ObamaCare repeal FAIL
- Thread starter Cancel9
- Start date
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
apparently the Dems were not daunted by unconstitutionality.....
Cancel9
Banned
Let's all protest like Egyptians.
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
Seems a bit overkill. As far as the law is concerned Obamacare is Dead. Until a higher court says otherwise.
Then again we are talking about Congressmen, They sort of live in a bubble.
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
Who is the "we" your referring to?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
why do cancel9's posts make me think of Mojo...
Bfgrn
New member
WRONG...the law is enacted and will continue to add scheduled provisions until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
The bill has many great provisions and benefits for We, the people. Just because a bunch of right wing authoritarians and fanatical talking heads keep lying about it doesn't make it so.
David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
Posted by Bruce Bartlett
As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.
Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.
Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud
Waterloo - David Frum former Bush II speechwriter
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
WRONG...the law is enacted and will continue to add scheduled provisions until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
The bill has many great provisions and benefits for We, the people. Just because a bunch of right wing authoritarians and fanatical talking heads keep lying about it doesn't make it so.
David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind
Posted by Bruce Bartlett
As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.
Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.
Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud
Waterloo - David Frum former Bush II speechwriter
At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.
Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.
This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
So you like getting a prescription for aspirin, and going to jail when you can't pay.
Last edited:
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
You would be entirely wrong on that. As it stands, Obamacare is Null and Void. Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case, making this ruling the only ruling.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Bfgrn
New member
REALLY??? There were two federal court ruling that upheld the law and two federal court rulings that didn't. There will be an appeals process, but it will most likely be decided by the Supreme Court. In the meantime it IS THE LAW. That is something every right winger professes to comprehend.
BTW, why would Mitch McConnell waste time and taxpayer's money bringing a vote to the floor of the Senate...do these new tea partiers need practice on procedure?
Bfgrn
New member
So you like getting a prescription for aspirin, and going to jail when you can't pay.
Most people will never notice the mandate, as they get insurance through their employer and that's good enough for the government. But of those who aren't exempt and aren't insured, the choice will be this: Purchase insurance or pay a small fine. In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. That makes the mandate progressive.
And what happens if you don't buy insurance and you don't pay the penalty? Well, not much. The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent.
The theory behind the mandate is simple: It's there to protect against an insurance death spiral. Now that insurers can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions, it would be entirely possible for people to forgo insurance until, well, they develop a medical condition. In that world, the bulk of the people buying insurance on the exchanges are sick, and that makes the average premiums terrifically expensive. The mandate is there to bring healthy people into the pool, which keeps average costs down and also ensures that people aren't riding free on the system by letting society pay when they get hit by a bus.
The irony of the mandate is that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax on decent, hardworking people who don't want to purchase insurance. In reality, it's the best deal in the bill: A cynical consumer would be smart to pay the modest penalty rather than pay thousands of dollars a year for insurance. In the current system, that's a bad idea because insurers won't let them buy insurance if they get sick later. In the reformed system, there's no consequence for that behavior. You could pay the penalty for five years and then buy insurance the day you felt a lump.
Luckily, consumers aren't usually that cynical, and the experience of places such as Massachusetts suggests that individual mandates encourage people to buy insurance even when it might make sense for people to simply pay the penalty. But for all the furor over the individual mandate, the danger in the bill is much more that it is too weak and too good a deal than that it is too strong and too punitive a tax.
Washington Post
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
Because you're suffering from the same complex that plagues a number of other posters here...
christiefan915
Catalyst
Null and void, how so?
The judge scorecard is tied at 2-2 and the law still stands.
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
You haven't been paying attention to the Rulings. The other rulings were specfic to just the individual Mandate. Vinson ruling struck down the entire Law.
NO, in the meantime, it is NOT the law, until some Higher court reverses the ruling. It's pretty simple stuff, really
Bfgrn
New member
You haven't paid attention to the details of the ruling...
The case is one of 25 challenges that have been filed in federal courts since the law was enacted last March. Four suits have now been decided on their merits - two rulings upholding the law and, with Monday's decision, two finding all or part of it unconstitutional. The law's constitutionality is widely expected to ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.
Vinson stopped short of granting an injunction, as the plaintiffs requested, to prevent the law from going forward while the case is appealed. He said such a step was unnecessary because of a "long-standing presumption" that the federal government adheres to rulings of this type.
Washington Post
"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
As I said, Vinson threw out the Entire Law. It wouldn't matter if it was 2000-1. Only the 1 matters.
Florida Ruling Requires Government to Stop Implementing Obamacare
FuzzyBunny
Verified User
While they may in fact rule on the case, It doesn't change the fact the the Obamacare is currently DEAD and the Court will be hearing the case on Appeal of its being dead.
It's amazing people have such conflicting views of the Court system. 1 court rules Dont ask dont tell unconstitutional and there was dancing in the streets.