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

They may very well have been right about delaying the mandate, but their tactics were those of terrorists and the dems were absolutely correct to hold the line on shutdown threats.

 

Bullsh!t. The Republicans are to blame and have even admitted as such.

Democrats have repeatedly put cuts to SS and Medicare on the table, but the GOP absolutely refused to put revenue increases on the table so that we could balance the budget.

Claiming that the bullsh!t is true over and over again doesn't make it true. It just makes you a bull!t repeater.

 

As are you (a bull repeater). You're just spitting vitriol at your opponents because you can't defend your own damn law. Your party is complaining about the same stubbornness that it portrays on a daily basis. What childish behavior, comparing your opponents to terrorists for stubbornly sticking to what they believed was in the best interest of the future of our country, while you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your law is turning into a failure.

How did the Democrats intend to increase revenue? More fees and taxes? Oh yay!

 

Can you cite any studies that confirms this statement? By all indications I've seen the law is quietly starting to do everything it was designed to do.

 

Well now that we have that settled for eveyrone but Cruz, Limbaugh's dittos and the bigtexxx's of the world.

 

Have people kept their doctors? Have they kept their plans?

Was the legislation not intended to make insurance "affordable?" All I've seen is more premium raises, people being kicked off, and the federal government assuming that the states will just stick their necks out and expand Medicaid. What happens after 2020 when the federal government only pays 90% of the expansion costs. Where is Texas and other states going to find 10 billion dollars out of their budget with their revenue? Do we want state income taxes? We complain about things like toll roads now, but what happens when we have even less of budget to work with. Anyone who says this isn't a big deal, talk to some people on Appropriations. I dare you to mention that to a workgroup in the middle of a session. Government expansion of Medicaid is an unfunded mandate, no matter how little the amount may seem.

If I remember correctly, the law was supposed to address two things: 1) Costs 2) Expanding insurance. Less regulations reduce costs, not more. And didn't the CBO estimate that even at full implementation the ACA would leave 25-30 million still uninsured.

There is no denying that this law's implementation if failing, there's also no doubt that this law is an unnecessary and dangerous expansion of government. Eventually, it all comes crumbling down.

 

So in essence you can't cite any concrete evidence that the law is failing. Just a bunch of hyperbole about how you feel the law is going. thanks

 

Negative, the original CBO and the new CBO both point to this law's disastrous effects. I mentioned the former, but not the latter in the first post I believe. I "feel" in very real terms my premiums rising. I "feel" in very real terms the people I have heard from who have lost their insurance because of this law. I "feel" in very real terms those who have been put on part time work or have lost their spouses insurance coverage. But this is all fake, it's not really happening, and those hundreds of people I have spoken to are computer bots or something.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

truerofan, when someone goes to the emergency room and gets medical care they can't pay for then who pays for it? You're "taking in the butt" already if that's what you want to call it. You're ignorant.

 

I'm ignorant because I don't want a further expansion of government? Because I don't want my premiums to continue to rise? Because I don't want to risk being reduced to part-time so that my company can save money? Because I don't think it's my job to pay for extra services for everyone else? We pay taxes for standard services, health insurance is not one of those. We provide emergency services so that we all may benefit in times of an emergency. Just because people exploit that hole doesn't mean we should rip the hole wide open so we can exploit people more.

Why is it that you and all the other liberal posters can't stand to have a straight forward debate without resulting to insults? It's why I rarely ever come to this board anymore, both for Rockets and debate. It's pathetic. Go ahead and insult me more because I fundamentally disagree with you. Don't bother having an adult conversation because you don't like what I have to say. Don't bother considering another position if it doesn't align with yours. Just continue to be a bitter ass defending an indefensible law that even Democrats are running away from.

 

truroxfan

Well we got it that you prefer "small government"over the welfare of those who are less fortunate and probably the vast majority of the middle class as well.

Well in a democratic government (I know "libertarian"/ conservative types hate this and some like to use the word "republic" to repudiate democracy and frequently try to disenfranchise many "poors" ) if the will of the majority is to have a strongly progressive tax system and to use some of the proceeds to help that are poor that is the American way and deeply moral according to all major religions.

 

WTF are you talking about? I have been talking about the shutdown, I haven't been TRYING to defend the ACA, though there are plenty of reasons to do so.

You (and texx) are the ones who have been trying to rewrite history by claiming that the shutdown was somehow the dems' fault, perhaps you need to look at your sources, they're lying to you.

They are welcome to be as stubborn as they want, but they aren't welcome to threaten to, then shut down the government because they don't like the established law. There is a legitimate legislative process they need to go through if they want to repeal the ACA, they chose to use a terrorist tactic instead.

Yes, this is the compromise that was proposed. Spending reductions combined with higher taxes are the only way we will balance the budget.

 

As a general rule, for the VAST majority of us, yes.

Smaller premium raises than were the case before the ACA, people being kicked off of substandard plans, and the federal government trying to get the entirety of the population covered by insurance.

Where has anyone said that Texas' 10% of this expansion would be $10 billion? Source?

If Texas had a better plan to cover those people, I would welcome seeing it. Sadly, Texas politicians are content to ignore the plight of those who can't afford insurance because all they care about are their well heeled campaign contributors (to be fair, Democrats hardly care about much other than the same, but at least they side with the little guy in important ways).

It isn't single payer and there was never a claim of universal coverage. However, the ACA DRAMATICALLY decreased the number of uninsured people and has also reduced the rate at which premiums have gone up.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...are-health-insurance-premiums-havent-gone-do/

There is certainly no denying it if the only sources of information you will consider are those with a conservative bias. In the real world, where we have fats and evidence, it seems that some things are going well, others could use some improvement, as with most legislation.

 

No it was the Democrats that said fund everything or fund nothing (shutdown), no middle ground. House passed a budget that funded everything except ACA.

Why is funding the rest of government contingent on funding ACA?

If the Dems had passed a budget that funded everything except the Iraq War, no one would have accused them of shutting down the government, because the government was getting funded.

Tax hikes are always immediate, spending reductions are always in the out years and never happen (the sequester is a perfect example, didn't even last two years before it was axed).

Obama's legacy will be more debt than all his predecesors combined, anemic growth, anemic labor participation, stagnant wages, rising income inequality, the first ever downgrade of our credit rating, a record number of Americans on food stamps and disability.

A general feeling of decline and hopelessness.

 

And yet with all of that doom and gloom... Obama's approval rate seems to be on an upward trend (at least since December), the generic congressional D polls higher than R, and Hillary Clinton polls significantly higher than all republican candidates. All the while, folks keep waiting to hear the republican plan.

Must just be eating you up...

 

Here's the problem. You don't want to live in a modern society. You want to live in a cabin in the woods where you hunt for your own food and you carry a pistol around on your hip wild west style and nobody tells you what to do and you have all this supposed freedom. Instead of recognizing problems and finding solutions to them, you rely on slogans and old fashioned notions of what you think the world should be but that world has passed you by. The things conservatives advocate have already been tried. That's why we have unions. That's we have a minimum wage. That's why we have Obamacare. That's why we have social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, a voting rights act. You're ignorant and living in the past.

Obamacare is an attempt to solve a significant problem in America. A problem that Republicans refused to address for decades. Now instead of trying to improve upon that solution to benefit all of us all you want to do is tear it down with lies, distortions, and stupid slogans. The Republicans attempted to force the country into a catastrophic default on the debt in order to stop Obamacare. This isn't a game.

 

Because it's the law?

 

You got this so twisted up that I don't know if you are intentionally doing it or really confuse. ACA was ALREADY funded. House Republicans insists on defunding it and if it doesn't get that, House Republicans shut down the government which is exactly what it did.