Meanwhile, Romneycare is quite popular in Massachusetts....

[Bugsy McGurk]

Yup, the health care law that is nearly identical to Obamacare (although Obamacare is more conservative in a number of ways), and Romneycare is quite popular in Mass.

So, the chicken little GOP liars are threatening to blow up the nation's economy to prevent a law that has worked out very nicely when applied in the field.

It's truly hard to believe that today's Pugs are that barking mad, but they are.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Dec...re-Lessons-for-today-s-shutdown-debacle-video

 

[Bluedog]

One is a state law affecting only the people of Massachusetts, the other is a federal law affecting everyone. If its that great, than let the other forty nine states pass their own version of Romneycare and not require more borrowing to fund PPACA. Should not be a problem for the voters to lobby their state reps to pass a HC plan, correct?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

One is a state law affecting only the people of Massachusetts, the other is a federal law affecting everyone. If its that great, than let the other forty nine states pass their own version of Romneycare and not require more borrowing to fund PPACA. Should not be a problem for the voters to lobby their state reps to pass a HC plan, correct?

You're making a "states' rights" argument - not refuting the proposition, which is that the Obamacare/Romneycare model works quite well in practice. Hardly the cataclysmic model justifying throwing the nation into default.

 

[Bluedog]

You're making a "states' rights" argument - not refuting the proposition, which is that the Obamacare/Romneycare model works quite well in practice. Hardly the cataclysmic model justifying throwing the nation into default.

Disagree. I'm pointing out that if something happens and Romneycare goes south, only the state of Mass gets affected financially. If PPACA runs into a financial problem, it becomes everyones problem. It will require more borrowing on top of what is needed now to correct shortfalls. Show me where I'm incorrect,and how does it being states rights argument change my point?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Disagree. I'm pointing out that if something happens and Romneycare goes south, only the state of Mass gets affected financially. If PPACA runs into a financial problem, it becomes everyones problem. It will require more borrowing on top of what is needed now to correct shortfalls. Show me where I'm incorrect,and how does it being states rights argument change my point?

Your speak as if Mass. is another nation, or on a different planet.

It's a US state, much like the rest of our states. It's working well there and not bankrupting Mass.

There's no rational reason to think it well devastate our nation when applied nationally.

 

[worldlymrb]

States are constitutionally allowed to do these crazy things.

If States want to implement ObamaCare, that is fine with me.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

States are constitutionally allowed to do these crazy things.

If States want to implement ObamaCare, that is fine with me.

And our Supreme Court says that the nation is allowed to do it too.

And, again, the experience in Mass. shows that it is far from "crazy" - it works well and it's quite popular.

Pugs just hate reality.

 

[Bluedog]

Your speak as if Mass. is another nation, or on a different planet.

It's a US state, much like the rest of our states. It's working well there and not bankrupting Mass.

There's no rational reason to think it well devastate our nation when applied nationally.

If we are borrowing right now to maintain funding for our budget, it will require more borrowing to factor in PPACA. If the states take it on themselves, the only budgets affected are their own, and it does not affect everyone nationwide. Do you dispute any part of my statement?

 

[worldlymrb]

And our Supreme Court says that the nation is allowed to do it too..

Supreme Court once said blacks counted as only 1/3 a citizen too.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

If we are borrowing right now to maintain funding for our budget, it will require more borrowing to factor in PPACA. If the states take it on themselves, the only budgets affected are their own, and it does not affect everyone nationwide. Do you dispute any part of my statement?

Yikes. Now you're back to the states rights argument.

The Pugs are not threatening to tank the nation through default because of some theoretical states rights hooey - they're threatening to do it because they claim Obamacare will be even worse for the nation economically than the shutdown and default.

The Mass. experience with Romeycare puts the lie to that. It's good fiscal policy, and quite popular, as we see there.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Supreme Court once said blacks counted as only 1/3 a citizen too.

Yes, because that's what the Constitution then said.

But it would be nice if you could try to focus on the topic.

 

[Drumcollie]

Meanwhile it looks like the Obama administration has implemented Obamacare the same way Michelle Obama's hospital in Chicago treated people on welfare...denied them access to medical help...sent them to the county hospital(see patient dumping scheme)
www.examiner.com/article/michelle-obama-part-of-alleged
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/1...adys-patient-dumping-privacy-meddling-scheme/

 

[Drumcollie]

Meanwhile Obama budget still calls for spending over 4.4 trillion in 2018 yet we havent recieved more than 2.450 trillion in revenue in fact this year Obama planned to spend 3.6 trillion and in 2014 3.7 trillion.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

One is a state law affecting only the people of Massachusetts, the other is a federal law affecting everyone. If its that great, than let the other forty nine states pass their own version of Romneycare and not require more borrowing to fund PPACA. Should not be a problem for the voters to lobby their state reps to pass a HC plan, correct?

there is a provision in the PPACA for states to form their own health care system......as long as it meets the minimum requirements in coverage that the PPACA does.
Vermont is working on their own....a single-payer plan. I think Utah is working on their own, too.

just so you stop repeating nonsense: know that ObamaCare is fully funded. there's no borrowing going on.

 

[Bluedog]

there is a provision in the PPACA for states to form their own health care system......as long as it meets the minimum requirements in coverage that the PPACA does.
Vermont is working on their own....a single-payer plan. I think Utah is working on their own, too.

just so you stop repeating nonsense: know that ObamaCare is fully funded. there's no borrowing going on.

Link, please.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Link, please.

the link is the PPACA law.

 

[Bluedog]

the link is the PPACA law.

And there is no mention of a surplus to fund PPACA, therefore it is borrowed.

 

[ITALIA]

And there is no mention of a surplus to fund PPACA, therefore it is borrowed.

If you are really interested in that you can check with the CBO to see what they have to say about the ACA. The last I heard was it would reduce the deficit about 100 billion in the first decade and about 1 trillion(with a T) in the second decade.

 

[Bluedog]

If you are really interested in that you can check with the CBO to see what they have to say about the ACA. The last I heard was it would reduce the deficit about 100 billion in the first decade and about 1 trillion(with a T) in the second decade.

That's all well and good, but those are projected amounts. Right off the bat, if too many young people opt for the fine, those "reductions" are off target. Jmo

 

[JuliefromOhio]

And there is no mention of a surplus to fund PPACA, therefore it is borrowed.

the PPACA was passed with all the funding mechanisms in place.
your tossing in words like surplus and borrowing don't apply.