Kavanaugh Confirmation

#16,376
#16,376
luthervol said:
Go back and check your dates. ACA was signed into law March 2010. The study I linked showed positive trends 3 years past March of 2010. My point was that the negative impact of the 2010 election of a republican congress was the demise of ACA. 2010 and beyond are the years we are both referencing.
Click to expand...
the mandates didn't start until 2013/2014. They didn't even have a website in 2010. heck they barely had one in 2013. you are beating your chest for nothing. History of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

also you need to check your dates. you contend that ACA worked for three years after 2010, yet it was the 2010 of republican congress that doomed it? How does that timeline work in your mind?
 
#16,378
#16,378
luthervol said:
Enjoy a little context.....

FACT CHECK: Did Nancy Pelosi Say Obamacare Must be Passed to 'Find Out What Is in It'?

As you can see, it’s true that Pelosi did utter these words: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. However, the article leaves out important context, including the next few words:
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.​
Like much reporting and commentary surrounding that remark over the past seven years, the Chicks on the Right article also leaves out the remarks made by Pelosi in the lead-up to the now-infamous soundbite.

Although the point is not made clearly or explicitly, it appears that the sense of Pelosi’s remarks was that the benefits (in her view) of the bill – rather than the contents of the bill – would only be fully revealed to the public after it was passed and implemented.


Morons!
Click to expand...
bahahahahahahahahahaha. you almost made it across the Mississippi with that reach. the rest of that sentence does nothing to help it. if anything she is doubling down on her statement that it would work. which makes her look even worse considering how much of a flop it has been in the real world, away from the fog of controversy.
 
#16,379
#16,379
LouderVol said:
the mandates didn't start until 2013/2014. They didn't even have a website in 2010. heck they barely had one in 2013. you are beating your chest for nothing. History of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

also you need to check your dates. you contend that ACA worked for three years after 2010, yet it was the 2010 of republican congress that doomed it? How does that timeline work in your mind?
Click to expand...
Simple. The ACA had many positives which were reflected in the data from the early years. The flaws that became apparent in the early years could have been addressed with a cooperative congress. The congress was determined to destroy ACA. They succeeded, even though they are keeping a couple of the biggest (and most expensive) parts. Repubs. had nothing to replace it with after 6 years of rallying against it. If ACA was bad, then that must mean that something is better, yet they had nothing. Time will prove who was right. We are headed to the inevitable destination that the ACA was moving us towards.
 
#16,380
#16,380
LouderVol said:
bahahahahahahahahahaha. you almost made it across the Mississippi with that reach. the rest of that sentence does nothing to help it. if anything she is doubling down on her statement that it would work. which makes her look even worse considering how much of a flop it has been in the real world, away from the fog of controversy.
Click to expand...
It would have worked with appropriate changes that could have been made by a cooperative congress. What do we have to replace it with?
 
#16,386
#16,386
luthervol said:
Simple. The ACA had many positives which were reflected in the data from the early years. The flaws that became apparent in the early years could have been addressed with a cooperative congress. The congress was determined to destroy ACA. They succeeded, even though they are keeping a couple of the biggest (and most expensive) parts. Repubs. had nothing to replace it with after 6 years of rallying against it. If ACA was bad, then that must mean that something is better, yet they had nothing. Time will prove who was right. We are headed to the inevitable destination that the ACA was moving us towards.
Click to expand...
so then there were no 3 years of success.

the mandate part that screwed over the country didn't start until 13/14. the earlier stuff was the window dressing, when they should have been working out the kinks.

as I and others have said the only way to fix it is to remove it. taking stuff away from people, is like taking away candy from a toddler. Its not good for them, but they still whine and complain when it is taken away. this time however the toddler has all the power.

Here, I am about to doing something you can't do. The republicans messed up. you are right, they had six years and did nothing. they have fault for not fixing it. but they are not at fault for making the mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#16,388
#16,388
luthervol said:
It would have worked with appropriate changes that could have been made by a cooperative congress. What do we have to replace it with?
Click to expand...
what we had before. no interference from the Feds.

and what appropriate changes are there to make? Democrats have the house, what fixes are they proposing?
 
#16,392
#16,392
HTeW40n.gif


White House announces 51 judicial picks, including two for liberal 9th Circuit

The White House on Tuesday announced the re-nomination of 51 federal judicial nominees left over from the previous Congress, kickstarting the administration's effort to install more conservative judges after GOP activists worried that such appointments had stalled.

Nine of the 51 appointments are for spots on prestigious and influential federal appellate benches, including two on the mostly liberal San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which President Trump has often derided as "disgraceful" and politically biased.

Neomi Rao, the president's "regulatory czar," who would take now-Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh's vacated seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is on the list. Case Western University School of Law professor and Washington Post commentator Jonathan H. Adler wrote when Rao first joined the administration that "Trump's selection of Rao suggests the administration is serious about regulatory reform, not merely reducing high-profile regulatory burdens."

Also on the roll was Brian Buescher, for a seat as United States district judge for the District of Nebraska. In December, Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, raised concerns about the Omaha-based lawyer's membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic service organization -- prompting legal commentators to suggest the Democrats were engaging in religious discrimination.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol
#16,399
#16,399
Bump for @Septic , it's in here bud, just read it as far as the answer to your questions in the other thread.
 
#16,400
#16,400
joevol33 said:
Bump for @Septic , it's in here bud, just read it as far as the answer to your questions in the other thread.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go digging through this 656 page thread in hopes of validating your claim. This is the news equivalent of "some people say...", you said 'the same people' who are defending Biden trashed Kav. I'm simply asking you for something to back that up, you made the claim - defend it or don't, I won't sweat it. Truthfully, I haven't seen anyone feel the need to defend Biden - he's not running from it.

I could say that the same people who are trashing Biden were defending Kav, I just don't care enough to sift through this litter-box of a thread to validate it - I could be wrong. That happened once.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top