer have you?
Originally Posted by LexusLover

No, I didn't. However, the Miami Herald did. From the link in post #64.

Trump, after meeting with Obama, said he'd like to keep popular pieces of the six-year-old law, including the requirement to extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and the provision allowing young adults to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26.
But Schumer said it was a non-starter to try picking off favored pieces of the Affordable Care Act.
"There is no way that you can keep those things without keeping the ACA," Schumer insisted.

No, I didn't. However, the Miami Herald did. Originally Posted by flghtr65

..."the Miami Herald"?

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/e...108145747.html

The Miami Herald "recommended" HillaryNoMore!

Isn't that who you marked on the ballot?

Now! Back to reality. As I posted:

"Here's the offer:

Do you want a reformed new law or do you want us to gut this one?"

You, like the rest of the ONLY HillaryNoMore Crowd, didn't get the memo!

You lost!

..."the Miami Herald"?

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/e...108145747.html

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The author of story in the Herald is a congressional correspondent. I don't know who she works for. She is the one who did the talking with Schumer.

Here's the offer:

Do you want a reformed new law or do you want us to gut this one? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Congressman Jeff Sessions introduced an alternative health care bill that works with the ACA back in May 2016. I think his bill is a good bill and would be the way to go. Sessions is the guy that Trump wants to be Attorney General.


http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/23/go...althcare-plan/

Congressman Jeff Sessions introduced an alternative health care bill that works with the ACA back in May 2016. I think his bill is a good bill and would be the way to go. Sessions is the guy that Trump wants to be Attorney General. Originally Posted by flghtr65

There are several "issues" with the ACA that make it offensive to most people in this country, and most of them were not "approved" by Congress. IMO the most offensive are: agency exemptions and administration premium loans. The really dumb part is "taxing" people $700 annually so they don't have to pay $12,000 in premiums! The stagnating part is reduction in jobs so employers don't have to pay any part of the premiums.... and reduction in hours scheduled to avoid the mandates for insurance coverage on employees. The consequences of fewer choices in providers from which to select care is over the top! The premium reduction is bullshit!

So is the "lower" health care costs bullshit. My "fuel costs" are "lower" when I drive less!!! That doesn't mean the cost of fuel is lower. Maybe to a pablum retard.

That IS the ACA. When one guts all that out ... it's not the ACA, regardless of what you call it. IT'S NOT THE ACA! If you personally are dependent on the ACA for coverage, you might want to start looking for alternative coverage.

There are several "issues" Originally Posted by LexusLover

I get my health insurance from my employer. Before the ACA was passed the percentage of citizens insured under age 65 was 80%. With the combination of Group Insurance through your employer, the ACA and Original Medicaid (signed by LBJ) the percentage of citizens insured is 90.9%. This is the highest it has ever been.

I'll go with Sessions bill. If you want, you can opt of the ACA and get tax credits for a Health Savings Account and do your own thing. The individual mandate is gone. People with pre-existing conditions will still be covered in the individual market. Children can still stay on their parents plan up to age 26 with Session's Bill. The percentage of citizens insured will stay above 90%. The only way the percentage insured gets closer to 100% is that all states would have to except the Expanded Medicaid. Currently, just 31 out of 50 states take it.

I get my health insurance from my employer. Originally Posted by flghtr65

There are a lot of employers offering coverage, but the premiums are unmanageable for the average employee ... at the same time employers with a union membership are shifting the responsibility of insuring to the unions who have exemptions.

BTW: Your numbers are bullshit on insureds. You even admit that insureds are being shifted to the taxpayers to get coverage under the ACA ... the unemployed, underemployed, and the "entitlement crowd" who apply for disability and welfare! They can't be counted as "new insureds" .... as in folks who were not previously insured but wanted insurance.

Pre-existing conditions. A guy smokes for 30 years. No insurance. Gets long cancer. Why am I, a taxpayer, obligated to help pay for his treatment? Or why should my premium be higher so my insurance company can pay for it?

Pre-existing conditions. A guy smokes for 30 years. No insurance. Gets long cancer. Why am I, a taxpayer, obligated to help pay for his treatment? Or why should my premium be higher so my insurance company can pay for it? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It shouldn't and you shouldn't.

But as a taxpayer a small scrap of your taxes will go to his care.

BTW: His lung cancer could have dome from some other source.