States Acting Against Fed. Government!

My what a Conceited person you seem to be, I have merely been following conversations where they go and express my opinion. You've been the one changing topics and calling names like a typical troll does.

Hey kid I'll meet you at 3 p.m. after school at the playground. Let's settle this.

Perhaps I worded it the wrong way.

You say ACA invalidated the policies of about 6 million people, but these people were not entirely dumped and made fend for themselves. There's nothing to say that any portion of these people were not offered new policies by their providers or absorbed by other providers. Just because only 4 million people have enrolled in the federal marketplace does not mean there is a deficit of 2 million more people without coverage than there would be without Obamacare.

lol, go with that.

Only one of those actually provides a source, and upon looking at the source (heavily biased all around), it seems as though they suffer from the same *** others fell for and that's they count the numbers of plans insurance companies cancelled along with the ones they couldn't continue, while blaming the new law as a scapegoat.

Numbers are numbers, but the actual data behind them tells the true story, the numbers don't, they're just there for shock value.

I think it was Flavin (sorry if it wasn't) that brought a good example of an insurance company canceling a plan as a whole citing the law as the reason, until they were asked to cite which section of the law they were in violation of, then turned around and renewed their old plan because they were called out.

Insurance companies (for the most part) are in it for profits and will weasel their way into getting them, and will use any excuse to screw their customers over.

then there's this to add, which I neglected to even think about.

If they was given a new policy by their providers they are now paying more for Insurance and affected by obamacare and counted as getting insurance under the ACA. What makes you say these people were not dumped and made to fend for themselves? If i have to go get numbers to prove my point i want your numbers saying people that lost insurance now have it.

Dont waste your time looking because that info is not out there.

that's his point, your argument would require that assumption.

To the bold: no, that's not how that works.

To the rest: your numbers backed nothing up, but the assertion that you don't even know what you're arguing or how to argue it.

Not to mention your grammar is worse than my own, which is just sad.

Then please enlighten us on how it works. I have seen nothing about it working the way you assume it dose.

As for my grammar, welcome to the internet i dont give a ***.

The policies that aren't from the public exchanges aren't in the numbers from people getting insurance due to the ACA and if you want to assert that they are then the burden of proof is upon you to provide it.

Great, using the internet as a scapegoat as an excuse for your ignorance, not very mature.

edit: Edited for poor wording

He may have given an example as well, but I brought up my personal experience with our employer backed healthcare where they cited "Obamacare" (which tipped me off that there was something fishy) as the reason they had dropped a particular procedure's coverage, and when questioned, they admitted it wasn't required under the law and the plan had been changed for "undisclosed reasons".

I knew it was either you or Flav, sorry. People have an agenda to carry so they will just cite the numbers without thinking of how the numbers are generated, it's dishonest, yet to be expected.

Make fun of my relaxed and care free grammar then you edit "for poor wording" /sigh

You really think Obama and the democrats aren't counting every possible insurance sign up they can? The ACA encompasses all health insurance not just the Obamacare site.

I'm looking forward to the next Republican being elected so that right wingers can go back to "support your president" and left wingers can return to "fight the man!"

Oh, 2000 to 2008. I never thought I'd look on you fondly.

POIDH, and Yeah, I admit and try to correct my mistakes, not hide under excuses.

Bush was pretty bad, but cant even hold a candle to Obama.

ha, poor Mag

under what standards?

lol

Constitutional standards are their any other kind?

Then they're equally guilty.

hate to inform you so late, but the neocon's anti-Obama agenda doesn't really hold any water, very little of the crap they say is Unconstitutional is actually even remotely arguable.

/sigh

I'm curious how the usurping of the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments rates lower than requiring you to pay for your own damn healthcare, but bravo, you're one step short of dividing by 0.

/facepalm

For everyones enjoyment (in jest, but still applicable):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUZ5gGO0_Pw

How do those amendments justify forcing me to buy a over priced service I don't want? You guys are missing the whole point your being made to buy a service, whats next? Everyone is forced to buy an electric car to pollute less? Everyone is Forced to buy Government approved "insert unwanted stuff here". And when I say EVERYONE I mean EVERYONE THAT DOES WORK, because the people that dont will get it for free or a reduced price!

No wonder its all democrats are here cause damn.

Wut? As Jassik pointed out, Bush and his Congress violated both the Constitution and our practice of English common law on a regular basis. I'm not willing to give Obama a pass on the NSA stuff, but he hasn't illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, either.

When it comes to Constitutional issues, you are on very shaky ground by suggesting that Barack Obama has done wrong. Constitutional law is literally his specialty and it shows. A large proportion of the decisions he makes that tend to irritate his own party are on the basis of preserving the Constitution.

Yeah, people keep forgetting that, or just try to redefine what a professor is to try to claim he wasn't one. Or try to redefine an inactive law license.

They could easily pass laws requiring the increase in epa requirements of vehicles to eventually require electric cars only. They've already killed the incadescant light bulb. (spelling, on phone).