Sure, as long as you also ignore the 145 Democrats in the house and 48 Democrats in the senate that voted for the Patriot Act in 2001. Their record for reauthorizing it in 2006 is only slightly better.
I thought people with pre-existing conditions were unable to get health insurance. Now you're telling me there's this huge network of coverage offered by employers that covers people with PEC's? Wtf?
Medicaid eligibility is determined based on income, not assets. I just discovered this after using the exchange and having my application rejected, because it was determined I must enroll in medicaid.
Yes, under the framework of the federal law. Without the ACA no state would have opted not to set up a state exchange. Your score 5 insightful argument is bunk.
The Treasury Department most certainly holds the purse. As long as they pay to service the debt, we don't default. The debt service costs about 250 billion a year. Revenues are about 2 trillion a year. As long as taxpayers pay their taxes and the Treasury pays what we owe to US Government bond holders, we prevent default. The Treasury Department is in the executive branch, and is directed by the President.
The Constitution requires us to recognize our foreign debt. The Treasury makes bond payments whether the Government is shutdown or not, only the President could stop those payments absent legislation from congress. All of what you wrote above is entirely irrelevant. We don't default if we can't borrow money from ourselves to pay ourselves. Just like you don't default if you fail to pay your children their allowance. If you fail to make payment to entities outside your family, then you default.
Believe me, I'm not cheering on the state. I'm just giving the canned response that ACA supporters give when anyone tried to argue that it's a bad law that needs to be defunded or repealed.
A better metric would be injuries per hour of operation. What if you were to compare injuries to pedestrians to injuries to airline travelers, and used the injury per mile metric?
Go spend a little time inputting healthcare scenarios into ehealthinsurance.com. Pay particular attention to the differences in plans that start in 2013 vs 2014. You'll discover the fallacy of you argument real quick.
It should be noted that the cost for the wars contain 12 years of appropriations and are actual, while the costs for the ACA contain 10 years of projections.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, as long as you also ignore the 145 Democrats in the house and 48 Democrats in the senate that voted for the Patriot Act in 2001. Their record for reauthorizing it in 2006 is only slightly better.
No, it doesn't. Unless you live in a state of denial.
I thought people with pre-existing conditions were unable to get health insurance. Now you're telling me there's this huge network of coverage offered by employers that covers people with PEC's? Wtf?
I lost the plan that I buy individually out of my own pocket. Should people lose those too?
Medicaid eligibility is determined based on income, not assets. I just discovered this after using the exchange and having my application rejected, because it was determined I must enroll in medicaid.
Medicaid? Ever hear of it?
Go to ehealthinsurance.com and get some quote for plans that start in 2013. There is nothing complicated about it.
Yes, under the framework of the federal law. Without the ACA no state would have opted not to set up a state exchange. Your score 5 insightful argument is bunk.
The answer to your question is in the question itself.
The Treasury Department most certainly holds the purse. As long as they pay to service the debt, we don't default. The debt service costs about 250 billion a year. Revenues are about 2 trillion a year. As long as taxpayers pay their taxes and the Treasury pays what we owe to US Government bond holders, we prevent default. The Treasury Department is in the executive branch, and is directed by the President.
The Constitution requires us to recognize our foreign debt. The Treasury makes bond payments whether the Government is shutdown or not, only the President could stop those payments absent legislation from congress. All of what you wrote above is entirely irrelevant. We don't default if we can't borrow money from ourselves to pay ourselves. Just like you don't default if you fail to pay your children their allowance. If you fail to make payment to entities outside your family, then you default.
The only person that was threatening default was the president. The constitution doesn't allow it, and tax revenue would have easily prevented it.
Believe me, I'm not cheering on the state. I'm just giving the canned response that ACA supporters give when anyone tried to argue that it's a bad law that needs to be defunded or repealed.
So was I.
What are you talking about? This law passed the House and the Senate, and was signed by the president. It's the law, get over it.
A better metric would be injuries per hour of operation. What if you were to compare injuries to pedestrians to injuries to airline travelers, and used the injury per mile metric?
...would bring you to the point of losing 17 trillion dollars.
ehealthinsurance.com, does everything healthcare.gov is supposed to do. It works exceptionally well.
It's not possible to film it unedited. It took me more than 3 hours to do, and my application was still f'd up to the point I can't buy insurance.
Where exactly do you think the source of that subsidy lies? Do you honestly think it can be extracted without ramifications?
I can easily afford healthcare, when my insurance triples in cost next I won't be able to at all. I'm not even middle class currently.
Go spend a little time inputting healthcare scenarios into ehealthinsurance.com. Pay particular attention to the differences in plans that start in 2013 vs 2014. You'll discover the fallacy of you argument real quick.
I'll compare apples to apples.
http://www.cbo.gov/latest/National-Security/Iraq-and-Afghanistan
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176
It should be noted that the cost for the wars contain 12 years of appropriations and are actual, while the costs for the ACA contain 10 years of projections.
I know Barack Obama voted not to raise it, hence he voted for default.
I think you need to double check your numbers. I know you get modded to 5 as insightful, but really...you should check your numbers.
I remember reading something that about 300 people fell into that tax bracket when it was in effect, and this was before the loopholes.