Carville: 'Ted Cruz Is the Most Talented, Fearless Republican Politician I’ve Seen in 30 Years'

One of us needs an education, there is no doubt about it. I posit that it is the one who is demonstrating that he has not received much higher education, which is to say you.

No, they did not. They wrote regulations for insurance companies to follow, as they have since 1851...

http://www.naic.org/documents/consumer_state_reg_brief.pdf

Again, as they have for 163 years in this country. Link above.

Length, in and of itself, is not inherently good or bad. I fully concede that it is a detailed, complex piece of legislation. It is the largest overhaul of the healthcare system since the 1960s. However, complexity and length are not, in and of themselves, bad.

As with much other regulation, the agencies responsible for implementing the legislation have to write the day-to-day procedures for complying with the law. If Congress had to do this, they would get even less done and the legislation would be dramatically longer, which you seem to think is bad.

Oh. Em. Gee. Insurance must cover essential healthcare services? The horror.

Insurance must treat their customers fairly, regardless of the desires of the employers of the customer. My employer should have very little to no say in my healthcare choices. Sadly, we have an antiquated system that has only recently been updated to meet more of the needs of the citizens, and only the bare minimum of changes were made as a result of the intransigence of the GOP, who refused to contribute in a positive way to the legislation.

A tax that will affect only the extremely affluent, the people at the very top of the large organizations subject to the rule.

Mentioned above and answered above.

Maybe you heard that they fixed the website, there were no security beaches that I have heard of, and the site was able to enroll a million more people than projected by the deadline.

You're delusional. That is one of the major purposes of insurance. Take smaller premiums from the young and healthy to pay for the healthcare needs of the people who get sicker, which are generally the older people, who do pay more if their risk goes up.

Where did I say any such thing? Young, healthy people do pay lower premiums, just like good drivers pay lower car insurance premiums than those with moving violations and DUIs. If you understood me to say any different, you need a course in reading comprehension.

And they do. Old people's premiums in this country are charged over their lifetimes in Medicare taxes, but as one gets older, the more expensive it is to buy insurance.

I do and I do.

Like the ground on which you're standing?

Sorry, I interpreted the " slight tangent about capitalization, punctuation and grammar" as you complaining about what I would call the "word police."

Your remarks on Nancy Pelosi had to do with a VERY bad choice of words that Fauxbots repeat over and over again. You could choose to look at her clarifications on the subject, but instead, you choose to play "word police" with the inartful way she made her remark.

I've never defended Pelosi, I am very nearly ambivalent about her. In addition, I haven't poked fun at your misspellings at all until this very post, though I suspect you won't understand my jab.

LOL at your seeming belief that you are capable of teaching me anything. I have such a desire to learn that I have been continuously enrolled in school since 2001.

I have a BS, a Global MBA, and am currently working on a PhD. In addition, I have been a working professional for over two decades, have owned two of my own businesses, and have likely been a Rockets fan since before you were born.

Try again, rookie.

 

About birth control...

If it is just covered, but not used, why is it a moral issue for people? This seems to be imposing your views on others more so than imposing on your morals.

I am sure your taxes pay for things you are morally opposed to, but that doesn't raise an issue.

 

so pretentious

 

Disagree. I'm not trying to impress by hyping qualifications I don't possess. I'm pointing out that him claiming I am uneducated is yet one more example of his exhibition of projection.

 

Only to crazy people in Texas.

 

Commodore a proud member of "libertarians" against powerful rich guys.

 

There is so much wrong here that I would have to devote most of my Saturday to correct it all, and frankly not worth my time, but let me just say, NAIC stand for national association of insurance commissioners. Do you know what that means? An insurance commissioner is a state employee who regulates insurance. The federal government has not been regulating insurance companies, and specifically medical insurance companies for 163 years. The role of the federal government is not to regulate medical insurance, that is a state function and has been for more than 200 years according to he constitution the federal government has limited powers and the rest is left to the states, so much for law and constitutional protections. Tyranny and dictatorship take control of things beyond their realm. Time and again he threatens the Supreme Court, acts in defiance of congress and seizes power relegated to states ignoring checks and balances intended to limit the power of the executive branch and federal government.

 

Government has been regulating insurance for the last two centuries. The ACA is but one more example.

One role of the federal government is to provide for the "general welfare" of the citizens. By dramatically expanding healthcare coverage in ways that the states have not, the federal government has followed its mandate, despite the pundits gnashing their teeth over "tyranny and dictatorship."

Try again, rookie.

 

talented, fearless politician?

is that an oxymoron?

 

That's funny, none of my posts took longer than 30 minutes to compose and mine have included fact-based take-downs of nearly every single sentence you have written.

Yes, like they have for north of a century, maybe two.

Since you're so interested in the constitutionality of federal involvement in the insurance industry, the SCOTUS ruled it within the purvey of the federal government, under the Commerce Clause, in 1944.

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

Lies and misinformation take control of minds beyond their capacity to comprehend.

If you don't vote the way I want you to, you know what I'm gonna do?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/l-rNIAN5o5M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Because I don't have the power to actually follow through with any threats against the SCOTUS.

Objection, projection. In the limited number of times Obama has acted on the power of his pen, it has been in spite of congress, not in defiance. The Congresspeople that you think Obama is defying won't do anything that might indicate that they are cooperating with Obama in any way. They can't, because they have convinced their base that Obama is actually evil.

When the states refuse to act, the federal government has to step in to fill the gap. The healthcare insurance industry is broken. The ACA patched it a bit, but there are a lot more changes that need to be made. The GOP could contribute in a positive way in this effort, but instead, repeat the "repeal and replace" nonsense with no actual plans for what to replace it with.

I'm fully on board with the states doing everything possible within their borders. I think the federal CSA has cost more lives and treasure than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. However, the insurance companies were simply bilking their customers. The ACA made essential coverage mean something and gave predictability to the coverage, something that only one state had attempted, leaving a whole country behind.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have more conservative principles written into the next healthcare reform, assuming the GOP choose to bring their ideas to a table to horse trade and compromise over, instead of insisting on a "clean sheet of paper," as they so famously sputtered, over and over again, at the healthcare summit.

 

Almost 800 replies to a thread about the rookie senator from Texas????? He must really be getting under some people's skin!!!!

 

Orchestrating a sensless shutdown of the government, among other things, has that strange effect.

 

No, mostly just showing his a$$.

 

I live every day embarrassed that the seemingly good Christian folk that I live amongst elect self-interested, bigoted, misogynistic, corporate toadies that deny science, enrich their cronies and promote anti-democratic principles while claiming they are 'real Americans'. The paradox is unfathomable; so yeah it's gets under my skin.

 

Kudos for a magnificent, if depressing, post. Could not agree more. As an aside, I find it bizarre that a thread about the dangerous clown in question is still active after so long, and that it has so many posts. Actually, bizarre isn't a strong enough word.

 

If you want to allow the federal government unlimited power under your "general welfare" concept or under the commerce clause then we might as well just tear up the constitution and embrace your dictatorship.

I suppose if someone wants to smoke a cigarette or cigar, they should be put in jail. After all, such action is against the general welfare. And if you want to go to McDonalds, you should go to jail, after all you being fat will cost taxpayers money and that's against the general welfare.

In fact, maybe the federal government should set speed limits on state roads. After all.... general welfare. And maybe the federal government should gerrymander voting districts, after all.... general welfare. And maybe the federal government should create a national curriculum for schools... general welfare.

And based on your political views, I suppose the IRS should target conservative groups, because in your view, conservative groups are bad and hurt the general welfare.

So, we can now eliminate free speech, if such speech in your opinion is against the general welfare, take away private property and extend eminent domain, after all the public can take your home, your car, your freedom of speech and religion if, after all, they think such redistribution of property is part of their design to help "general welfare."

Interesting term, how you all want us to depend on the federal government to mandate things, take away freedom and we can all be on welfare, you know the general federal welfare program.

I mean God forbid you should buy a cadillac insurance plan with a lowe deductible or the other direction a deductible of $3000. No, you can't have freedom to choose what insurance you want. The federal government will dictate the three plans (gold, silver and bronze) because, after all, freedom is bad, think only in terms of control and that people in DC will always and only use this unlimited power for noble causes, like the general welfare.

 

I agree. People electing politicians who pretend to be Christian and ignore science but are really self-interested, bigoted, misogynistic, corporate toadies who enrich their cronies and promote anti-democratic principles while claiming they are 'real Americans' is pretty embarrassing. I can't believe Obama is president and people elect his ilk. But there you go. Very embarrassing.

 

When the states refuse to act, does it ever occur to you that voters in those states are happy with that? So what you are saying is, that if the federal government disagrees with what the voters in a state want, then the federal government should step in and force those states to do something the voters in those states don't want government to do.

As you say, "only one state had attempted" which actually is incorrect but makes a point. If states wanted something they could do it. No need for the federal government to step in. Massachusetts already had an insurance mandate and a state exchange. Hawaii already had an insurance mandate. New York already had community rating. Many states already had laws that required guarantee issue requirements, so that you could buy insurance regardless of medical conditions.

For you to argue that states did nothing is false. For you to argue that the federal government NEEDS to step in because states are not operating the way the people who elected Obama want them to operate is FALSE. Texas voters did not give him a mandate to change things in Texas. California voters should not have a say in how insurance works in Texas or other states. That is not the role of federal government.

If California wants to follow in the path of Massachusetts or Hawaii and build a state exchange, Texas will not stop them.

Some people may want more regulations on health insurance, some may not. I don't think voters in CA and NY and other blue states should impose their values on red states. Why do you think a majority of voters should impose their values on a minority? The reason the rancor and partisanship exists at a federal level is because the federal government tries to bully people and has too much power trying to force people to do things they do not want to do. We would get along better if the federal government was limited as the constitution intended and respected our freedom of self determination.

Maybe if the red team takes control, and then they wield this unlimited power you want them to have to do whatever they want in the name of "general welfare" will show you the error of your ways. Maybe then you will regret saying, "if the states aren't doing what we the red team wants, then the federal government must step in and dictate."