RE: The vitriol with which people spout factually false information on this site can be a bit off-putting at times.
The problem I often have with posters at FR is they post one liners which DO NOT address the points raised in an article.
Many are simply trying to come up with clever one liners, and that’s all. For instance, I once posted an article from the National Review which was actually favorable and supportive of Trump.
I got several posts on that thread that can be summarized in one short post : “National Review sucks”. THAT’s IT.
I do appreciate those who try to respond to the issues raised and to refute the points presented by the authors.
Here's a real problem to fix:
The bill doesn't remove the individual mandate. It revises the penalty to $0. This change is on page 83/84. It amends the Internal Revenue code 5000A and leaves the requirement for insurance in place. It remains in place because the federal penalty has been replaced with an insurance fine.Here's another real problem to fix:
However, this bill would make the situation even worse than Obamacare. Although Obamacare didn’t require photo ID and fingerprints to verify identity, it did harness the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database. Thus, officials were at least able to check immigration status against Social Security numbers. The problem with this bill is that because it tweaks Obamacare and creates a new massive entitlement system through the budget reconciliation process, it cannot have the statutory effect of mandating HHS and IRS work with Citizenship and Immigration Services to use the SAVE database because that issue is outside the jurisdiction of the reporting committees. And no subject matter from other committees can be included in reconciliation.Thus, to pass Obamacare 2.0 instead of plain repeal via budget reconciliation, Republicans must use weaker verification language.