The tie-in was that Republicans are seeking Obama’s failure, and by that action have done damage to the national interest. Your information shows jobs lost with our current system, which (obviously) precedes Obama and cannot possibly be the result of an animus against Obama.
As it was most likely a mistake (But with guys like Cuccinelli I doubt that), I have to assume he and the prosecutor grabbed a misconception and ran with it.
That was not what the conclusion said, and not all the items (including the one in the OP) of the new plan are in place yet. This is a very misleading point from you BTW, Republicans did blame Obama and the democrats for the mess we are in and Health care reform needed to be removed.
cite?
I think you’re just trying to engage in debate society tricks, and I don’t feel like playing.
It’s too bad the right has behaved so abysmally over the last decade as to make their motives highly questionable in all matters. But there you have it. What’s a fellow supposed to do?
Hint: The answer is not playing “cite-O-Rama” with people who desire to keep up the myth of the noble conservative.
Come back when you get a ruling from a judge who doesn’t receive payments fom a Republican campaign consulting firm. Now days that sort of shit just strains my liberal credulity past the breaking point. Would it have killed the judge to recuse himself?
The ruling is a partisan attack by the Republicans, until proven otherwise.
Go ahead, ask me for a cite. It’ll make it look like you won the debate. 
I made a mistake here, indeed I was referring to the post by gonzomax.
And reading what you posted here, I have to say that it is still a very long shot to overcome the precedents starting from 60 years ago.
There is also the issue that being satisfied with your healthcare is not the same as opposing reform. I have great healthcare which I use for I my wife who has severe chronic illness. So if I was polled as to whether I was satisfied with my health care I would give a resounding yes. That said I realize how screwed we would be if we lost it. I realize that I have less flexibility to change jobs or work for myself because outside of employee health plans she would never be able to get coverage. Also, although she and I are very very happily married, if she wasn’t happy with me she couldn’t divorce me for fear of losing coverage. Finally, I pity those who are in her position but don’t have someone to support them with healthcare coverage. So yes I am satisfied with my healthcare, but health coverage (ideally single payer) is my number one priority as a voter.
There is a big difference between a company car, and the ability to see a pain doctor and get pain meds that keep your life from being a living hell of agony. Slaves also weren’t trapped by their masters, they just would have to leave behind the luxuries of not getting whipped or lynched if they left.
Yeah, the opposition to reform always likes to mention how beautiful in theory things like COBRA are, they do not care that in practice many can not use it or the new job puts barriers to continue coverage (many of those barriers should be illegal now, but in practice many companies continue with those barriers or become more creative)
Care to cite some examples…
Already posted with my own example.
But here are more examples and reasons why COBRA is not what many claim to be:
No I did not read it somewhere. I read it in several places written by lawyers and legal experts. I did not pick up some poster and relay his info as fact.
That was very lawyerly of you.
I think you are referring to **Bricker, **uh gonzo?
Neither of those outlined any “barriers” the new employer was placing to prevent transfer of coverage.
As for the case where the employee discovered that his new POTENTIAL employer’s plan would only cover half, I didn’t see any mention of the potential employer holding a gun to his head and making him accept the offer. As it was, they were able to find a workaround which worked for them. Otherwise, he could have continued to search for work elsewhere.
I see you missed the one where the employer stopped giving coverage to all his workers.
They remain barriers to the beautiful theory.
There was a second page with more examples, but then again ignorance needs to march on.
Also: what other jobs?
That’s too bad. Because if you cannot provide evidence in support of an assertion, then it may be denied without discussion. That’s not a “debate society trick,” but simple logic: the person proferring an idea cannot argue that his idea must be true because his opponents have failed to disprove it.
Point out ad hominem fallacies when they occur and hope for the best.
I have my own opinions of your credulity, and they begin where you characterize owning a small number of shares in a consulting company translates to “receiving payments.” In fact, you have no idea if the judge has received any payments at all, and certainly no payments that are not more accurately characterized as “dividends” – the same dividends paid to any stockholder.
No, it’s for you to prove your assertion. Asking for a cite is intended to identify an assertion I challenge. Since you’re quite comfortable with simply asserting it without proof, my only response can be: no, it isn’t.
I’m not so sure how long a shot it is.
First, I think the Fourth Circuit will be receptive to the idea. So I’m willing to bet it will be upheld at the Circuit level.
The Supreme Court has scaled back the sixty-year precedent in two relatively recent cases: the Violence Against Women Act (United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000); holding that federal law that gave victims of gender-based violence a civil cause of action exceed Congress’ Commerce Clause powers) and the Gun Free School Zones Act (United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995); holding that prohibiting guns within 1000 feet of a school exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause powers).
What’s at issue now is whether refusal to buy something can be penalized. This decision doesn’t say it’s unconstitutional for the government to offer healthcare… it says the federal government cannot require a person to buy healthcare.
Under the sixty year old Wickard v. Filburn decision, it can. But if Wickard didn’t exist, a fair reading of Morrison and Lopez would make it questionable at best.
So I’m not so sure now that the Supreme Court won’t be interested in continuing the trend of Lopez and Morrison.
In any event, you can see (hopefully) that it’s not a cut-and-dry issue.
Wait, isn’t that being locked into your job because of healthcare?
Not could, would.
There are lots of places in the US that would gladly pitch public education so they could teach creationism, the real history of the War of Northern Aggression, have Bible study, and provide marksmanship classes with targets of abortion providers.
On that specific point I agree, not cut and dry, but seeing how other recent rulings came, is still a long shot; and I have to agree with others that what the odd judge ruled will most likely be thrown out.
This White House statement: