Here Are The States Where Obamacare Subsidies Could Disappear

[Crabtownboy]

The Democrats said that all subsidies were to be administered only through state exchanges. The Democrats did not ask the GOP for advice when the Dems wrote this tax increase.

So you blame the Democrats for the Republican controlled states that opted out of Obamacare. Seems to me it is the fault of Republican state politicians.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

What question ?
Also, answer mine. Should the Supreme Court rule on the side of law, or Obamacare ?

And please remember, I'm getting screwed to the wall by this. Along with many others I know. So take your phony "concern" and ram it up your snout. If you cared, you would have been with us long ago.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That shows how poorly you understand this. Jesus told individuals, not governments to care for the poor. Like all big gov't people, you want the government to take care of everyone. The Bible says we ought to care for the poor as we are able. But the Bible also says that if a person won't work, he shouldn't eat. It says that the family ought to care for family members.

Tom, Christ never said that governments should not tax people to help other people. If the church were doing its job there would be no need for government to intervene. It is the selfishness of people that makes it necessary for government to step in.

The General Welfare Clause in the Constitution means the government is responsible for the welfare of the people. Certainly health insurance is part of maintaining the welfare of the people.

Tom, does it concern you at all that up to 10 million people could find themselves with no insurance?

 

[Crabtownboy]

What question ?
Also, answer mine. Should the Supreme Court rule on the side of law, or Obamacare ?

Obamacare is the law.

And please remember, I'm getting screwed to the wall by this. Along with many others I know. So take your phony "concern" and ram it up your snout. If you cared, you would have been with us long ago.

So you admit your only concern is your own selfish interest. Thanks for being honest on that one.

 

[church mouse guy]

So you blame the Democrats for the Republican controlled states that opted out of Obamacare. Seems to me it is the fault of Republican state politicians.

Here again it was the Democrats who said that the states could voluntarily set up exchanges if they liked. Even some Democrat states did not set up exchanges. Why do you fail to blame Democrat state politicians, Preacher?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

That's Crabby. Giving with other people's money, again.

You could fill up a few libraries with what Christ didn't say. Look at all the doctrine you could make out of that !!!!

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Obamacare is the law.

:laugh::laugh: So why are you so worried ?

So you admit your only concern is your own selfish interest. Thanks for being honest on that one.

Whats your's ? That I get nailed ? That poor folks who live by the week get priced out of the market ? Are you happy with this ?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I guess we see who you really care for. The state. The poor are just statistics and figures to twist on the way there.

 

[Crabtownboy]

:laugh::laugh: So why are you so worried ?

Because this so called conservative SC may well declare it unconstitutional and leave up to 10 million people without medical insurance and that your and your spouse's premiums will skyrocket.

Whats your's ? That I get nailed ? That poor folks who live by the week get priced out of the market ? Are you happy with this ?

My concern is the welfare of all Americans. Why do your not care about them?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Here again it was the Democrats who said that the states could voluntarily set up exchanges if they liked. Even some Democrat states did not set up exchanges. Why do you fail to blame Democrat state politicians, Preacher?

The states with exchanges will by be hit by the SC decision if it goes against Obamacare. It will be the states that opted out that will be hit and hit hard and those are by a large majority Republican controlled state governments. Your state, Indiana, opted out and thus your premiums will go up dramatically if the SC rules against Obamacare.

 

[Revmitchell]

The states with exchanges will by be hit by the SC decision if it goes against Obamacare. It will be the states that opted out that will be hit and hit hard and those are by a large majority Republican controlled state governments.

Yea never mind the rule of law.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Because this so called conservative SC may well declare it unconstitutional and leave up to 10 million people without medical insurance and that your and your spouse's premiums will skyrocket.

You obviously cannot read. I'm not going to repeat myself.

My concern is the welfare of all Americans. Why do your not care about them?

Baloney. You care about the state having power. How do we know this ? Because when people are hurt by liberal policies you ignore them.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Yea never mind the rule of law.

Can you or your church afford higher rates that will result if the SC kills Obamacare?

 

[Tom Bryant]

Tom, Christ never said that governments should not tax people to help other people. If the church were doing its job there would be no need for government to intervene. It is the selfishness of people that makes it necessary for government to step in.

The General Welfare Clause in the Constitution means the government is responsible for the welfare of the people. Certainly health insurance is part of maintaining the welfare of the people.

Tom, does it concern you at all that up to 10 million people could find themselves with no insurance?

The General Welfare clause says what???? It says that I am to look to the government as my protector? :BangHead: The government is what we ought to protect ourselves against.

But you're right, it is the selfishness of people that makes the gov't step in. People are so selfish that they don't want to work and they want those who work for a living to take care of them. That's very selfish.

This is a fruitless discussion. You want the gov't to take over. We want the gov't to live up to what they agreed to in the Constitution.

 

[church mouse guy]

The states with exchanges will by be hit by the SC decision if it goes against Obamacare. It will be the states that opted out that will be hit and hit hard and those are by a large majority Republican controlled state governments. Your state, Indiana, opted out and thus your premiums will go up dramatically if the SC rules against Obamacare.

Yes, that is what the Democrats did to the country. They wrote a law by themselves without any input from the loyal opposition that called for state exchanges and a tax increase. When the states failed to set up the exchanges, the Democrats set up a federal exchange illegally, Preacher.

So why did the Democrats do all this?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Yes, that is what the Democrats did to the country. They wrote a law by themselves without any input from the loyal opposition that called for state exchanges and a tax increase. When the states failed to set up the exchanges, the Democrats set up a federal exchange illegally, Preacher.

So why did the Democrats do all this?

There was no loyal opposition. The GOP had agreed to oppose anything Obama proposed before he took office. They would never compromise or add any construction amendments. They stance was always kill whatever Obama proposed. That is no loyal opposition.

If your political opponents will not meet and compromise then rule without them.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The General Welfare clause says what???? It says that I am to look to the government as my protector? :BangHead: The government is what we ought to protect ourselves against.

But you're right, it is the selfishness of people that makes the gov't step in. People are so selfish that they don't want to work and they want those who work for a living to take care of them. That's very selfish.

This is a fruitless discussion. You want the gov't to take over. We want the gov't to live up to what they agreed to in the Constitution.

General welfare clause:

A General Welfare clause is a section that appeared in many constitutions, as well as in some charters and statutes, which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people, sometimes worded as the public welfare. In some countries, this has been used as a basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and well-being of the people governed thereunder (known as the police power). Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to legislate or regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#United_States

 

[church mouse guy]

There was no loyal opposition. The GOP had agreed to oppose anything Obama proposed before he took office. They would never compromise or add any construction amendments. They stance was always kill whatever Obama proposed. That is no loyal opposition.

If your political opponents will not meet and compromise then rule without them.

Right.... That explains why the Democrats wrote the state exchange law and the tax increase without ever bothering to even invite the GOP to any meetings.

The Democrats did it, so why are the Democrats trying to say that the GOP is responsible for the bad parts of the state exchanges and the tax increase that the Democrats alone did, Preacher?

 

[Revmitchell]

So crabby wants wiki to interpret the constitution for him :laugh:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Right.... That explains why the Democrats wrote the state exchange law and the tax increase without ever bothering to even invite the GOP to any meetings.

The Democrats did it, so why are the Democrats trying to say that the GOP is responsible for the bad parts of the state exchanges and the tax increase that the Democrats alone did, Preacher?

Simple, because it was Republicans who brought the law suit to court. Can't blame the Democrats for that.

t’s serious because this is the high court, so we’re just five votes away from this silliness causing real harm. Dead-ender conservatives, blinkered by their fixation on Obamacare, would unreservedly rejoice if the high court ruled for King but such an outcome should give just about everyone else reason for pause. “The court usually doesn’t pay an awful lot of attention to the practical questions” surrounding its cases, says Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution. But given the real-world stakes, the court might this time, he adds. Here are five negative consequences of a ruling for King and against Obamacare:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-court-anti-obamacare-king-v-burwell-decision