or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Insurance Costs Under Obamacare - Page 24

post #346 of 739
Vitamin B6 bitches! Never get sick! Kevin Trudeau listed it as one of his "Miracle Cures THEY Don't Want You to Know About."
post #347 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Do you have any idea how much an Z pack costs? That shit is at least $30.
I was going to make that point but didn't want to get in a fight about why some people have to be admitted and blah blah blah.
post #348 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopkins_student View Post

I was going to make that point but didn't want to get in a fight about why some people have to be admitted and blah blah blah.

No one gets admitted for pneumonia because greedy insurance companies is why.

(Have been told this.)
post #349 of 739
The executive branch is sworn to faithfully administer all laws, defend the constitution, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connemara View Post

This happens all the time in Fed/state government. I assume there's a lot of precedent but I don't know for sure.

This happens all the time, legitimately, when law delegates rule-making to an agency. Such as Dodd-Frank delegating Volcker Rule rule-making to Fed/FDIC/OCC. The agencies have discretion.

Unfortunately, this happens often and illegally (by definition), when the administration chooses to change implementation of, or ignore enforcement of laws. He is not the first, but BO has taken this action to new heights with ACA and immigration.

From WSJ: "...Such regulatory rewriting is also probably illegal. The Administration claims it has "enforcement discretion" to suspend the regulations. But like the employer mandate Mr. Obama also delayed for a year, their hard start-dates are defined in the statute—January 1, 2014. The black-letter law of the Affordable Care Act does not say the rules apply whenever they are politically convenient..."

More than anything it is sad. We continue woefully down the path from a nation of laws and free people to a nation where those in power can do as they please and trample on citizens at will.

The constitution was drafted to protect our individual freedoms, but in aggregate the voters of this country are too stupid to realize what they give away at the expense of what they are promised.
post #350 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post

The executive branch is sworn to faithfully administer all laws, defend the constitution, etc.
This happens all the time, legitimately, when law delegates rule-making to an agency. Such as Dodd-Frank delegating Volcker Rule rule-making to Fed/FDIC/OCC. The agencies have discretion.

Unfortunately, this happens often and illegally (by definition), when the administration chooses to change implementation of, or ignore enforcement of laws. He is not the first, but BO has taken this action to new heights with ACA and immigration.

From WSJ: "...Such regulatory rewriting is also probably illegal. The Administration claims it has "enforcement discretion" to suspend the regulations. But like the employer mandate Mr. Obama also delayed for a year, their hard start-dates are defined in the statute—January 1, 2014. The black-letter law of the Affordable Care Act does not say the rules apply whenever they are politically convenient..."

More than anything it is sad. We continue woefully down the path from a nation of laws and free people to a nation where those in power can do as they please and trample on citizens at will.

The constitution was drafted to protect our individual freedoms, but in aggregate the voters of this country are too stupid to realize what they give away at the expense of what they are promised.

Right, that's what I was referring to.
post #351 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connemara View Post

Right, that's what I was referring to.

There were two very different possibilities here. One was that the law delegated rulemaking (lawmaking) authority to the president as a sort of administrative regulation, and the other was that the president was lawmaking by declaring he wouldn't enforce a law on the books.

The former is very common and the latter is nearly unprecedented as far as I know. This is the latter.
post #352 of 739
Actually, people hate Obama because he's black. And they're very disrespectful:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/opinion/blow-disrespect-race-and-obama.html?_r=0

Disrespect, Race and Obama
Quote:
[T]he intellectual deficiency required to achieve that level of arrogance and ignorance is staggering.

Anyone with even a child’s grasp of race understands that . . . .
post #353 of 739
Quote:
But nerves are raw, antennas are up and race has become a lightning rod in the Obama era. This is not Obama’s doing, but the simple result of his being.

They said the same of Jesus Christ.
post #354 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Actually, people hate Obama because he's black. And they're very disrespectful:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/opinion/blow-disrespect-race-and-obama.html?_r=0

Disrespect, Race and Obama

Since Obama is 1/2 white and half black, he can legitimately be hated as a black man, a white man or a mulatto.

This is precedent setting and historic.

GWB could not be hated 3 in different ways.
post #355 of 739
If he had been white, does anyone really think he would have been re-elected?
post #356 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

If he had been white, does anyone really think he would have been re-elected?

If he had been white Hillary or McCain would have been POTUS.
post #357 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

If he had been white, does anyone really think he would have been re-elected?


Given the make up of the electorate in 2012 and the residual feelings about Bush, I think any Democrat would have beaten Romney, so yes.
post #358 of 739
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Millerp View Post

Given the make up of the electorate in 2012 and the residual feelings about Bush, I think any Democrat would have beaten Romney, so yes.

You should think this statement through a little bit more.
post #359 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

If he had been white Hillary or McCain would have been POTUS.

Hillary, yes.
post #360 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

Hillary, yes.

Don't be so quick to assume. Hillary is extremely unlikeable and the Clintons come with considerable baggage. McCain would have stood a real chance against Hillary as she would not have gotten the turn out in the black and hispanic communities Obama did and McCain was very distanced from Bush.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare