Keep telling yerself that, David.. You might even believe it some day.. :D

I have already proven that there is.. I even provided the name..

But, facts be damned..

Everything good is Democrat.. Everything bad is Republican..

Party uber alles..

Michale

There's a GOP plan. Blame Democrats and elect more Republicans.

There's no GOP plan for healthcare.

-David

Fine... Ya'all don't like ANYTHING GOP, so it's not as if that is an earth shattering revelation, eh??

But drop the fantasy that there is no GOP plan..

There is..

Ya'all just don't like it..

Michale

Or it just a false front designed to make it look like Republicans are working on an alternative. A public relations gambit, pure and simple. Talking point for the talk media drumbeat, to spam out on E-mails. That's what I think it is. We'll see.

Ya'all say there is "NO PLAN"...

I show you a plan...

It offers many things that the Democrats crap ware doesn't...

Insurance across state lines..

Tort reform...

Those two things right there would do wonders for health care costs..

But Democrats won't entertain those ideas because they are beholden to lobbyists..

Remind me again how Democrats are different??

I seem to have forgotten...

Michale

No, no, it's uniformly superficial and unreliable.

As for Burr, Hatch and Upton, it offers fewer consumer protections, weaker standards and higher deductibles for a given level of coverage. It many respects more complicated than AHC...but as far as I can tell, it's not even finalized. Would Republicans in general even back it?

Or it just a false front designed to make it look like Republicans are working on an alternative. A public relations gambit, pure and simple. Talking point for the talk media drumbeat, to spam out on E-mails. That's what I think it is. We'll see.

But it's a Republican idea so I doubt it would get much traction around here..

CNN stands for Crap, Not News.

Unless it's toe'ing the Democrat Party line..

Then it's gospel...

:D

Michale

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/opinion/atlas-obamacare-poor-middle-class/index.html

I mean, seriously...

Michale

Obama and the Democrats could get a LOT of Americans on their side if they would make that apology in a heartfelt and sincere way, rather than simply as a prelude to blaming Republicans for everything..

Michale

And I must point out that THAT attitude is the EXACT attitude that Democrats had when they were pushing this abysmal failure..

The American people were clamoring for JOBS..

But Democrats said, "Who Cares About Ones Fellow Americans!!"

Michale

But, who cares about ones fellow Americans. It's not like the US is a nation or anything.

I addressed that in #30....

Think of it this way...

Obama and the Democrats are in TrainWreckCare prison and are up for parole...

Before there can be even a HINT of parole, the offender must confess to the crime and show remorse for it.

If the offender doesn't do that, then it's back to the slammer for them and their "family" will suffer...

Michale

It's the Democrats plan. Let them sink with it..

The problem with that kind of thinking is that it dismisses the fact the many Americans will sink with it.

But, who cares about ones fellow Americans. It's not like the US is a nation or anything.

Millions and millions of Americans shouldn't have to suffer because Obama and the Democrats were more concerned about their agenda than they were about the American people..

So, here's what I propose..

Let Obama do an Oval Office speech...

Flanked by Pelosi and Reid, Obama looks straight into the camera, look the American people in the eye and say:

"My fellow Americans. We fraked up."

Obama and the Democrat leaders should come clean with the American people and admit that TrainWreckCare was poorly written and should never have been ramrod'ed thru in the manner it was...

Obama and the Democrat leaders should apologize for all the backroom deals, the Cornhusker kickbacks, the Louisiana purchases and for the blatant lies, oh so many lies, that was part and parcel to the Affordable Care Act..

If Obama and the Democrat leaders issued a heartfelt and sincere 'mea culpa', THEN I would support the GOP cleaning up the Democrat's mess...

And ya know what?? I bet the GOP *WOULD* clean up the Democrat's mess after such an apology...

But we know that such an apology will never happen.

Because if six years under this rule has taught us anything about Barack Obama, it's that he will NEVER admit to making any mistakes..

And Democrats?? They are willing to throw Israel to the nuclear wolves of Iran to protect Obama's ego.. Gods know they wouldn't do a damn thing to upset The One...

And here we are...

Obama and the Democrats could save those millions and millions of Americans..

They just have to admit what every American already knows..

They frak'ed up...

Michale

Why, tanks....

And planes!! :D

Rick Scott has already come out and said "It's mot my problem" and I'm sure all Republican governors feel the same way.

It ISN'T their problem..

No one batted an eye when Pelosi said, "We have to pass the legislation to find out what's in it.."

I mean, isn't that totally batshit crazy!?? Surely the better way to go would be to find out what's in it BEFORE the legislation is passed, eh??

Because, yunno, there might be some glaring bone head intentions in it that will come back and bite Democrats on the arse...

This is why legislation, especially BIG legislation, should go thru a normal process of open debate and completely transparent negotiations. Not backroom deals and kick backs and pushing it thru with parliamentary tricks and what not..

Democrats were warned that this is exactly what could happen and they chose to ignore the warnings because their agenda was more important to them than the American people..

It's the Democrats plan. Let them sink with it..

Michale

I also believe they will rule against independent, bipartisan districting because it takes away state governments' freedom to gerrymander. This decision will then likely lead to another case regarding the legality of ballot propositions. I expect SCOTUS will rule that they have no legality whereby Republican states will then remove all minimum wage raises based on 2014 ballot propositions.

"There are 'Sam girls' and 'Dean girls' and – what's a 'slash fan'?"
"As in... Sam-slash-Dean. Together."
"Like, together together?"
"Yeah."
"They do know we're brothers, right?"
"Doesn't seem to matter."
"Oh, come on. That... That's just sick. We got to find this Carver Edlund."
SUPERNATURAL, The Monster At The End Of This Book

:D

Michale

"Mentioned the possibility" would likely be more accurate..

Michale

Little known fact. Roddenberry wrote of the idea of a sexual relationship between Kirk and Spock...

Heady stuff.. Almost dropped the book!! :D

Michale

Probably because Pakistan leaders are not on record saying they want to wipe Israel off that map..

That could have something to do with it, eh? :D

Israel's rather advanced nuclear capability. Does that have no effect on Iran's calculus?

I wouldn't see how.. Israel has never shown offensive interest vis a vis Iran...

Israel's actions with Iran have been strictly defensive up and down the board...

Michale

I am sure I can find many more examples in other issues as well

For example, the Journo List incident where Left Wing journalists conspired to call anyone a racist, just to silence them...

Michale

You and me both!! :D

I did a Live Blog sort of thingy here:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/02/27/ftp337/

Fair enough. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but fair enough.

Just off the top of my head, the liberal groups that tried to get Krauthammer's Global Warming op ed suppressed...

Actually, the growing movement amongst the Left to censor or suppress ANY science that refutes the Human Caused Global Warming theory is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about...

I am sure I can find many more examples in other issues as well..

The point is, the liberals of today broker no argument with their agenda and ideology...

The liberals that I grew up knowing were polite to a fault. Sometimes annoyingly so... :D

Michale

Fair enough. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but fair enough.

Nimoy has left us, but Spock is immortal.

Indeed.

-David

p.s. CW's post on healthcare got me to thinking about the peculiar political pickle posed by a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of King.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/03/1368240/-The-peculiar-pickle-posed-by-a-potential-Supreme-Court-decision-on-healthcare

Two interesting omissions in the address.

Pakistan's substantial and operational nuclear capability. Pakistan is Islamic and not especially Israel friendly, stable and/or shy about dabbling in regional extremist politics. For God's sake, who has been giving nuke technology away to Korea? Why no comparable concern from Israel. Just askin'.

Israel's rather advanced nuclear capability. Does that have no effect on Iran's calculus? Is Israel willing to do a bit of bargaining with it's N chips? Or at least officially admit to having them?

Here, here!!

Michale

The original Star Trek is partly a parable of minority group assimilation into US society. The liberal mainstream US vision on that in the '60s was a multicolor society where everybody thought and acted like Americans of Northern European extraction. The assimilated can keep their cultural trinkets in their quarters(accents if they are European) but the cultural drift is basically one way. Oh, and women must wear short skirts and take the subordinate jobs.

World War Two miltary service was a major element of assimilation into US society, if your skin color was light. That was my family's ticket into the mainstream. prior to the War we weren't considered white in the census or by most WASPs. The Original Star Trek has the post WWII mindset down perfectly.

Nimoy was Jewish, and so is Shatner. Atheist Rodenberry was happy to let them riff off of this. Spock is the party assimilated Jew-Vulcan (mixed marriage) but his friend Kirk is almost entirely assimilated, save for an extraordinary level of angst not normally seen in a white guy circa 1960 or StarFleet 2260.

Liberal yes, but 60's liberal. The sort that happily got us into Vietnam before getting second thoughts.

I'm not knocking the series, I love it. Nimoy has left us, but Spock is immortal.

Don't get me wrong.. I LIKED the new Treks in spite of B&B....

Although Bakula's Captain Archer was pretty lame.. Captain Janeway was awesome. Sisko was pretty good too..

Picard?? eh....

Jury is still out on the Trek reboot. Pine and Quinto do a passable Kirk and Spock.. Urban's McCoy is really REALLY good...

Michale

Now I'm just curious.

It can be summed up in one phrase...

"I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend undo death your right to say it."

I simply cannot imagine a liberal of the 60s or 70s actively trying to silence opposing viewpoints...

Michale

What do you think is the difference between then and today?

Now I'm just curious.

That was B&B's handiwork.

I only followed up through part of Next Generation. Will take your word on this.

-David

Awww, c'mon. It was a good show. It dealt w/ issues faced by everyone.

You misunderstand. It was a GREAT show. BECAUSE it dealt with the issues of the day...

BECAUSE it was a liberal's wet dream.

You forget, at the time I was the biggest liberal you could imagine..

In a lot of ways, I still am..

At least, how liberal was defined at the time..

I always thought it was pretty true to Roddenberry's vision.

Yea, up until Beavis & Butthead (AKA Berman & Braga) took over. They tried to disavow Trek from it's roots and it was a disaster..

Remember for one season STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE became just ENTERPRISE..

That was B&B's handiwork..

Michale

Hahahahah.

Awww, c'mon. It was a good show. It dealt w/ issues faced by everyone.

But then Political Correctness became the watchword with TNG and beyond.

I always thought it was pretty true to Roddenberry's vision.

The only thing I kind of miss about the original is that I think there was more of a sense of hope about the future.

I guess it's the idealist in me ... heheh.

-David

But then Political Correctness became the watchword with TNG and beyond. :(

Michale

True... But why would the 4 take the case if Roberts felt the same as he did then??

Why would Roberts allow the case to be taken (he IS the *CHIEF* Justice after all) if it was just going to be the same ol same ol. It would be a COLOSSAL waste of the SCOTUS' time..

The only answer that satisfies the facts is that something is different this time around.

And the only thing that could be different, that could change the outcome, is that there is consensus amongst 5 justices..

p.s. Michale, did you know Leonard Nimoy was a McGovernite? :)

Doesn't surprise me.. All the original Trekkers are children of the 60s.. :D

Michale

All "replace" is is a marketing gimmick intended to make it look like Republicans want to make it better.

They don't.

They believe if it's repealed it will never be passed again.

They're probably right since it took 40 years and an economic crisis just to get even market reforms in place.

-David

p.s. Michale, did you know Leonard Nimoy was a McGovernite? :)

http://www.thenation.com/blog/199825/mr-spock-was-mcgovernite-remembering-leonard-nimoys-live-long-and-prosper-politics

You only need the votes of four Supreme Court justices to hear a case. I think we all know who those four were and the Chief Justice wasn't one of them.

I can't see how that could happen..

If the SCOTUS rules that the subsidies to states that have federal exchanges are illegal, I can't see how they would be allowed to continue for another two years...

If the SCOTUS rules that the subsidies are illegal, they would stop immediately and possibly even retro-actively...

Which means that millions and millions of Americans would owe the federal government a great deal of money..

Well, that will make Obama happy.. :D

Michale

Yea, it's possible that Roberts (or Kennedy, as CW points out) might be swayed by the oral arguments and change their minds and vote for TrainWreckCare..

But up to that point, up to the point of the oral arguments, there is simply no logical or rational reason for the SCOTUS to take the case, other than to rule against it..

Michale

Then why did the SCOTUS take the case??

That's the ONE question that cannot be answered with any answer but the one I have put forth...

There was absolutely NO REASON for the SCOTUS to take the case, other than to rule against TrainWreckCare...

Michale

Ya ever noticed how the judges are "partisan hacks" when they rule against the Left, but are wise and prescient when they rule with the Left... :D

the use of the capitalized 'State' refers to the United States of America.

If that were true then there would be no need for the word "Federal" that is peppered throughout this abortion of a law...

It's clear from the text that "state" and "federal" were two distinct entities and nar' the two shall cross..

The Republican's biggest problem with the "replace" part is the fact that the entirety of Obamacare (or at least 80-90% of it) is a Republican plan.

Yea, I have heard that one before...

So, you are saying that Democrats adopted a Republican plan?? That Democrats couldn't find anything better so they went with the Republican plan?? :D

Is THAT what you are saying??

Besides, I wasn't aware that Heritage Foundation = Republican Party

It's like saying 9/11 Truth Movement = Democrat Party..

Just because ONE group came up with an op ed that outlined some semblance of a plan 2 decades ago, doesn't make it a "Republican" plan..

Regardless, as we can clearly see, it's a train wreck, no matter WHO's plan it is...

Compared to there here and now, the status quo is looking pretty good..

Michale
Michale

Despite the comments of someone who was intimately involved in it's creation..

We have the intent clearly spelled out..

The subsidies were to be withheld from states that don't set up their own exchanges as an incentive to force states TO set up their own exchanges..

Health options would be taken away from people who are now benefiting from them.

So???

Health options were taken away from people who were benefiting from then when TrainWreckCare started??

No one around here seemed to mind that then, eh??

This is a trap the Republicans dug for themselves, really, by making such a stink when all the substandard pre-Obamacare insurance policies ended (when Obamacare exchanges first opened).

Ex-squeeze me?? Baking powder???

REPUBLICANS dug that trap???

It's the Democrat's law, lock stock and hook/crook barrels..

It's the Democrat's trap..

So how are they going to now explain their glee at the prospect of millions losing their health insurance?

That's easy...

"It's the Democrat's frak up. Let them fix it.."

That's the explanation that will be accepted by the American people because it is dead on balls accurate..

But I truly think that if Roberts had wanted to exterminate Obamacare, he would have done so in the earlier case.

But, if Roberts was going to rule for Obamacare again, then there would not have been any reason for the SCOTUS to even TAKE the case..

There had been NO DISPUTE in the lower court rulings.. SCOTUS was under no obligation to take the case.

The simple fact that the SCOTUS did take the case is the biggest indication of how it's going to go down..

Michale

the use of the capitalized 'State' refers to the United States of America.

In any event, Chief Justice Roberts is too smart to do what the Republicans want him to do.