Here Are The States Where Obamacare Subsidies Could Disappear

[ShagNappy]

Only you could gloss over the folks that did get hurt.

Yeah, my wife lost her insurance as well as my oldest... in your ear!

 

[Don]

If the SC rules Obamacare unconstitutional upward to 8 to 10 million people will be denies medical insurance. Cancers, diabetes, and other terrible disease will go untreated.

So should the SC vote by the rule of law, or should they vote for the ACA no matter what?

 

[Rob_BW]

Sounds almost like taking hostages. Force people onto ACA plans after declaring their old plans unsatisfactory, and then bemoan the fact that people will be without insurance if the ACA is shut down.

 

[Crabtownboy]

So should the SC vote by the rule of law, or should they vote for the ACA no matter what?

This is a confused question.

Whatever they vote will be the rule of law. You may or may not agree, but that is what happens, their decision becomes law and thus the rule of law.

 

[church mouse guy]

Only a certain strip of Baptist, primarily those who call themselves Baptist but are Baptist only in name and not in theology. Many are really disciples of Paul and really like to ignore the teachings of Jesus about how we are to treat others.

If the SC rules Obamacare unconstitutional upward to 8 to 10 million people will be denies medical insurance. Cancers, diabetes, and other terrible disease will go untreated.

Those who hope Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional should volunteer to help at the free clinics that will have to reopen and see the suffering of people who are without insurance.

Preacher, are you saying that Jesus and Paul did not teach the same things? Should I say that you are a higher critic?

 

[church mouse guy]

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

The Democrats said that only states could have exchanges and then they said that the federal government is a state.

Then they say that the GOP had no right to ask the court if the word "state" meant "federal". Supposing that the SC rules that yes "state" always means "federal."

The Dems like to make fun of sick people--they are now telling them that they are going to die if they don't have insurance. That won't even happen in the Democrat stronghold of West Hollywood.

 

[The American Dream]

Crabby thanks for the map. I am so relieved that Kentucky is not affected.

 

[just-want-peace]

Crabby:

Many are really disciples of Paul and really like to ignore the teachings of Jesus about how we are to treat others.

Love to see what kind of spin THIS (CHRISTLIKE????) statement generates!!!

AFAIC, this one statement just begs for the originator to be put on "IGNORE".:sleep:

Makes most of his posts more understandable though with this theology!!!:sleeping_2:

 

[Don]

This is a confused question.

Whatever they vote will be the rule of law. You may or may not agree, but that is what happens, their decision becomes law and thus the rule of law.

You know exactly what is being asked; and your refusal to answer says you prefer to vote in favor of the ACA, even if such a vote technically violates the law.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You know exactly what is being asked; and your refusal to answer says you prefer to vote in favor of the ACA, even if such a vote technically violates the law.

If the SC votes in favor of ACA then obviously it will not be a violation of the law ... even if you do not like it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Preacher, are you saying that Jesus and Paul did not teach the same things? Should I say that you are a higher critic?

If you pick and choose Paul's writings to fit your own wishes and ignore the teachings of Jesus, then yes they are different. If you balance Paul with what Jesus taught there is no conflict.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You gotta remember C.T.Boy denies a lot of Paul's writing is scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

If you pick and choose Jesus' writings to fit your own wishes and ignore the teachings of Paul's, then yes they are different. If you balance Jesus with what Paul taught there is no conflict.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The central teaching of Christ is not how to treat each other, and it's not surrender to the state. It is "I am the way, NONE come to the father but by me", and, BTW, it is the ONLY message we are to preach to the world.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The central teaching of Christ is not how to treat each other, and it's not surrender to the state. It is "I am the way, NONE come to the father but by me", and, BTW, it is the ONLY message we are to preach to the world.

Scripture references supporting your first sentence.

The reference you quoted and interpreted is an extremely liberal interpretation, and one that is in error.

 

[Don]

If the SC votes in favor of ACA then obviously it will not be a violation of the law ... even if you do not like it.

It's not a matter of whether I like it. If it currently violates legal principle, the SC should vote as such. If they vote simply because 8 million people will lose insurance coverage, then they haven't voted based on legal principle.

Yes, once they vote, it becomes law. The question is, will you be satisfied and supportive if they vote against the ACA?

 

[blessedwife318]

Scripture references supporting your first sentence.

The reference you quoted and interpreted is an extremely liberal interpretation, and one that is in error.

How in the world is declaring that Jesus is the only way to Heaven a Liberal interpretation. That is just insane.

 

[Crabtownboy]

How in the world is declaring that Jesus is the only way to Heaven a Liberal interpretation. That is just insane.

Taken by itself it isn't a liberal interpretation. But in a thread like this he is implying that this verse applies to Obamacare and people who feel that, even with its flaws, it is a good thing are denying Christ. Now that is a liberal interpretation.

Christ did not teach independence from the state. Almost all of Christ's teachings dealt with how we are to treat each other.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It's not a matter of whether I like it. If it currently violates legal principle, the SC should vote as such. If they vote simply because 8 million people will lose insurance coverage, then they haven't voted based on legal principle.

Your feeling is that it violates legal principle. What legal principle are you speaking of?

Yes, once they vote, it becomes law. The question is, will you be satisfied and supportive if they vote against the ACA?

I will feel it is law, but a bad law as I believe the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution will be violated if they vote against it.

Now, that is now what this thread is about. The OP subject is how people in a majority of states, primarily Republican controlled states will be harmed if Obamacare is truck down.

I will not be satisfied just as I am not satisfied with the Americans United decision. Their decision became law, but I feel it is a very bad law.

 

[Crabtownboy]

If you pick and choose Jesus' writings to fit your own wishes and ignore the teachings of Paul's, then yes they are different. If you balance Jesus with what Paul taught there is no conflict.

Amazing, you agree with me.