|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of uninsured U.S. residents fell by more than 11 million since President Barack Obama signed the health care overhaul five years ago, according to a pair of reports Tuesday from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Although that still would leave about 37 million people uninsured, it's the lowest level measured in more than 15 years.
The most dramatic change took place in comparing 2013 with the first nine months of 2014. As the health care law's major coverage expansion was taking effect, the number of uninsured people fell by 7.6 million over that time.
That's "much bigger than can possibly be explained by the economy," said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "The vast majority has to be due to the Affordable Care Act."
Monday was the law's fifth anniversary, and supporters and detractors again clashed over its impact.
Obama says the law in many ways is "working even better than anticipated."
House Speaker John Boehner says it amounts to a "legacy of broken promises."
The health care law offers subsidized private coverage to people who don't have access to it on the job, as well as an expanded version of Medicaid geared to low-income adults, in states accepting it.
The White House says 16 million people have gained health insurance, a considerably higher estimate than Tuesday's report from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. The White House includes results from the law's second signup season, stretching into this year.
Source
|
United States41117 Posts
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whose push to defund Obamacare led to a government shutdown, now plans to get insured through the federal exchange.
"We will presumably go on the exchange and sign up for health care and we're in the process of transitioning over to do that," Cruz told the Des Moines Register on Tuesday.
Previously, Cruz had been covered under his wife's blue-chip employer health insurance plan.
But Bloomberg reported that Heidi Nelson Cruz, a managing director for Goldman Sachs in Houston, had taken an unpaid leave from the company in order to pitch in on her husband's presidential campaign. Cruz confirmed to the Des Moines Register that his wife took a leave from the Wall Street firm.
When the Register asked Cruz if having to purchase insurance on the federal health care exchange bothered him, Cruz sidestepped the question.
"It is written in the law that members will be on the exchanges without subsidies just like millions of Americans so that's – I think the same rules should apply to all of us. Members of Congress should not be exempt," he told the newspaper, adding that he'd like still like to see Obamacare abolished.
Source
|
On March 25 2015 05:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whose push to defund Obamacare led to a government shutdown, now plans to get insured through the federal exchange.
"We will presumably go on the exchange and sign up for health care and we're in the process of transitioning over to do that," Cruz told the Des Moines Register on Tuesday.
Previously, Cruz had been covered under his wife's blue-chip employer health insurance plan.
But Bloomberg reported that Heidi Nelson Cruz, a managing director for Goldman Sachs in Houston, had taken an unpaid leave from the company in order to pitch in on her husband's presidential campaign. Cruz confirmed to the Des Moines Register that his wife took a leave from the Wall Street firm.
When the Register asked Cruz if having to purchase insurance on the federal health care exchange bothered him, Cruz sidestepped the question.
"It is written in the law that members will be on the exchanges without subsidies just like millions of Americans so that's – I think the same rules should apply to all of us. Members of Congress should not be exempt," he told the newspaper, adding that he'd like still like to see Obamacare abolished. Source
Can republicans finally put forth their alternative? 5 years of Repeal, repeal, repeal, REPEAL!, Republican candidates shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying "repeal Obamacare!" without having to at least outline what they would do about people with pre-existing conditions, kids that run up against annual and lifetime caps, etc....
Because otherwise if they only say "repeal and replace" it kind of has to be assumed that after 5 years of trying to do the repeal part, they should have at least had the replacement plan in case they ever actually succeeded. So if the plan is "We don't have a plan yet" then it seems the "plan" is to just go back to those people dying/going bankrupt/being uninsured.
|
On March 25 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 05:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whose push to defund Obamacare led to a government shutdown, now plans to get insured through the federal exchange.
"We will presumably go on the exchange and sign up for health care and we're in the process of transitioning over to do that," Cruz told the Des Moines Register on Tuesday.
Previously, Cruz had been covered under his wife's blue-chip employer health insurance plan.
But Bloomberg reported that Heidi Nelson Cruz, a managing director for Goldman Sachs in Houston, had taken an unpaid leave from the company in order to pitch in on her husband's presidential campaign. Cruz confirmed to the Des Moines Register that his wife took a leave from the Wall Street firm.
When the Register asked Cruz if having to purchase insurance on the federal health care exchange bothered him, Cruz sidestepped the question.
"It is written in the law that members will be on the exchanges without subsidies just like millions of Americans so that's – I think the same rules should apply to all of us. Members of Congress should not be exempt," he told the newspaper, adding that he'd like still like to see Obamacare abolished. Source Can republicans finally put forth their alternative? 5 years of Repeal, repeal, repeal, REPEAL!, Republican candidates shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying "repeal Obamacare!" without having to at least outline what they would do about people with pre-existing conditions, kids that run up against annual and lifetime caps, etc.... Because otherwise if they only say "repeal and replace" it kind of has to be assumed that after 5 years of trying to do the repeal part, they should have at least had the replacement plan in case they ever actually succeeded. So if the plan is "We don't have a plan yet" then it seems the "plan" is to just go back to those people dying/going bankrupt/being uninsured.
Well... there is no plan yet ^^
And if your talking about Cruz specifically your talking about the 'mastermind' behind the government shutdown who had no plan for how to resolve the shutdown in the Republicans favor.
|
On March 25 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 05:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whose push to defund Obamacare led to a government shutdown, now plans to get insured through the federal exchange.
"We will presumably go on the exchange and sign up for health care and we're in the process of transitioning over to do that," Cruz told the Des Moines Register on Tuesday.
Previously, Cruz had been covered under his wife's blue-chip employer health insurance plan.
But Bloomberg reported that Heidi Nelson Cruz, a managing director for Goldman Sachs in Houston, had taken an unpaid leave from the company in order to pitch in on her husband's presidential campaign. Cruz confirmed to the Des Moines Register that his wife took a leave from the Wall Street firm.
When the Register asked Cruz if having to purchase insurance on the federal health care exchange bothered him, Cruz sidestepped the question.
"It is written in the law that members will be on the exchanges without subsidies just like millions of Americans so that's – I think the same rules should apply to all of us. Members of Congress should not be exempt," he told the newspaper, adding that he'd like still like to see Obamacare abolished. Source Can republicans finally put forth their alternative? 5 years of Repeal, repeal, repeal, REPEAL!, Republican candidates shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying "repeal Obamacare!" without having to at least outline what they would do about people with pre-existing conditions, kids that run up against annual and lifetime caps, etc.... Because otherwise if they only say "repeal and replace" it kind of has to be assumed that after 5 years of trying to do the repeal part, they should have at least had the replacement plan in case they ever actually succeeded. So if the plan is "We don't have a plan yet" then it seems the "plan" is to just go back to those people dying/going bankrupt/being uninsured.
There's no reason for Republicans actually announce an alternative yet; they're far better off using thinktanks behind closed doors and only showing their hand before the election. It's impossible to repeal Obamacare/pass an alternative until another president takes office, after all. None of the people in Congress are dumb enough to think otherwise.
All revealing some grand plan (which will probably be some voucher move in the end) will do is allow Democrats more time to pick holes in the plan. It's just a political reality.
|
United States41117 Posts
A comprehensive bill introduced in the House of Representatives Tuesday aims to deal a significant blow to the federal government's long-running war on medical marijuana.
The Compassionate Access, Research Expansion and Respect States (CARERS) Act, introduced by Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and Don Young (R-Alaska), is a House companion bill to an identical Senate bill from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced earlier this month. Each bill seeks to drastically reduce the federal government's ability to crack down on state-legal medical marijuana programs, and aims to encourage more research into the plant through several changes in federal law.
The historic Senate version of the bill has also gained traction with two new sponsors since its introduction: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).
“The science has been in for a long time, and keeping marijuana on Schedule I -- with heroin and LSD -- is ludicrous," Cohen said in a statement Tuesday. "I am pleased to join with Congressman Don Young in introducing this important bill to bring the federal government in line with the science and the American people, respect states’ rights, remove the threat of federal prosecution in states with medical marijuana, and help our citizens access the treatments they need.”
Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance, a drug policy reform group, told The Huffington Post that the House version of the bill was introduced because "momentum is so strong" for the bipartisan CARERS Act.
"This has become one of the few issues Democrats and Republicans can agree on," Piper told HuffPost in an email. "The tide is quickly turning against marijuana prohibition, and the war on drugs in general; it's only a question of when, not if, reform will happen."
Source
|
what a contrived name and acronym for a bill.
|
On March 25 2015 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 05:45 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whose push to defund Obamacare led to a government shutdown, now plans to get insured through the federal exchange.
"We will presumably go on the exchange and sign up for health care and we're in the process of transitioning over to do that," Cruz told the Des Moines Register on Tuesday.
Previously, Cruz had been covered under his wife's blue-chip employer health insurance plan.
But Bloomberg reported that Heidi Nelson Cruz, a managing director for Goldman Sachs in Houston, had taken an unpaid leave from the company in order to pitch in on her husband's presidential campaign. Cruz confirmed to the Des Moines Register that his wife took a leave from the Wall Street firm.
When the Register asked Cruz if having to purchase insurance on the federal health care exchange bothered him, Cruz sidestepped the question.
"It is written in the law that members will be on the exchanges without subsidies just like millions of Americans so that's – I think the same rules should apply to all of us. Members of Congress should not be exempt," he told the newspaper, adding that he'd like still like to see Obamacare abolished. Source Can republicans finally put forth their alternative? 5 years of Repeal, repeal, repeal, REPEAL!, Republican candidates shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying "repeal Obamacare!" without having to at least outline what they would do about people with pre-existing conditions, kids that run up against annual and lifetime caps, etc.... Because otherwise if they only say "repeal and replace" it kind of has to be assumed that after 5 years of trying to do the repeal part, they should have at least had the replacement plan in case they ever actually succeeded. So if the plan is "We don't have a plan yet" then it seems the "plan" is to just go back to those people dying/going bankrupt/being uninsured.
Well, from their point of view, repealing the system, even without an alternative, would be preferable. If you've been set on fire, do you want to wait for someone to propose an alternative, or do you just want put out regardless of what happens next?
Not that I think the ACA is as bad as being set on fire, but that's the kind of logic.
Also, the ACA doesn't mean people no longer have to choose between dying or going bankrupt. Insurance companies will still deny expensive treatments, leaving patients to pick up the tab or die. Just because you're insured now doesn't mean your insurance company will write a blank check.
|
On March 25 2015 07:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A comprehensive bill introduced in the House of Representatives Tuesday aims to deal a significant blow to the federal government's long-running war on medical marijuana.
The Compassionate Access, Research Expansion and Respect States (CARERS) Act, introduced by Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and Don Young (R-Alaska), is a House companion bill to an identical Senate bill from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced earlier this month. Each bill seeks to drastically reduce the federal government's ability to crack down on state-legal medical marijuana programs, and aims to encourage more research into the plant through several changes in federal law.
The historic Senate version of the bill has also gained traction with two new sponsors since its introduction: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).
“The science has been in for a long time, and keeping marijuana on Schedule I -- with heroin and LSD -- is ludicrous," Cohen said in a statement Tuesday. "I am pleased to join with Congressman Don Young in introducing this important bill to bring the federal government in line with the science and the American people, respect states’ rights, remove the threat of federal prosecution in states with medical marijuana, and help our citizens access the treatments they need.”
Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance, a drug policy reform group, told The Huffington Post that the House version of the bill was introduced because "momentum is so strong" for the bipartisan CARERS Act.
"This has become one of the few issues Democrats and Republicans can agree on," Piper told HuffPost in an email. "The tide is quickly turning against marijuana prohibition, and the war on drugs in general; it's only a question of when, not if, reform will happen." Source
Still pretty terrible legislation, but better than what we have, and would be the first genuinely bipartisan breakthrough in the better half of a decade.
As far as the naming, that's maybe a 3 out of 5 (if I were being generous)?
We remember this gem right?
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
|
I'd like to have a bipartisan committee that's in charge of giving all bills name that are bland and non-biased.
|
United States44448 Posts
Or you could just number them.
|
On March 25 2015 09:06 KwarK wrote:
Or you could just number them.
But then the religious right will get buttmad about bill #13 and bill #666.
|
On March 25 2015 09:09 Millitron wrote:But then the religious right will get buttmad about bill #13 and bill #666.
Why does everyone act like only the right are religious?
![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bljdwuqkrueemaret6_evq.png)
|
On March 25 2015 09:16 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 09:09 Millitron wrote:On March 25 2015 09:06 KwarK wrote:
Or you could just number them. But then the religious right will get buttmad about bill #13 and bill #666. Why does everyone act like only the right are religious?
The left has plenty of religious folks aswell indeed. I think they are generally less of the bat shit insane variant.
|
The religious left likes their religious liberty, rather than state salafism.
|
On March 25 2015 09:16 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 09:09 Millitron wrote:On March 25 2015 09:06 KwarK wrote:
Or you could just number them. But then the religious right will get buttmad about bill #13 and bill #666. Why does everyone act like only the right are religious?
Well, people probably do it for different reasons but the general idea is mostly in the last numbers in the image. Note it's asking about religion not "Christianity".
When people think "The right is religious and the left is not" what they are really thinking is "The right is Christian and..."That message is consistently reinforced in many peoples worlds.
Obviously people who are minorities, or know them at least kind of closely, anecdotaly know that's a ridiculous idea. However, people without those experiences can easily buy into some part of the narrative that the left is full of amoral atheists, and any "good Christian" would have to vote Republican (pro-life and such). Also (particularly white) people on the left are just more likely to grow up around areligious families and develop the sense that's what "most" families are like.
Another chunk, is a lot of people are on the right because of religion (think Huckabee first type supporters), whereas people on the left happen to be religious or in spite of their religious beliefs (supporting pro-choice Dems).
Most people if questioned though wouldn't suggest only the right is religious, but I think the point captured is that the left isn't going to throw a fit and offer legislation to prevent a bill being labeled #666 (although they would vote for it all the same most likely).
|
It depends on the religious groups: eg, Catholics are generally democratic leaning due to holding economic "liberal" beliefs, despite social conservatism. Muslims and Jews are similarly democratic leaning.
|
On March 25 2015 09:06 KwarK wrote:
Or you could just number them.
They do get numbered. It is S. 683.
On March 25 2015 09:09 Millitron wrote:But then the religious right will get buttmad about bill #13 and bill #666.
S. 666: Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act of 2015 (source).
Sponsored by a Democrat! Such proof, much evil!
|
Should probably remind us of this poll also in regards to religion.
Just keep in mind this is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. The same Constitution they hold so dear.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CMmvbCT.png)
Source
Ted Cruz's dad has been something else around these topics. Only a matter of time before Cruz has to embrace the crazy or throw his own dad under the political bus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
