Not everybody, and not much for this reason, with no Obamacare the prices were also going up and people were losing doctors and insurance too.
I had a full time job in a tech place and a part time one in education, at the tech place my supervisor told me that Obama was the Antichrist and the sup also disliked Hispanics. Too much right wing radio coming from his cubicle indeed. I did not have a chance. When the contract ended I lost my insurance and my doctor. Because rather than not paying the rent or eating I could not afford the insane Cobra premiums. And in my part time job I never had insurance anyhow.
So it was thanks to the ACA that I did get insurance and a doctor and this month I’m getting dental care too.
It’s worth pointing out that HealthCare guru and ACA architect, Jonathan Gruber, has made five or six off the cuff videod remarks now. This is not a singular moment of misspeaking on his part. Sure, people are out to interpret what he says in the worst possible light. Just as there are others out there trying to do the opposite; to call him a dude, to paint him as insignificant, and willing to suggest this was a one off. How many off the cuff comments does someone have to make before these remarks show them as his sincere and settled belief?
I have a utilitarian stance on this: if it benefits the country at large, it is okay for those in charge to undermine democracy in order to benefit us.
I tend to believe that the powers that be have a better vantage point then average folks on most issues.
Additionally, I do not believe significant numbers of people make better decisions than a select few, for all types of difficult decisions.
I concede that determining what is “better” is a difficult part of the problem and probably one of the best arguments against my position.
So despite the merits of any argument to the contrary, the only way SCOTUS rules in favor of the plaintiffs is if they cast aside all objectivity. And in doing so, ruling a way you disfavor, they will somehow lose legitimacy.
Yes, & I’ve explained why in other threads. The Supreme Court will no longer be a legitimate institution if it invalidates the HC.Gov subsidies; it would henceforth be nothing more than the judicial arm of the Republican Party.
Hell, here’s an article by someone far more schooled in legalese than I who describes the illegitimacy that the Court has already invited by agreeing to take the King case in the first place.
Oh, I think he was expressing his sincere and settled belief. I think he was doing it off-the-cuff, not worrying about how hostile spin doctors might twist what he was saying to make it look like he hates America. People have already explained a much likelier interpretation of his beliefs earlier in the thread, and nobody including you has explained why they disagree with that interpretation.
And no, I’m not painting him as insignificant or suggesting it’s a one-off. That’s not you misinterpreting me, that’s you making things up out of whole cloth to besmirch me, and I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t do that.
Come on now. Think a little harder. And if all you can come up with is “Because they’re the stupid ones”, at least have the dignity to say so before disappearing back into Foxland.
And they did. It is also the role of legislators who oppose the bill to explain why? And not to fabricate a campaign of lies and fearmongering in lieu of factual persuasion?
But you have, you have been one to trust those saying the contrary, haven’t you?
That your grasp of the facts is not what you believe it to be, based on what you have been told by a faction and media outlet that you seem to trust absolutely and unquestioningly and, frankly, gullibly. The promulgators of a many-years-long campaign of lies and fearmongering, which it has not occurred to you to question, have been waiting for a long time for something they could spin as a tu quoque - and you’ve swallowed that as loyally as you’ve swallowed all the rest.
You need to be more curious and skeptical and more broad-based in informing yourself. That’s the point.
That’s your true level? Seriously? :rolleyes:
Wow, that never happened under the old regime, did it? Rates are up less now. Less.
And mostly have better, cheaper ones. You haven’t ever turned the channel once in your life, have you?
As Pelosi explained, despite the negative spin you’ve swallowed, as people come to experience personally what the law actually does, rather than what the liars and fearmongerers claim it does, they’ll come to support it. The polls have generally borne that prediction out. But it will take time for the poison to clear from the system.
Off the cuff suggests they were a one off, or, a clumsy way of getting his point across during a presentation. They were made on repeated occasions at different events. They were an intrinsic part of his act.
It is not misrepresenting you when you call him a dude and claim his comments were off the cuff. There are many ways you could have described him; many words or titles you could have chosen. I don’t think it purely a coincidence you called him a dude. If so, I apologize, but I really don’t think im wrong here. With regards to controversial political debate im assuming bad faith on my opponents part, looking back at the long history of political debate this is a reasonable assumption on my part.
I don’t know. If you believe I have used inappropriate wording in my posts to promote my argument then you can assume bad faith on my part. In Jonathan Gruber’s career I doubt he has ever been introduced as dude. He will rarely(if ever) be described as dude in any conversation amongst his peers. This is why your use of the inappropriate word jumped out at me. There must have been a good reason you chose one of the most informal words going to describe Gruber. I can think of many words you could have chosen: professor, guru, architect, insider, Healthcare expert, Government advisor and so on. Can you explain to me the good reason you had for using the word “dude”?
No, I can’t, except that it’s a word I use all the time. This is a ridiculous line of attack and frankly embarrassing that you’re continuing along it. Is this really the strongest argument you have, that you keep on pushing it?
I employed a man who assured me his previous job for one of the Bell Telephone companies had been to write the monthly customer bills in such a way that most people would not be able to understand them.
The complaint by the author and in part by you seems to rest on grant of cert without a circuit split. Somehow you got into your head that granting cert without such a split would render the court illegitimate. You can think whatever you like of course. It’s fantasy to think that your aspertions would be taken seriously. Look at Rule 10 for discussion on when cert may be granted:
(my bold)
Reason C would be consistent with the grant in King.