Well, it looks like our right wing yahoo's have NOT thought through fully the consequences of a ruling  in their favor by the SCOTUS. Imagine the loss of health insurance subsidies by millions of Americans and its impact on the approval ratings of the GOP. One can only imagine the potential disruptions of the Health Insurance market in the "Red States" that have millions already benefiting from those same subsidies. The chaos will be epic! It will pale in comparison to the civil war now brewing in the GOP party over funding for Homeland Security Department because of the Presidents Executive actions.  

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-nfl-stadium-promoters-snowed-20150227-column.html

-- Modified on 2/27/2015 11:16:36 PM

The GOP will create a bill immediatley to extend the subsidies until a future date. Are Dems not going to vote for that? Dems going to filibuster? Obama veto? They/he can't as their balls will be in a vice to go along with the subsidies for a fixed period.

The best thing is for the court to rule against the govt., congress would then extend the subsidies until the next sign up period (or the one after that if more time is needed) and that would give Washington the opportunity and time to create a "hybrid" plan, keeping the good from the ACA and jettisoning the bad, as well as adding the GOP ideas of Tort reform, bringing in many more insurance companies to compete by allowing the peeps to buy insurance across state lines, etc.

If you want to put party first, root against the law suit. But if you want a much better law, that doesn't hurt employment/hours worked, that allows us to choose our own doctor, hospital, cancer center and actually puts things in place that can have some meaningful cost costing, root for the law suit.

In the end, Obama/Dems will get the credit for getting the ball rolling, the GOP will get credit for fixing it. America first, Honda and a win/win. Just like when I negotitate with my hookers. LOL

There is something like 11,000 pages of regulations with ACA, and it all gets down to 4 simple words, "established by the state". What does that tell you? Either don't write 11,000 pages of regulations, or have some of your Democratic staffers proof read the fucking document a few extra times.

Roberts is probably going to rule on the side of the Administration that the intent was for the subsidies to be on all exchanges, state or federal. So I wouldn't worry about it. The sky is not going to fall, and chemo won't be turned off for 12,000. Considering I'm one of those targeted for extra taxes to help pay for ACA, I'll turn it off my myself (lol).

I want to see how you think. Let's just say the court rules against the Administration. What is the first thing you will do when that decision is rendered?  

 -- Modified on 2/27/2015 9:20:34 PM

GOP is the one suing against the subsidiary.  

Suppose, your statement is symptomatic of Republican Logic!

Giving tax breaks to the top 1% does nothing for you fool.  

You are not in the 1% that counts.

Besides, you are paying for everything one way or the other. With for profit health system, you are paying for United Health care CEO’s 20 million yearly salary and you are belly aching about paying taxes.  

How did ACA increase your taxes?

Just when I thought it was safe to return to the P & R Board,

Jack is back with his beloved  Republican Health Care Plan!  Help run, everybody hide.

And this time, instead of replacing Obamacare, he wants to cut out the bad parts of  this carefully thought out and interdependent statute, and tack on the RHCP without any thought or study.

Yeah, I’m sure that’s what we should do.

On another topic, I can’t resist saying

“I saw nuns shot in the back of the head.”

That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? Except  OReilly never actually saw this, he just saw pictures of the dead nuns AFTER it happened- over a YEAR later.

Damn this “dishonest reporting.”
Damn this political attack by the liberal media.

This is just semantics, right Jack? By the way, did you know I saw the D Day invasion? Of course I wasn’t born yet, but I did see the pictures at the museum in Normandy LOL.

        Oreilly’s reputation is ruined. He is a laughing stock. He is already sinking in the polls and now a media watchdog is undertaking a new project to review and evaluate his “reporting.” I predict this is just an iceberg so far- wait till we see what new lies they uncover.

       The No Spin Zone. LOL. Time to admit it Jack – you were  wrong on this one

You didn’t think he stays tan all year round because he is out in the sun a lot did you?

       Plus,  if he made over $200,000 AGI in 2013, St. Croix has to pay .9 in additional Medicare tax and 3.8 in net investment income.  

          However, since St. Croix is a flagrant market timer with mostly capital losses, I think we can assume he never held any of his stocks long enough to have actually received any dividends, so it is the tanning tax that really upsets him

You mean the law they had to lie to get is passed? Or the law Gruber said was passed due to "the stupidity of the American voter?" Or the law they didn't even bother to double check about state exchange subsidies? Or the law that made people give up the HC plan they liked, the very same plans that Bams promised they could keep? You mean THAT law, Mari?

Yeah you might have heard on the news (Jon Stewart even did a few pieces ripping it so don't pretend like you didn't hear it) Obamcare has quite a lot of problems. So much so that many Dem congressman are rethinking the "wisdom" of passage.

And werent you the one so adamant about sticking to the topic of the OP? I seem to recall someone asking you about Hillary Clintons lie about being under sniper fire and you responding with "this thread isn't about Hillary." I can have the court reporter play it back for you if you like. LOL

As for BillO, you picked the wrong example. The one you cite here is another semantical issue. The issue you should hang your hat on is the "he was on the door step" when he heard a suicide in relation to the JFK assassination. That is the one he hasn't even addressed and the most problematic. See, I am even helping you make an argument. LOL

Now that we have covered the very important topic of whether some opinion TV show host, not associated with the news division, on a cable station, has exagerated or not, can you comment on people in office, like say, oh idk, Hillary Clinton, or Sharpton being a "racial advisor" to Obama and since lying is your thing, also take a stab at Biden's plagiarism on several occasions and Barry's many lies re: Ocare, gay marriage, etc.

Unless I have to start threads on those issues for you to comment? LOL

-- Modified on 2/28/2015 4:10:13 PM