DescentBB

Depends on which Americans you are referring to.

the VAST majority of us.

I saw a list of quotes from Scalia's dissent (from an oh-so-lovely Heartland Institute Facebook posting that one of my "friends" liked), and the vast majority of his issues seemed to stem from the difference between the words "a" and "the" in a single line of the provision. I know he's the archduke of strict-constructionists, but even for him that's pretty ridiculous.

attaboy, Mr. Speaker, because this is SOOOO much easier than trying to actually govern.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/boehn ... le/2567018

Still waiting on the GOP's proposal to fix heath care. What's the latest word on that? Do we repeal the ACA and go back to the same broken system as before? I'll gladly take a broken system that covers millions of people with no insurance and preexisting conditions over a broken one that doesn't.

see above, vision. They have nothing.

couldn't resist

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... nvironment

vision wrote:Still waiting on the GOP's proposal to fix heath care. What's the latest word on that? Do we repeal the ACA and go back to the same broken system as before? I'll gladly take a broken system that covers millions of people with no insurance and preexisting conditions over a broken one that doesn't.

What makes you think insurance providers are covering all pre-existing conditions?:

"As Mother Jones highlighted, while motivating people to choose cheaper drugs that have been shown to work just as well as the expensive ones is certainly fair, for some illness, there is no drug in the bottom tier. Instead of motivating patients to choose a different drug, the message plans are sending is: If you have this condition, go elsewhere. And that's just the type of discrimination the Affordable Care Act was supposed to end. "

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-m ... conditions

no, they're finding ways to get out of coverage by selecting what drugs they cover.

woodchip wrote:What makes you think insurance providers are covering all pre-existing conditions?:

Cool. What's the GOP's plan on how to fix that?

Was a sad day actually, we got to see just how political our "justice" system has truly become. Whatever you think of the ACA, that's fine, but the fact that 3 justices actually sided with the plaintiffs is sickening. The intent of the ACA's subsidies is absolutely crystal clear and was so from the beginning, Roberts and Kennedy recognized that regardless if they agreed with the passage of the ACA or not.

Ferno wrote:no, they're finding ways to get out of coverage by selecting what drugs they cover.

Pretty much what my link was saying if you had taken time to read it.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:What makes you think insurance providers are covering all pre-existing conditions?:

Cool. What's the GOP's plan on how to fix that?

Can't wait for the employer mandate to kick in. Be interesting to see how the whole enchilada works. Dems have it all covered?

The decision here was pretty easy to predict, considering how the court ruled last time.

(not that it wasn’t a correct decision “this” time)

actually, Spidey, the GOP was convinced pretty much across the board that this ruling would go their way, due to the clumsy wording. A neighbor of mine is state GOP Senate Leader, and he was both shocked and livid. I was restrained but amused at his response. They were convinced that by sending this back for a re-write, the SCOTUS would open the door to tossing the ACA altogether.

Convinced...I doubt that, more like the usual wishful thinking.

The first ruling (in my opinion incorrect) put the writing on the wall.

thanks, TB, for reminding us all of the overblown BS that passes for 'discourse' in some circles. Not one word of that is close to truth, but feel free to shout it.