Obama’s health care law waivers are illegal

Senator, professor say ‘Obamacare’ violates the law
Tom Jackson
Mar 30, 2014

 

President Barack Obama’s repeated changes in provisions of the Affordable Care Act are plainly illegal and violate the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers, U.S. Sen. Rob Portman asserts.

It’s clear changes in the law are supposed to be made by lawmakers in Congress, not presidential decree, the Ohio Republican told reporters in a phone call Thursday.

Writing for the Vokokh Conspiracy, a legal blog hosted by the Washington Post newspaper, Case Western Reserve University professor Jonathan Adler has been arguing that while the health care law does give the Obama administration discretion in certain matters, some of the changes the administration has made violate the law.

In a Feb. 11 blog post, “Another day, another illegal Obamacare delay,” Adler asserted the White House’s delays in a provision requiring companies to buy insurance for their employees, the “employer mandate” clearly is illegal.

“The language of the statute is clear, and it is well established that when Congress enacts explicit deadlines into federal statutes, without also providing authority to waive or delay such deadlines, federal agencies are obligated to stay on schedule. So, for instance, federal courts routinely force the Environmental Protection Agency to act when it misses deadlines and environmentalist groups file suit” Adler wrote.

Portman was asked about the matter two days after yet another change was announced.

The White House said the end-of-March deadline for buying health insurance on healthcare.gov would not apply to people who tried to buy insurance but failed to navigate the website. They would get another two weeks.

“It’s unbelievable to me Congress would pass a law and the administration would choose not to follow it” Portman said.

If the Obama administration wants to make changes in the law, it should ask Congress to make the changes, Portman said.

Ohio’s other senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown, did not answer directly when asked what he thought of the administration’s changes.

During his own conference call with Ohio reporters Wednesday, Brown was asked for his opinion on the waivers and whether he worries a Republican president elected in 2016 might erode Obamacare by making his own changes.

Brown answered the second part of the question, saying he expects the law to be so popular and well-established by 2017, no president would dare change it.

“No Republican president is going to take away benefits from by then tens of millions of Americans,” Brown said.

Asked in a followup what he thinks of Obama’s changes, Brown said: “I have a mixed opinion of all that, but it doesn’t really matter”

Comments

Darwin's choice

"I'll trample the Constitution as much as I'd like", and he's proven it!

obama/fail

This failure should be impeached.....

holysee

Are you a teabagging teabagger of tricorn tea bag persuasion?
just a wild guess....

Darwin's choice

Just FYI, that's not holy water you're drinking from the white porcelin fixture in the bathroom...but keep lapping it up!

bondgirlM

Beats being someone who is destroying the very foundation this country was built on. It's like spitting on the founding documents while you flip off the founding fathers saying "I will do as I please to heck with your government and what it stands for MY agends is more important". But then again he is doing exactly what he promised he would do.

coasterfan

Oh, not really. The law was enacted after a vote by Congress. Check.
Republicans fought its enactment, but a conservative Supreme Court upheld the law. Check. Sounds legal to me.

Note: not liking what a President does is not grounds for impeachment.

Nor'easter

Failure to protect and defend the U S Constitution IS grounds for IMPEACHMENT!

The Big Dog's back

Please feel free to point out where he didn't protect and defend the Constitution.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Funny how Dred Scott v. Sanford would pass your legal muster, too. Good to know!

the office cat

DARWIN... ya wanna credit that quote?
Oh no, you don't. I forgot.

Darwin's choice

Here you go....

care to dispute these, crat?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/real...

the office cat

Portman... the guy who was anti-gay everything... then his son said "Dad I'm gay". CHANGE.
When Portman gets voted out and doesn't have all that government health care benefit he now enjoys - including his son - what can we expect CHANGE.

SamAdams

I agree that Portman's hypocrisy was pretty blatant where homosexuality is concerned. After all, if you present something as an absolute black/white issue of morality, then that absolute doesn't just suddenly flip 180 degrees -- YOU do!

At the same time, I have sympathy for Senator Portman. He's not the first man to realize he was wrong in the first place when confronted with choosing between his "absolutes" and someone he loves! In truth, there are few better ways to educate or to soften hard stances than being forced to see reality over rumor, prejudice, or stereotype. At least Senator Portman has been public about his change of heart and hasn't hidden behind politics merely for the sake of a vote or two!

As for Senator Portman's health insurance coverage, I'm not being cavalier when I say it doesn't really matter whether he's voted out of office or not. He can afford to pay premiums, whether they're paid under Obamacare mandates or not. While he DOES still hold office, though, anything he can do to see that the REST of us can also afford them (which means getting rid of Obamacare and it's many, MANY requirements) is much appreciated by those of us who AREN'T either in Congress or rich!

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

“blah, blah, blah…choosing between his "absolutes" and someone he loves!”

Nope, he’s definitely not the first or the last hypocrite to choose your moral relativism when convictions are tested. It’s definitely not the first time a moral relativist has been out of sync with transcendent moral law.

Matthew 10:34-35 Luke 12: 51-53 This prophecy will continue to be fulfilled until all unite in obeying His commandments.

An obedient Christian will love and obey God above everything and everyone, even family members.

Peninsula Pundit

More to the point: Matt 10: 37-39.

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

Perfect!

SamAdams

Oh, for heaven's sake, thinkagain: Let. It. GO! We all get that you think homosexuality is evil and those who engage in such are going to go to he11. We know that that's what you truly believe, and your consistency shows you're not likely to be accused of hypocrisy any time soon, at least not on that issue.

I clearly acknowledged Portman's hypocrisy. I also pointed out that he changed his mind when confronted with "absolutes" vs. somebody he loves. Note that the word "absolutes" is in quotation marks yet again. That's because it turns out Portman's absolutes WEREN'T. I neither excuse nor condemn that change of heart because I understand how it happens. You'll note I also didn't say his change of heart was good or bad; that's not up to me to determine!

If you would disown your own child should he or she turn out to be gay, then yes, you're STILL not a hypocrite. Goodie for you. The fact that you're something a whole lot worse doesn't enter in to this conversation, apparently.

Now go read your Bible or something so you can continue to be a kind, loving, forgiving Christian, shall you?

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

Is it that monthly thing or was it my agreeing with you that brought about your irrational outburst?

lmalley77

+10 SamAdams!!!!

meowmix

Of course you have sympathy for Portman simply because he's a Republican. Had it been a democrat ... oh never mind. Democrats don't change their position on equality for all American's because we're family.

rbenn

Yeah like Harry Reid funneling money to his family Illegally.

SamAdams

I feel sympathy for ANY parent who has to deal with a dilemma like that one. For some, it's a very difficult mindset to overcome and I give each and every one of them due credit for loving their children more than they love being "right."

Ever watched a gay "child" come out only to be disowned? It's NOT pretty, and I wouldn't wish that on ANY family, no matter their religious or political persuasions!

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

“…more than they love being "right.”

You really are a condescending judgmental person today aren’t you?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Sam: It isn't pretty, and I can attest to that given the community I serve. It's interesting that our own President's recent flip isn't called out as Sen. Portman's. Both swapped positions were very conveniently timed, but if one is to believe that this is how the President feels from here on out so, too, we should give the Senator the benefit of the doubt.

I appreciate much of what you say, not just because it is generally "conservative" (perhaps libertarian is a better word?) but because you have a stereotype held against you that you refuse to recognize. That stereotype being that you focus more on what's between your ears as a woman than your legs. For some strange reason the points you argue tend to fall on the side of empowerment through liberty and independence than empowerment through being described as nothing more than a consumer of birth control.

Not being a woman myself, I can only presume you enjoy the identity of the former and not the latter? You have your own unique battles of wit to fight here and I have learned from watching you practice your art of war.

Meow: "Democrats don't change their position on equality for all American's because we're family."

Careful, that's bordering on the Democrat Master Race once again condemning any who are not of their perfect, single-minded breed. As wonderful as it is to believe that a certain group you belong to (for others it is their church, another political party, or some other kind of social club or terrorist cell) is as pure as the wind-driven snow with no faults whatsoever, I think you will find that the Democrats suffer just as much corruption and hypocrisy because they are still human beings.

Just ask the people of Detroit or Cuyahoga County. Or perhaps we can look to San Francisco and the Democratic State Senator who was going to sell weapons from a Muslim splinter group in the Philippines to an undercover FBI agent after spending his campaign advocating against such things. Or how about Charlotte's Democratic mayor being charged with bribery?

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/l...

As was pointed out, too, Senator Reid is hardly a golden-winged messenger from God either.

Feel free to point out any Republican corruption either recent or historical. It will do well to continue to frame my point. Herein lies the problem: you or anyone else being a Democrat [[[isn't relevant to anyone else]]] (as I am sure you've seen a parallel to the replies thinkagain gets when he posts about his views of Christianity). Project your standards inward to the party for which you obviously carry both sentiment and the donkey-emblazoned flag on the front lines.

The very ideals you hold to your chosen group are being abused and besmirched in front of your very eyes! Are you going to tolerate that?! I enjoy your passion, but I think you would do more to benefit your party by helping clean it out from the inside or actually acting as an ambassador and convincing people why they should join your family.

If you are a family, I suggest you have an intervention. Uncle Democrat is getting drunk again at Thanksgiving and is calling the kids mistakes while striking out at grandma. Kindly take care of him.

As for me? I don't have time nor interest to suffer through the hot wind a political party that is completely irrelevant to and holds no power over me continues to generate in order to not even attempt to convert me to their ranks. There's a freaking nation out there that needs salvaged from the effects of our current and last presidents/Congresses.

There you go. I just gave you the keys to the kingdom, Meow. No strings attached, no fine print. There is no secret to reaching out and actually touching the hearts and minds of others, especially those who you want to be a part of your flock. If you or another Democrat could actually make compelling reasons to join your party, myself and others would listen and bring others with us including our intellectual power and money.

But as of now, who in these forums with an obvious Democratic affiliation has even attempted to do that?

The Big Dog's back

There's no chance a right wingnut would switch parties. One party (DEMOCRATS) base history on facts, the other (Repubs) base history on opinion.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Giving up without even trying? I am disappointed. If what you say is true then you'd think people would see that plain as the blue sky and flock to the Democrats. What's a shame is that on many occasions I have offered here, to the Erie County leader, and even in the President's own reelection office to open up as to WHY I should be a Democrat and none could provide a reason. Here I am all but throwing myself at the Democrat doorstep and... This is what I get.

You may not agree with thinkagain but I know for a fact he could supply not just many reasons to join his sect, but back them up with why those reasons exist.

The Big Dog's back

Cut it out sappy.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Cut what out?

Nemesis

"credit for loving their children more than they love being "right."

Interesting way of putting it, Sam. I never would have expected you to subscribe to the school of parenting that says to love one's child means to approve and affirm everything that child does and do whatever it takes to give them everything you think they might want.

It's important to understand just what Portman's switch really meant. Nothing about his former position required that he disown his son. He opposed state sanction of something he thought his son would want badly to do (he never stated that his son had plans to wed.) It's like a politician changing his position on legalization of pot, not because his kid is currently a stoner, but merely because the kid likes to listen to psychadelic rock, and he thinks that means the kid will want to try getting high in the future.

Portman's real failure was to adopt his former position without the conviction to tell someone he cared about that he believed something that might make them feel bad.

My father never exceeds the speed limit. That doesn't mean that when I get a speeding ticket he has a dichotomous choice between disowning me and campaigning to abolish the traffic laws.

the office cat

PROOF THE AHCA is working.... All the Republicans calling it a failure. or illegal. or unconstitutional. or...

successful.

SamAdams

Actually, one of the latest people to call Obama's actions unconstitutional is somebody who actually FAVORS Obamacare and who is an Obama supporter (a professor of Constitutional Law at an Ivy League university).

Whether you like Obamacare or not, the many amendments made to the law by the White House are, indeed, unconstitutional. But like Democrat Senators cried about Republicans threatening the nuclear option, and who then enacted it themselves, this situation will also turn someday. And when it does, I expect you to be JUST as shrill about your advocacy of unconstitutional executive actions when, with the advantage of the many Obama precedents, a Republican president uses naught but his phone and a pen to craft law!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Thank you, your rationale helped me stop chuckling from such extentions of the cat's proof such as:

How do I know the sky is purple? Because everyone else says it's blue!

Well, how can one argue against such logic and reason, let alone keen observation of science? If it wasn't for you, Sam, I may have been convinced of cat's points and conceded the point that the ACA is actually working.

coasterfan

It is well documented that Obama has used Executive Action less often than other presidents during the past 30+ years. That alone is an eye-opener, but when you throw in the obvious fact that the current Congress is far more intransigent than any Congress in U.S. history, I don't think anyone should blame Obama for simply doing what all of his predecessors had done....

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Curious. Should I get less of a sentence for shooting a gun once and killing someone as opposed to fifty times at a paper target in a range? Or does it matter more what I do with the bullet than the number of times I fire them?

the office cat

President doesn't have the power?
Constitution gives the president war powers to do what is necessary to protect the protectors and the rest of the country.
AHCA is providing help for military and veterans and families that Congress - and rank Portman, Latta, and Jordan among them - have refused to do.

Darwin's choice

Do you mean like this? More trampling from your savior.....

http://www.americasfreedomfighte...

coasterfan

Actually, he's your savior, too. Unless you're one of the clueless minority who actually thinks America is worse off in 2014 than it was in 2007-2008.

Darwin's choice

Troll! How about that epic failure today? obamacare/failure!

KnuckleDragger

Actually you are in the clueless minority, since only 41% of Americans now approve of the job Obama is doing. Since you continue to hold on to the rails of a sinking ship, let us know how it looks on the bottom.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I think you and I need to chat about the Constitution sometime. Please stop by at your convenience.

The tenuous reach you attempted to make is, in my opinion, absurd. If we continue your logic then we have no need whatsoever for either branch of Congress nor the Supreme Court. The President is king and he can do whatever he wants because he controls the military.

Interestingly enough, there are many examples of such a government at work in today's world! But, don't let that admission raise your spirits just yet. We need only look at nations such as North Korea or your friendly, local junta around the world to see just how awesome a civil society is created by such a dictatorship.

Darwin's choice

Thank's, but I'll decline your offer. I couldn't listen to a 400,000 word diatribe of your view of Law, and the Constitution. You have a tremendous gift of B.S., you should be a politician. Although I tend to just hit and run, your wind-baggery sometimes is epic, and in my opinion, a waste of time. Keep posting though, keeping the failures in charge at bay is amusing, and time killing, and we seem to have a common dislike.....

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

My offer wasn't to you. Sometimes the tabbing on this site messes up and people seem to reply to those they aren't. But my reply was directed at office cat, not you. However, it is refreshing to know how you feel about me. Perhaps I should specifically include names in the future but the context of my reply has nothing to do with what you posted and everything to do with what cat did.

airborneforever

I don't see how the ahca is helping military. Our healthcare was already free for active duty and the reserve guard rates and coverages were reasonable. Now the active duty coverages have dropped and the reserve guard premiums have went up with higher deductibles. Thanks for that help!

coasterfan

Glad you mentioned the military. Republicans in Congress were the ones who (again!) recently voted to cut funding to veterans. The events you mentioned had everything to do with the GOP and not Obamacare.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Just checking since your finger is on the pulse of your party, no Democrats voted for it too, right? I want the inside scoop so give it to me straight. You're my go-to-guy about this since I don't get the same resources you must receive.

KnuckleDragger

Coaster is just pulling from his backside again. Dems did in fact vote for this in concert with Repubs. Let me remind you that Obama had no problem signing it either. Don't bother asking Coasternut anything pertaining to the military, he has never served. I would be happy to answer any questions you have since I am a military retiree and in my retirement am active in pushing retiree issues.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I will be happy to bring stuff like that up in the future, thank you! I have active and retired military members in my store community and I enjoy listening to their stories, experiences, etc.

anthras

Re:"AHCA is providing help for military and veterans and families that Congress "

Has there been a change why do veterans need ACH to receive medical care?
I do have some personal friends that go to the VA hospital in Cleveland for their free medical care. I paid $3,000 for my hearing aids and I have a personal friend that went to the VA and it cost him $0.

EdO's

Just say no.

Darwin's choice

Here's one for you cat....

... We as a nation can survive an Obama administration... or any one elected official.... but what we can not survive as a nation is the stupidity of the electorate that would vote for someone as inexperienced & unqualified for the job as the likes of Obama..

Doesn't matter where the quote came from....but you keep policing while being an idiot.

It's on the internet....it must be true...Bonjour!

The Big Dog's back

Typical right wingnut attitude, "Everybody is stupid but me".

Darwin's choice

Nope, I know that you're incredibly stupid, you prove it to all daily!

coasterfan

Oh, I know exactly what you mean, Darwin. I can't believe that American's voted for George W. Bush in 2000, given the fact that he was a stunningly unqualified candidate of below average intelligence. Of course, Republicans actually thought a geography-challenged hockey mom, Herman Cain, Donald Trump and Michelle Bachmann were viable candidates.

Clearly, you and your kind truly know what a quality "experienced" candidate looks like. Rolls eyes....

News flash: Obama has been in office for 5+ years, so by definition, he is no longer "inexperienced".

Darwin's choice

Fool, he's failed at every turn in his "first ever" job. Your constant cheerleading for this failure shows your intelligence, teacher?! I pity all who had to endure you're stupidity. I'd like to see the failure results of your students. I'll bet most are incarcerated.

So,fool, how is that sign up number today? Let's hear you trumpeting how the "experienced" one has pulled something out of his azz, or your's.

KnuckleDragger

More BS pulled from your backside? Bush's IQ is listed as 125 which is not below average and about 50 points higher than yours. Obama's approval ranking is tanking. How's it feel to go down with the ship?

The Big Dog's back

You keep mentioning polls and approval ratings. Obama was behind in the polls in 2012. When people actually voted in November of 2012, they overwhelmingly voted for Obama. Another right wingnut myth flushed down the toilet.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

2008 Myth
Popular Vote:69,498,516
Popular Percentage: 52.93%
Electoral Percentage: 67.84%

2012 Myth
Popular Vote: 65,915,796
Popular Percentage: 51.06%
Electoral Percentage: 61.71%

He beat Romney alright because Romney was a poor choice, but even compared to prior years his performance was hardly "overwhelming" when he lost total votes and percentages compared to four years prior. Why did four million less people vote for him? I won't contend our current President won, but I will contend that this was an "overwhelming" win or some kind of mandate considering who his main opponent was.

The Big Dog's back

Oh sappy, sappy.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I'm here, what do you need?

grumpy

Quote from the article:

"Brown answered the second part of the question, saying he expects the law to be so popular and well-established by 2017, no president would dare change it."

Probem with that statement is that several of the waivers or delays of parts of obamaScare that affect many folks negatively are due to go into effect then... more folks will dislike those things.

Things like staying on your parents policy, portability, pre-existing conditions and a few others will survive, after 2017, but many other will be voted out in Congress and signed by whom ever will be elected President, no matter which party it is.... most folks are now finding out what is in the bill now that is is law " we have to pass the bill so we can see what is in the bill" and don't like some, if not many or even most pieces that are in it. Those parts will be dropped out of it... no matter the party of the next President. Hopefully they will add being able to buy policies across state lines which is NOT part of the law.. I mean tax as it was ruled a tax by SCOTUS... not a law.

The Big Dog's back

So if it falls under the tax, it's not against the Constitution.

SamAdams

Not true. All money-making ventures (in other words, all taxes) must originate in the House of Representatives.

If Obamacare involves FINES, it's illegal because you can't constitutionally force people to buy ANYthing. If Obamacare involves TAXES, it's illegal because it didn't originate in the House of Representatives, but in the Senate. And WHATEVER you call it, once it's a law (and until it's repealed), amendments can ONLY be made constitutionally by Congress.

Sorry. Have you actually, like, READ the Constitution? It's not that long you know, and the English used isn't TOO hard...

AJ Oliver

Where were all you rightie constitutional scholars when Dubya was torturing & kidnapping & seizing without warrants, when he greatly expanded the surveillance state, for his signing statements, lying the country into war?
You wouldn't know a constitution if it bit you in the rear.

SamAdams

I can't speak for others, but I was screaming bloody murder. The Constitution is the Constitution whether it's being violated from the left or the right.

Meanwhile, you (who accuse me and others like me of "not knowing a constitution if it bit me in the rear") are strangely silent as Dear Leader Obama violates the Constitution willy nilly! I'm betting you protested Bush, Ashcroft, et al, and you were right to do so. So, friend hypocrite, where are you NOW? Or is it only "unconstitutional" if it doesn't fit into YOUR government-coercive agenda?

Peninsula Pundit

well, Sam, the stakes are much lower re: Obamacare.
I have read many a cogent article by learned sorts that say that Income taxes are unconstitutional, as well.
But everyone is still paying them.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Apparently you can catch more flies with vinegar than honey. I think that AJ is obsessing over the conspiracy of the 1% too much to see that the current movement of "constitutional righties" was born out of the overreaches and excesses of the Bush years that were extended and exacerbated by Obama's. The Tea Party was formed in reaction to Bush at the twilight of his presidency to start doing something about all this.

Yet they, and we (if I may include you, separate yourself from my comments if you wish), who try to act as the Heimdallrs of the Constitutional Bifrost are the ones being attacked instead of those who abuse it. Heck, we may as well arrest ODOT workers for clogging up the freeways by working on the road instead of keeping overloaded trucks, snow chain tires, or other abusive influences off the road.

The Big Dog's back

The tea party was formed in August of 2008 because there was a strong, strong possibility a Black man would be President.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Dang it! Ok which of you leaked this? How did Big Dog find out the truth? I want answers!

KnuckleDragger

We were in the same place that all the Democrats were in that supported the war on terror. Apparently you have no problem with Obama continuing to expand these intrusions since I rarely hear you commenting about it. Nice try AJ, but it may be time for you to give up your teaching credentials.

Nemesis

"Where were all you...."

Complaining more loudly than you probably; telling anyone who would listen that Department of Homeland Security is almost a direct translation of the Russian phrase for which KGB is an acronym.

Funny how the guy about whom you're waxing positively messianic promised to fix all that, and once elected, he decided to double down by declaring unilateral authority to assissinate his own citizens.

Maybe you should pay a little more attention before pontificating on what those with whom you disagree on one issue believe regarding another issue. Some of don't base our position on the unitary executive on which party currently controls the White House. Apparently that doesn't include you.

meowmix

Sam also hates the fact that contraceptives are a mandate to be included in an employers healthcare plan. It simply means that they must still pay their co-payment according to the plan they have. But then again, they scream without thinking-- as is their way. Doesn't it make more sense if you're anti-abortion to offer your employee's coverage for prescription contraceptives if that is your logic? Sam, really, what do YOU have to lose by having healthcare? Or, can you just not afford it? If so, go to www.benefits.ohio.gov and sign yourself up. What the resentment for all Americans to have adequate healthcare is just beyond logic to me.

SamAdams

You're right. I DO hate that contraceptives are a mandate. But that has nothing to do with "contraceptives," and everything to do with "mandate." We're not alike as human beings. We're not alike as families. We're not alike in health care needs. So why can't we choose what's best for ourselves? Why do we have to have coverage that isn't needed?

I don't need "free" prostate screenings. As it happens, I also don't need "free" contraceptives or prenatal care. That's not "adequate" healthcare. It's healthcare I'll never, ever use. Why don't YOU choose coverage with the benefits that YOU want/need, and why can't I do the same? But no, I'm stuck with all of this "free" nonsense that ISN'T free. And to add insult to injury, those premiums that are already so high are projected to go up (WAY up) in the next year or two.

You can call healthcare "adequate" under Obamacare all day long, but it's considerably LESS than "adequate" when you can't get it at all!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I think I have a "free" mammogram coming up, want to trade it for that prostate screening?

It's unfortunate that those like Meow don't seem to realize what mandating things actually does or how it can be abused. If she is advocating for mandatory birth control to be shov- er, made available to every woman for simply being a woman I wonder why she isn't mandating everyone be an organ donor? Why, it so happens that that would do much more to advance society and help people!

Yep, we just need to FORCE everyone to give up their organs on death. That's responsibility, you know!

Your choices as an individual are irrelevant to some unknowable whole. Instead of comprising society, we are outside of it somehow and must serve it instead of the other way around. Sorry, Sam, her views of your life are more relevant than your own observances. She and her party actually know what is best for every individual human being with our myriad of life circumstances. When you only view people as a generalized, dehumanized group of organs that need regulation, it makes decisions easy.

grumpy

it helps when you believe that all people need equal results. That schools need the same things taught the same way, no matter if urban, suburban, or rural, no matter if Northeastern, midwestern, Pacific NW, or whatever. Different areas and places need different methods and even different curricula.

Men have different medical needs than women, children needs are different than young adults, who are differnt than middle agers, who are different than seniors, sick are different than mostly healthy folks, and so on down the line.

Car insurance makes different classes for different drivers. Medical insurance should do the same. People should be able to decide what they need instead of gov't dictating what is needed. If you wish to have a general policy for folks who don't know what they need, like some folks on here, you could make a gov't approved policy available for those who need gov't to control their lives, but let those of us who want to take responsibility for ourselves, and the sheep can take the gov't plan, AKA obamacare or AHCA as the like to call it.

meowmix

I don't have a problem with my insurance paying for prostate screening, blood pressure medication, contraceptives, viagra, insulin, psoriasis shampoo, etc, etc, etc. None of which I have a current need for.

HZ, I picture you as some smug little man who thinks he knows it all. But I also I imagine you a bald. Is it possible your insurance doesn't cover propecia and you're just resentful?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

You are welcome to come to my shop and see for yourself. I won't bite, promise. I will defy your example by stating I'm both tall and have hair. As for thinking I know it all? Hardly. In fact those sort of absolutists are quite grating to me.

If you are willing to pay for something you can never use (testicular cancer check, let's say) that's fine. That is your choice. But stop making others do it. Blood pressure medicine is something you actually have a possibility of needed as that isn't gender based.

When will you back your party to force organ harvesting upon death in order to help people who need it the most?

meowmix

Oh for crying out loud HZ! Must you be such a drama queen? Organ harvesting? That actually sounds like something more akin to what the GOP/Koch Bros. and their ilk (1%'ers would support). I'm willing to bet you have a picture of Sarah Palin hanging over your bed don't you? xoxoxo

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

But millions of Americans need organs. If you are dead you don't need them. It's antisocial and down right unfair that individuals get to keep their organs when they are dead while society at large can use them. Am I wrong? Don't I have a right to your organs if you aren't using them? Even if you are, youcan live with one kidney. It'll be like jury selection, an already understood social compact in the US.

As for Sarah Palin? No. Sorry to defy your stereotype again. The weather is getting nice, want to come over for a BBQ? You can see how I decorate and live or how at the store as an evil conservative I somehow make it through the day tolerating an extremely diverse group of kids and adults of all incomes, backgrounds, religions, and for some - disabilities.

The Big Dog's back

So so sappy.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

So so what?

thinkagain's picture
thinkagain

I see a lot of these comments are from those who, basically, don’t have any real stake in this game, other than whining about being forced to spend a few extra bucks for something they won’t use.

I find that argument rather boring compared to a good ol’ vociferous, in your face, heathen or zealous Christian viewpoint.

If you want to discuss the pros and cons of one size fits all ObamaCare, I can understand making an argument about government usurping constitutional rights to freedom of religion, by forcing religious business owners to choose between their beliefs or livelihood. Or even an ignorant diatribe by a godless liberal about how contraception and abortion is a woman’s “right”.

I signed up for a plan and I’m not grousing about getting coverage I don’t need if someone else can use it. I realize this is just another example of redistribution of wealth, but I do not have an issue with paying for a health care system that at least attempts to bridge a gap in our society.

Besides, I’m used to getting nothing for something. I’ve been forced to pay taxes for years and many of those dollars went to things I didn’t approve of and things I would never use.

Nemesis

How do all you leftists feel now, knowing you've been arguing with an ally?

Some of us knew from the start that y'all and Thinkagain were birds of a feather with a small religious disagreement.

KURTje

This we know ; the next CIC election will be interesting.........

AJ Oliver

I have protested the current POTUS, and will very likely continue to do so. The constitution has been bent, folded and mutilated beyond recognition. When R. Armitage and S. Libby walk free while Pvt. Manning gets 35 years, you know that the rule of law is nothing but a cruel joke. Some of the most bizarre views of the constitution can be found among the SCOTUS - Thomas thinks that states have the legal right to set up official religions. And, oh yeah, corps are people - now THAT is a really twisted legal doctrine. Would you let one date your sister? Can they be executed in Texas? NOPE !! Darn, you went and got me started . .

Darwin's choice

Wouldn't it be great if they could make an official language?

AJ Oliver

No habla espanol? Que triste!

AJ Oliver

Sie sprechen nicht deutsch? Wie traurig!

Dr. Information

How can anyone on either side actually agree with what Obama is doing with his healthcare law?

Unconstitutional is unconstitutional either way. Both sides should be upset.

SamAdams

Agreed. But one side (generally speaking) won't be. Why not? Because those responsible run with a D after their names on the ballot, and they and the sheep who follow them refuse to do any less than to blindly toe the party line. "My party, right or wrong!"

I can't argue (though I dearly wish I could) that a lot of Republicans are any better or any different when it comes to voting or supporting a straight ticket. It's just that THIS time, it's the Dems who are as wrong as wrong can be, and it's their sycophants wearing the blinders.

The Big Dog's back

Ya know sam, the only people who ever talk about "toeing the party line" are you right wingnuts. Could it be that's what you do? Wait I'll answer that for you. Yessssssss!

SamAdams

Nice try answering for me...but you're wrong. I've never voted a straight ticket in my life, mostly because NEITHER party is particularly well known for choosing the most qualified candidate, but rather the richest/most photogenic/has stayed in long enough for it to be his "turn"/or whatever is considered the "most electable" at any given time.

I disagree on a pretty regular basis with ALL parties (yes, even the Libertarian Party, which has a "foreign policy" -- I use the term VERY loosely) that's dangerous on a GOOD day! But as much contempt as I have for most politicians, I have even more for those voters who are so ignorant as to vote for a candidate based solely on party affiliation whether he or she is a good candidate or not, and whether they even AGREE with most of what that candidate promises or not (usually doubtful, since straight ticket voters tend to also be singularly uninformed).

Unfortunately, it appears I'm in the minority. After all, I can't imagine you can say the same!

The Big Dog's back

So what Democratic President did you vote for?

grumpy

Notice how he doesn't say he ever votes anything but a straight ticket... but wants to know how others vote?... his non-response and question trying to change the focus speaks volumes...

Nemesis

Funny thing Dog, is no one on this site has been as consistently partisan as you have.

The Big Dog's back

Yeah right. The right wingnuts on here are not partisan at all.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

In the case you aren't actually agreeing with him and are being sarcastic, would you like to provide an example or two?

Nemesis

Who are these wingnuts? Sam? She's clearly expressed disagreement with both Republican policy positions and candidates. So has Hero, and Contango. Thinkagain is on your side in this discussion. About the only one I can think of who has been as consistently partisan as you, but on the other side, was Taxpayer, who's no longer around. Even Coasterfan has broken partisan ranks once or twice, but the Dog is a good name for you, because you're so slavishly loyal to your masters.

AJ Oliver

Well, what is the conservative plan for ensuring that all Americans get affordable, quality health care - you know, like the REST OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD ALREADY HAS. Waiting . . waiting . . crickets . . more crickets

Huron_1969

So you'll be happy when we're paying 60 to 70 percent in taxes to support a government controlled system like the European countries?

grumpy

Re: "Well, what is the conservative plan for ensuring that all Americans get affordable, quality health care"

The CBO says that after 10 years there will still be 30 million+ that won't have health insurance. What is the liberals plan to cover all Americans? Obamacare is set to fail reaching that goal as well as all the ones it has failed to meet so far.

I could link to numerous stories on this but will leave it to you to do the search yourself and read from the source you prefer. Just type in "CBO states 30 million not insured after 10 years of obamacare."

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Out of curiosity, AJ, I can only wonder what differences the United States have as opposed to smaller, more homogeneous populations of Europe who have neither the size, population, nor geographical variables that we do.

If you think the ACA is "quality" health care and this is the best we can do, I can only shake my head and hope my generation can fix what yours is doing to us. Especially when there are people in Congress who have been IN Congress longer than I have been alive.

You want "conservative" solutions?

1. Allow plans to be sold across state lines to have insurance companies compete against each other instead of being forced into a government-run cartel.

2. Enact tort reform when/where necessary.

3. Encourage and educate the population about HSAs (health savings accounts) so that they keep their own money at a tax advantage and spend it where they want at any facility they choose. Did you know that the last I knew when I sold non-crappy health plans (as is the presumption that apparently every plan before the ACA was worthless) you can spend HSA money on over the counter medical supplies which even included dog food for your seeing eye dog?

4. Make "normal" health plans as tax-advantaged as business ones to encourage single purchases.

5. Let people know that forming a group for group insurance isn't actually that tough.

6. Encourage hospitals to develop known "menus" for common treatments so that the price of services are actually KNOWN in some quantifiable way from a base cost.

A great amount of what this act does further removes the knowledge of prices from consumers. You want a "conservative" solution? Shine light on these things. Educate people. Empower the individual with knowledge and dignity. Create a higher standard for the individual, not the company.

But this? This steaming pile of "tax"? Shame on you for calling this something on-par with first-world care. ESPECIALLY because I know how much you get into a frothing loathe about "the 1%" to whom this GUARANTEES PROFIT with OUR TAX MONEY.

So there's a start and on top of that I am posting without an anonymous moniker.

Respectfully submitted,

The cricket-shooer

The Big Dog's back

"Across state lines". That's about the stupidest thing. BC/BS of Indiana is not going to undercut BC/BS of Ohio. Tort reform? Less than 2%. And, would you sue a Dr. who butchered you?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Are you so sure they won't? The only reason there are is Blue Cross of X and one of Y is because of the division between states. Tort reform is a small part of a whole, none of the items above are a singular silver bullet. But every bit helps. Since you didn't contend the other items can I presume you might actually agree with them?

The Big Dog's back

Assume a$$-u-me.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Please then, contend my presumption. Strip away the dignity and privilege to know how much things cost as an individual. Keep us from being educated about costs, services, and competition if that is where your contentions lie.

Or are you assuming that our population is somehow too dumb or undeserving to understand how these things work? I should certainly hope not and will presume that isn't the case.

grumpy

Why do they want to keep it restricted to States when everything else gov't does they want it nationwide? When it adds competition they want to restrict that competition, the one main thing that could reduce costs... they don't want to do The reason they don't want tort reform... the trial lawyers donate 95% of their political donations to the dims... so they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them... the dims tend to stay bought.

Nemesis

"Well, what is the conservative plan"

True free market capitalism, NOT regulatory crony capitalism.

First of all, have Congress for once wield the Interstate Commerce Clause for it's actual intended purpose - to stop state governments putting up barriers to interstate commerce. Allow ALL health insurance providers to compete freely in ALL 50 states. There are more than a few states currently where only one company is allowed to offer health insurance.

Get rid of Certificates of Need and other regulations that artificially restrict supply to the benefit of rent-seeking industry incumbents. Relax supply choking professional licensing requirements so it doesn't require someone with 10 years of training to stitch up a cut foot or prescribe antibiotics when the lab has already done all the real diagnositc work.

It's interesting to note that there's one segment of the healthcare industry where, for the past 20 years, quality has consistently improved and costs have consistently dropped. It's the field of vision corrective surgery, which coincidentally is the only segment that is pure free enterprise where patients pay out of their own pocket, and the supply of providers is limited only by the risk tolerance of investors.

KURTje

Sam this is e-z. Vote.

AJ Oliver

Back in the 1060's, the righties did everything they possibly could to sabotage, delay and obstruct Medicare. They are doing the same thing now. And hey Huron, ever been to Europe? Their tax rate are NOTHING LIKE THAT HIGH. You have no clue as to what you are writing about. Europe also has these strange phenomena with names like "vacations", and "retirement", and "paid parental leave", and "sick days" - this list goes on. It's all part of what they call "quality of life". It's really grotesque that so many US righties seem to take a sort of perverse joy in the suffering of our people. And BTW, most righties are cowards too - unwilling even to defend their views here using their real names. SHAME ON YA SEZ I !!

The Big Dog's back

Amen brother AJ, Amen.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

How well-managed is Medicare? Is it fiscally sound, unabused? Is it flawless? Wasn't a portion sacrificed on the altar of the ACA?

As for taxation:

UNITED STATES
Corporate - 0-39% (federal), 0-12% (state), 0-3% (local)
Indv. Min. - 0% (federal), 0% (state), 0-3% (local)
Indv. Max. - 55.9% (if taking max of F/S/L); 10-39.6% (federal), 0-13.3% (state), 0-3% (local)
Payroll - 7.65-15.3% (federal), 0-2% (state), 0-2% (local)
VAT/GST - 0-11.75% (state and local)

= = = = = = = = = =

UNITED KINGDOM
Corporate - 21%
Indv. Min. - 0%
Indv. Max. - 45%
Payroll - 0-25.8%
VAT/GST - 20% with lowered percentages for certain things

GERMANY
Corporate - 29.8%
Indv. Min. - 0%
Indv. Max. - 45%
Payroll - 41%
VAT/GST - 19% (or 7% for food)

FRANCE
Corporate - 33.33%
Indv. Min. - 0%
Indv. Max. - 75%
Payroll - 66%
VAT/GST - 2.1-20% (depending on item)

GREECE
Corporate - 26%
Indv. Min. - 22%
Indv. Max. - 42%
Payroll - 44%
VAT/GST - 24% or 13% (depending)

DENMARK
Corporate - 24%
Indv. Min. - 0%
Indv. Max. - 51.7%
Payroll - 8%
VAT/GST - 25%

If you'd like to examine any of these yourself, you can go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...

As it is Wikipedia, I will be happy to look at any of these you may suspect as false more closely and talk to you about them.

The Big Dog's back

sappy, I missed your comparisons of vacation time, sick leave, personal time off, mandated work hours. I'm sure you'll get right on it.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Good points:

Unemployment Rates:
U.S. - 6.7%
U.K. - 7.2%
Germany - 5.1%
France - 10.4%
Greece - 27.5%
Denmark - 7.0%

I'm on it, boss!

(Though we can nitpick over how/what statistics are used to determine "true" unemployment, if you are curious please use countryeconomy.com as a reference.)

KnuckleDragger

I'll bite, yes I've lived in Europe, and yes their tax rates are much higher. The true tax rate in most European countries is not reflected in income taxes since they tax other things such as for having TVs in your home, etc. These are yearly taxes not just a one time deal. In England they have so many taxes it would make your head spin. If you add them all up you are paying over 50% of your income. As for using real names, with the nutcases that are on here, I would be a little leery about putting my real name out there.

Huron_1969

I've visited Europe several times and know for a fact they are taxed well over 60%. If you're a small business owner or self employed, it is much worse. As for quality of life, the Europeans lead their daily lives much differently than we do. Some of it I envy, and some is down right scary.

But this is America.... and even with all of our faults I love this country. We should be focused on fixing our problems with the tools our Constitution provides, rather than trying to convert our freedoms and way of life into a socialist framework

As for using our real names.... no way as long as wack jobs like holysee are lurking about

Nemesis

You forgot a few other concepts they have, like defaulting on souvereign debt, and a rising tide of secessionism.

Also, if their medical care is so wonderful, why do the princes of the Middle East, who can go wherever they want, fly over the lauded cities of Europe to get to Hospitals in second rate American cities like Cleveland?

Nemesis

Back in the 1060's, the righties were making Prince John sign the Magna Carta at the point of a sword. It was a great moment for liberty and limited government, but you probably see it as a tragedy.

coasterfan

Here's the thing: if Obamacare was truly as bad as Republicans are trying to scare everyone into believing, wouldn't it fail on its own? Why are they trying to hard to eviscerate it, and to play their usual gloom and doom "scare-fest" game? They aren't afraid that Obamacare won't work - they're afraid that it will.

It's obvious that they think that their only chance is to kill it before it takes effect - before people realize that it's going to be a good thing. This is exactly what Republicans did when Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid were first introduced.

They're also worried (understandably so) that they're going to have to campaign in 2016 on a platform of removing healthcare from millions of Americans who now have it through the AHCA.

The law is just getting started - it's still being rolled out.
The train is just leaving the station. Why are Republicans so quick to judge whether the journey was a success, when it's clearly too early to do so? Or, if they insist on playing that game, why can't they admit that the signup has been coming along nicely? It clearly has not peaked and it's obvious that interest continues to grow. It's working rather well in states that WANT it to work. Ask California and New York what they think about it...

The bigger questions:
Why are some conservatives so against others having healthcare protection? Do they really believe that insurance companies should be able to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions? Do they think that an insurance company should be able to drop someone's policy when they get cancer? Do they think that people should go bankrupt due to out-of-pocket costs with catastrophic illness? Those are just 3 of the things that Obamacare fixes.

Polls show that a decided majority of Americans do not want to repeal Obamacare, and instead want to work to improve the law. It's easy to throw insults, and far harder to be part of the solution. Perhaps, someday, the GOP will decide to paddle their boat in a more positive, helpful direction.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Who has done more to delay and modify the law after it was passed:

Answer 1) Congressional Republicans
Answer 2) President Obama

You get one answer, this is multiple choice so do the best you can, please.

How many millions have LOST healthcare due to the ACA despite the unconstitutional changes to the tax the president has made? Are we still down net policies, I forget. I think we actually have less people insured now than when this unread law was insert into a gutted bill from the House (similar to how viruses reproduce) and passed late at night close to Christmas by one party that needed many things like flights on Air Force One and "Kickbacks" to vote for it.

You want those three things you mentioned? Fine, pass a law that keeps them and repeal this piece of garbage that guarantees profits to private companies (that I'm sure NO Democrats invested in, perish the thought!) from our public tax dollars. While you are at it, you should pass something that the ACA does and allows certain cancer centers and medicines to continue to be available to patients that have since been cut off because of this immaculate law. As for your polls, please cite them. I'd love to read the source, how the questions were phrased, or from what email/website you pulled that statistic.

Darwin's choice

Good post. Want to wager on how long before you get an answer?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Thank you. To be honest, Darwin, I wish he would more. While I don't generally agree with his party, I long for someone of that persuasion to actually be like a Contango and post numerous sources. Or Nemesis or Sam and make the logical/philosophical arguments. Heck, for as "infamous" as thinkagain is he can at least tell you and cite WHY he believes what he does instead of parroting a newsletter, etc.

It makes me grumble, honestly, Darwin. When all I seek are cohesive explanations (not even a fight!) to what others think and none can be offered. So what am I to think? They don't know anything about what they say? They can't explain a view or term? Heck, Big Dog at least attempts replies which is why I enjoy going back and forth with him the most.

Even if it took them a day to research my counterpoint for specifics to eviscerate my argument I would be happy. There is no growth nor learning without challenge, but for even having two former teachers actively post here I haven't learned much if anything.

The Big Dog's back

sappy,
(CNN) - The House on Wednesday passed another bill aimed at derailing Obamacare - the 50th time the GOP-led chamber has tried to repeal or alter President Barack Obama's signature health law in the past three years.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Who has ACTUALLY changed the ACA more? Of the two options, which entity has actually done more to this program in real, enforced, measurable ways?

The Big Dog's back

Changing the goal posts again huh sappy? I proved it to you,

grumpy

Yes repubes have tried to delay or stop obamaScare 50 times and obama has modified, changed or delayed parts at least 38 times. Which has had more effect? Failing to get the Senate to even debate a bill or changing things 38 times?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

"Who has done more to delay and modify the law after it was passed"
"Who has ACTUALLY changed the ACA more?"

done - completed; finished; through
actually - as an actual or existing fact; really. Meaning "in fact, as opposed to possibility"

There are no goal posts changed. Who has ACTUALLY DONE more to change the ACA? Last I looked the feckless Republicans were voiding their bladders in the wind while the President has been the ONLY one to change, modify, or delay the law.

In case you are curious, the dictionary.com word of the day today is "capriccio".

I fear, with all thy wit and pleasantry, thou art, after all, but one of those capriccios which Nature sometimes indulges in, merely to show how superior is her accustomed order to eccentricities, even accompanied with rare powers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/...

The Big Dog's back

Because Obama cares.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I appreciate you answering my question. Now that we have a mutually-agreed upon starting point we can contend how much he cares about himself, the law, or everyone it affects. I would argue that since he has had to illegally change it so many times he ought not to ever have signed in a harmful and woefully incomplete law (tax? whatever) that doesn't even stand up to your own ideal system of a single payer mechanic.

Are we still together in that so much pain, suffering, arguments, money, time, political capital, etc. has been wasted on something that has to be illegally changed by the president on the basis of "he cares"? You'll find me an odd ally (even if you perceive it as enemy-of-my-enemy) in that I want more and better than anything the ACA could hope to provide. But it takes honest conversations between people like us to actually make it happen.

Nemesis

You proved that they made a lot of noise. Answer his question - who has actually prevented elements of the law from going into effect on schedule?

The Big Dog's back

You should be happy right?

Nemesis

No, not at all. The Constitution is more important than any one issue or piece of legislation. But you're still avoiding the question.

SamAdams

Yes, Obamacare WILL fail on its own. But the damages it will do until it finally collapses under its own weight can't be accurately projected, nor can all of the truly egregious likely effects be minimized. It's better to stop it NOW than to work -- probably for YEARS -- in an attempt to reverse the nasty fallout.

AJ Oliver

Hey, thanks coaster & dawg for the comments. Honest to god, if we let the conservatives get their way and destroy Medicare (they tried again today in Congress), and social security (jeez, how they hate that) we'll have old folks dying in the streets like they used to. Ah yes, the good old days!!

coasterfan

Yeah, they pine for the 1950's, but the fake Ozzie & Harriet World they miss never really existed. The truth? Part of the reason the 50's were a time of prosperity was because there wasn't a huge gap between the Haves and Have Nots. In the 50's, the top tax rate was more than 90%, compared with mid-30s today.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I mustn't have been in your history classes. I don't see any pictures or references to people dying in the streets "like they used to". Unless we look at nations like Cuba or the former Soviet Union. Maybe China or North Korea? Huh...it's also a good thing the ACA didn't touch Medicare one bit since it seems to be such an immaculate program.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

D-did you actually...you know...read this article? It doesn't do much as a counterpoint to me, presuming that is why you posted it. You read this entire article, right? I mean thanks for supporting me, sorry I was so defensive. Normally you only try and tear down the things I say.

Gotta give you more respect, though I hope you notice I have elsewhere in these comments.

The Big Dog's back

Your reading comprehension "skills" need work.

KnuckleDragger

Re: "we'll have old folks dying in the streets."

Kinda like the same claims you lefties make against guns. How is that working out for you?

You are being a little disingenuous about the elderly dying in the street because at that time everyone was enduring the Great Depression and the elderly were NOT the only ones suffering. Social Security is heading towards insolvency and the Democrat solution is to just continue kicking the can down the road. Either we fix it now with some minor changes or we will be forced into drastic changes later on. Why should you care? You are an old fossil that will be dead and buried by then. You boomers are a real piece of work, you want to squeeze every penny from younger generations and leave us with nothing. So when you talk about being selfish, look in the mirror.

The Big Dog's back

Please reference where Social Security will be insolvent.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I will beat Darwin to it, but by no means will I deny him the ability to prove his own material:

"The Social Security Board of Trustees today released its annual report on the long-term financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds. The combined assets of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds are projected to become depleted in 2033, unchanged from last year, with 77 percent of benefits still payable at that time. The DI Trust Fund will become depleted in 2016, also unchanged from last year’s estimate, with 80 percent of benefits still payable."

To read the trustees' report (nonfiction as is your reading pleasure) simply go to the SSI report and search for it.

The Big Dog's back

What does depleted mean to you? 77% still payable is not depleted. We could solve SS right now by doing away with the cap.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

deplete
1. to use up (supplies, money, energy, etc); reduce or exhaust
2. to empty entirely or partially
3. med to empty or reduce the fluid contents of (an organ or vessel)

It means exactly as I used it. Do you offer another definition? But here, don't take my word for it.

"Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the Trustees’ long-range test of close actuarial balance nor their short-range test of financial adequacy and faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds. DI Trust Fund reserves expressed as a percent of annual cost (the trust fund ratio) declined to 85 percent at the beginning of 2013, and the Trustees project trust fund DEPLETION in 2016, the same year projected in the last Trustees Report. DI cost has exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the trust fund ratio has declined since peaking in 2003. While legislation is needed to address all of Social Security’s financial imbalances, the need has become most urgent with respect to the program’s DI component. Lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries three years from now."

Here's some homework for you. Go to the Trustees Report Summary (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/), hit Ctrl+F to bring up the "find" box, then type in "depl". Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that word is used twenty-eight (28) times.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Listed separately, how about we allow a "private option" for Social Security? I can invest my money better than the government. Is it fair to have my money confiscated, mismanaged/depleted, and have nothing to show for it? Now if you can't do better than the government I am all for you being allowed to let them keep your money. You have nothing to worry about. I will keep my retirement money and manage it and you will too. You aren't out anything if you trust the government's IOUs in the "lockbox".

Nemesis

"old folks dying in the streets like they used to."

Talk about revisionist history....

I haven't seen a body count exaggerated like that since the Vietnam era.

Donegan

Face it, Obama has murdered US citizens without trial by droning them so what could be worse besides trying to undermine the constitution by instituting a fascist dictatorship, my bad he has tried that as well.
Get real Coaster your worship of a murderer is to the point of insanity, he lies to your face you believe him over and over and over and over. Your mental same as he, get a life. Oh your Obamacare legacy will go down in history as THE greatest cluster F**k's in history, good job!!

The Big Dog's back

dummygan-terrorist sympathizer.

Darwin's choice

Obamacare, the plan purportedly created to provide health coverage for the uninsured, has enrolled just 1.7% of America's 48.6 million uninsured.

News of the disastrous numbers comes as nervous Democrats and President Barack Obama, ahead of the November midterm elections, did their best on Monday's enrollment deadline to put a positive spin on the deeply unpopular Obamacare program. The latest Associated Press poll finds that Obamacare has now hit an all-time low approval rating of just 26 percent.
The White House now claims an Obamacare enrollment figure of six million people. However, according to The New York Times, at least 20% of those never paid their premiums to activate coverage, leaving them uninsured. That drops the number down to 4.8 million.
Next, as Washington Post columnist Ed Rogers notes, "the official HHS numbers still include duplicate enrollments." No one knows how many duplicate enrollments are in the stack; the White House refuses to say. However, given the disastrous Obamacare website failures, it is reasonable to imagine that the pile is riddled with numerous "false start" applications.
That leaves the most important question: How many people are gaining insurance who were previously uninsured? After all, that was the stated reason for Obamacare in the first place. McKinsey & Co. says that only 27% of those who have picked a plan through Obamacare were previously uninsured.
Moreover, McKinsey says these individuals have an unusually high rate of failing to pay their first month's premium. "Only 53 percent of them had paid their first premium, compared with 86 percent of the previously insured," reports CNBC.
Even conceding the White House its alleged six million enrollment figure (which, again, includes duplicates and incomplete applications), that would mean that just 810,000 of paying Obamacare customers were previously uninsured, a figure that represents 1.7% of America's 48.6 million uninsured people.
Indeed, most of those the White House counts as Obamacare enrollees are among the five million who had their health insurance plans canceled due to Obamacare."

Coasterfan...big dog....aj....failure.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

In the interest of fairness while I won't deny that the ACA has failed to do even as intended when it comes to numbers, the 45 million number is false and an extreme stretch of match and circumstance to come up with that number. The rest of the article seems par for the course.

Darwin's choice

Maybe that number includes those 20 million +- illegal democrat voters...

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Yes, it included illegal aliens, those who could presumably afford (households over $50k/yr.) insurance but didn't buy it, those who didn't have it by choice or lack of money, and those who during the blip in time that number was pulled from the ether were between jobs so didn't have it but since got it. In order to help pass the law without having to read it, a big number was needed to create an emergency. If you recall "people were dying in the streets from lack of insurance".

Is there a doctor in these forums that can tell me if that is a legitimate cause of death that goes on a death certificate?

Anyway, yes, the 45 million number was artifically bloated for convenience. The real number if you cut away the fluff was around nine million I believe. A much smaller portion of the population which could have been taken care of by specific measures. But that doesn't do much to instill a power grab over the entire population so...

TADAAAA! The ACA, aka, "The Aristocrats!"

Pages