Werewolf said:
Articulate and writes extremely well.......but, well........... LOL
I should apologize to you #Sieve, my generation created your generation. What the F did I do.
The mechanism through which Trump is paying the troops is the most blatant large Antideficiency Act (ADA) violation in US history. It's also clearly willful. No one has been charged under the ADA before, but violations carry a 2 year jail term. Statute of limitations is 5 years.
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) October 15, 2025
Most money has what's called a period of availability. You can go about obligating it only during that period. While it's illegal to not use it all (that's the illegal impoundments Trump has been doing all year), after that period of availability ends, you can't use it anymore.
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) October 15, 2025
When money is appropriated, it's also authorized to be used only for certain activities. So if you give $50 million to the Department of Transportation to build bridges, it couldn't use that money to build airports instead.
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) October 15, 2025
In the case of DOD, there's a limit of $8 billion. And, importantly, when you move money from one account to another account, that money has follow the allowable uses and the period of availability of that new account. So now let's dig into the specifics.
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) October 15, 2025
But here's the problem: if you tried to transfer that money into the military personnel accounts (milpers), it would immediately transform into money whose period of availability ended on September 30, 2025 - and thus not be usable anymore, despite the money existing.
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) October 15, 2025
Civilized said:Oldsouljer said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:
No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"
Really?
Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.
If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.
If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.
Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).
But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.
Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.
Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.
National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.
And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.
Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).
All that has to happen is Johnson gavels in the House and they do it legally. Why is that too much to ask? Hell, you might even get some democrats stupid enough to vote on record against it.wolf howl said:
Find you someone that loves you as much as Democrats love not funding the military service members right now.
SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:SmaptyWolf said:caryking said:SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:
Might be trans, but not wrong.Moreover, Democrats could've made permanent the enhanced subsidies when they controlled the govt in 2021-2022. Its a bit disingenuous to underfund their expensive law, enact only temporary fixes, and then blame the other party for balking at extending those costs.
— Jessica Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@JessicaBRiedl) October 14, 2025
Yeah, bullsh**. Republicans have worked to ratfu** the ACA every step of the way, and completely removed one of the three legs of the stool, the mandates, which was key to widening the risk pool and making the affordability math work. Since then the ACA has been limping along with subsidies. Biden's expanded subsidies barely scraped through with the "help" of Joe Manchin, who was a massive tool who insisted that they not be permanent. So here we are.
Let's put aside the merits of funding the ACA, for a moment…
did you support the concept of government compelling a person to buy something?
The ACA mandate didn't apply to anyone who couldn't afford it, and there were a bunch of other loopholes, but no, it wouldn't have been my first choice. Single payer would have been a lot better... and somehow Americans can deal with taxes a lot better than "OMG being forced to buy something".
But despite the MAGA fan fiction Obama was almost pathologically bipartisan. He could have rammed through single payer, but he mistakenly thought Republicans would embrace their own "free market" health care idea more. So he took RomneyCare, rebranded it, and voila! The mandates were a Republican idea, because it's the only way to make risk pools work while keeping existing insurance company middlemen intact. Of course Republicans rejoiced! Just kidding... by sundown their own health care plan became Marxism.
Anyway, I take it you want to go back to "the good ol days"?Of course you do.
- Health care costs spiraling to oblivion even faster
- Being denied health insurance at all for an ever growing list of preexisting conditions
- Being dumped from your insurance the second you get sick, generally being forced to declare bankruptcy while dealing with cancer
Between gutting the expanded ACA subsidies and trashing Medicaid in general, all Republicans have managed to accomplish is dramatically increasing the number of people who will now use the emergency room as their primary care doctor. Great work!
I think the mandate was for anyone not insured. If you couldn't afford Insurance, you received it for free and on the backs of taxpayers.
RomneyCare was a joke, just like ObamaCare. I don't remember hearing anyone supporting RomneyCare when they learned about it, except big government ideologues...
Now, I'm not opposed to some simple laws managing how Insurance Providers operate. What they are? I'm not sure. Personally, I'd like to see a complete overhaul of all laws governing Insurance and start over with something simple.
Single payer doesn't work anywhere, unless you dont spend money on other things, like Military. For all these great country's you will call out, I bet they damn near completely rely on the US for defense.
Smapty, is health insurance a right? If so, how does a person get that right?
Understand, I am separating Health Insurance from Health Care as they are two different things. One is a means of performing a service for sickness and the other is a payment method. Don't conflate the two...
The "joke" was the years of "repeal and replace" nonsense you guys tried after ObamaCare. You never could figure out the "replace" part, because affordable health care isn't simple.
There still is no Republican plan, outside of hoping that a sizeable percentage of the population will be fine watching their kids die with no access to health care and then not eventually revolt and shove your fat heads through a guillotine. Looks like MAGA has decided to take their chances with that "plan". Good luck!
Exaggerate much?
Nope! Oh, that's right... your plan is to have everyone that used to be on Medicaid just use the emergency room for their health care. I bet that'll work great and won't collapse the system at all!
You've clearly thought this through.
Civilized said:hokiewolf said:
No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"
Really?
Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.
If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.
If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.
Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).
But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.
Civilized said:Oldsouljer said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:
No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"
Really?
Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.
If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.
If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.
Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).
But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.
Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.
Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.
National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.
And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.
Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).
hokiewolf said:wolf howl said:
Find you someone that loves you as much as Democrats love not funding the military service members right now.
All that has to happen is Johnson gavels in the House and they do it legally. Why is that too much to ask? Hell, you might even get some democrats stupid enough to vote on record against it.
And Lol Oldsouljer's post right after yours. Because he's spot on. You should go read it.
caryking said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:
No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"
Really?
Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.
If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.
If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.
Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).
But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.
Perhaps, just killing it is better. BTW, I see Smapty didn't answer my previous question. Perhaps you will…
Is health insurance a right? If so, where did they get that right?
wolf howl said:
Find you someone that loves you as much as Democrats love not funding the military service members right now.
Jack Smith tracked my private communications and those of my colleagues during his witch hunt to investigate @POTUS.
— Senator Bill Hagerty (@SenatorHagerty) October 6, 2025
This is exactly the type of political weaponization of the federal government under Presidents Obama and Biden that Republicans and President Trump have been… pic.twitter.com/hzGtXnjngV
Border Czar Tom Homan SNAPS back after Chris Cuomo attacks ICE’s deportation strategy.
— Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) October 16, 2025
Cuomo accused Homan of “cutting muscle, not fat” in his deportation efforts, adding that it was a “bad look” and his agents looked “like Hamas.”
Cuomo also claimed Homan wasn’t being… pic.twitter.com/ubv7VqbVfL
🚨 JUST NOW: Judge Susan Illston hereby BLOCKS President Trump from firing federal employees while Democrats have the government shut down.
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 15, 2025
Holy crap. She thinks she's President of the United States.
We have a huge judicial tyranny problem and it reveals itself every week at… pic.twitter.com/sW0EJ5f2fs
John Fetterman just blew up Democrats' shut down narrative.
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 16, 2025
FETTERMAN: "Shutting the government is really what the Democratic Party wants to do... [Obamacare subsidies were] designed by the Democratic Party to expire ... This is NOT something taken by the Republicans.” pic.twitter.com/VE4s1LRWDE
John Fetterman brings the Kennedy Center to complete silence as he delivers this emotional message on stage:
— Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) October 16, 2025
“I know and I love people who voted for President Trump. They are NOT fascists, they’re NOT Nazis, they’re NOT trying to destroy the Constitution.”
“I REFUSE to call… pic.twitter.com/f9U8tnYlJy
Cthepack said:caryking said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:
No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"
Really?
Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.
If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.
If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.
Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).
But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.
Perhaps, just killing it is better. BTW, I see Smapty didn't answer my previous question. Perhaps you will…
Is health insurance a right? If so, where did they get that right?
Cary. Let me take a stab at your question. I preface this by saying I do not have a solution or doesf one even exists.
No, health insurance is not a right. But I ask why is there a need for health insurance?
My belief - To be a strong country you need to have healthy, educated, citizens. My socialist side would be to give children the best health care and best education that exists. This then gives us the healthiest smartest citizens in the world. The problem is to do this you need government to do government things and government sucks at doing government things.
Oldsouljer said:Civilized said:Oldsouljer said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:
No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"
Really?
Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.
If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.
If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.
Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).
But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.
Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.
Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.
National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.
And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.
Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).
Ridiculous or not, it's quite beside the point that the law is the law and the Constitution is the supreme law. If one doesn't take a strict constructionist position on one part of the constitution, one can't take a strict constructionist position on any part of it. What you're basically saying here is that "you don't like the law so let's not follow it".
Cthepack said:caryking said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:
No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"
Really?
Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.
If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.
If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.
Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).
But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.
Perhaps, just killing it is better. BTW, I see Smapty didn't answer my previous question. Perhaps you will…
Is health insurance a right? If so, where did they get that right?
Cary. Let me take a stab at your question. I preface this by saying I do not have a solution or doesf one even exists.
No, health insurance is not a right. But I ask why is there a need for health insurance?
My belief - To be a strong country you need to have healthy, educated, citizens. My socialist side would be to give children the best health care and best education that exists. This then gives us the healthiest smartest citizens in the world. The problem is to do this you need government to do government things and government sucks at doing government things.
hokiewolf said:
This is a really good conversation and I agree with both arguments, which is why Congress needs to act.Border Czar Tom Homan SNAPS back after Chris Cuomo attacks ICE’s deportation strategy.
— Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) October 16, 2025
Cuomo accused Homan of “cutting muscle, not fat” in his deportation efforts, adding that it was a “bad look” and his agents looked “like Hamas.”
Cuomo also claimed Homan wasn’t being… pic.twitter.com/ubv7VqbVfL
streamline the broken legal immigration system.caryking said:hokiewolf said:
This is a really good conversation and I agree with both arguments, which is why Congress needs to act.Border Czar Tom Homan SNAPS back after Chris Cuomo attacks ICE’s deportation strategy.
— Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) October 16, 2025
Cuomo accused Homan of “cutting muscle, not fat” in his deportation efforts, adding that it was a “bad look” and his agents looked “like Hamas.”
Cuomo also claimed Homan wasn’t being… pic.twitter.com/ubv7VqbVfL
What action should Congress take with supporting Tom Holman in his points and more importantly, his actions?
Civilized said:Oldsouljer said:Civilized said:Oldsouljer said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:
No kidding. It's this hyperbole that solves nothing with respect to healthcare. Saying that is saying "I don't want to fix it"
Really?
Because it sure seems like what solves nothing is Republicans wanting to Monday Morning QB and delete Obamacare without ever doing the hard work of coming up with a more affordable, more accessible, more inclusive plan.
If someone in my family doesn't like the dinner spot that gets thrown out to the group, they have to come up with something better or else we just stick with what we have.
If one of my staff points out a problem on a job without also suggesting a solution, I remind them that announcing problems is the easy, low-value part of ultimately addressing an issue.
Like Smapty said, you may think Obamacare is now too expensive (but not without acknowledging the since-deleted mandate helped address the affordability piece).
But you can't with any level of serioiusness say that the Republicans have put forth anything that's better because they haven't put forth anything at all. They've just done the easy part without adding any value.
Aside from care for prisoners and veterans, I've never been clear on why medicine and medical insurance is any Constitutional business of the federal government.
Because it's ridiculous to take a strict constructionist stance on issues like this. The Constitution was written in 1787, decades or centuries before industrialization, the Internet, global markets, or nationwide healthcare systems existed.
National or global issues can't be managed effectively by 50 separate states.
And private industry and the market has shown it's incapable of providing adequate coverage and care for Americans, absent incentives and/or participation by the government.
Which first-world countries enjoy the best health outcomes and highest ROI on per-capita spending? How do they administer care? Which countries rank lowest on that same scale (I'll give you three guesses but you'll only need one).
Ridiculous or not, it's quite beside the point that the law is the law and the Constitution is the supreme law. If one doesn't take a strict constructionist position on one part of the constitution, one can't take a strict constructionist position on any part of it. What you're basically saying here is that "you don't like the law so let's not follow it".
The fetishization of constructionism regarding select issues is always so odd and arbitrary to me.
We haven't been strict constitutionalists since the 1790's. Why do we want to go back to 1785?
