- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
But, but, but....How can that be?....All conservatives are old white men.....:shock:
Race card...what a surprise. Did it ever occur to you that some of us here against Obamacare are black?
Her words but not her rules.
Rules which, I believe, the Republicans in the House have yet to reform.
This seems to be in direct violation of the SCOTUS ruling, that made "fines" or "penalties" illegal in the original PPACA law. I believe that they were originally in the form of reduced Medicaid funding for states that did not "comply" with that unfunded mandate to set up "exchanges".
The PPACA law basically requires you to buy from the exchanges in order to get your federal PPACA FIT subsidy.
Has anybody reformed them? Or is it only the Republicans who are responsible? They and the Democrats are equally guilty of abusing it....
Can the house vote to defund Obamacare and if so, why haven't they??? I've heard from sources both ways and don't know which is correct.
They can't defund it, they can only choose to not fund it. Not sure how far into the future it originally was funded for.
I thought there was something that the States didn't have to take on More than what they already had allocated. That the Scotus ruled the Fed couldn't make the States take more money on for Medaid thru them. Or something like that.
Medicaid Expansion, Regulations & Spending Clause
As a part of the Medicaid Expansion of PPACA, States are compelled to follow new regulations or risk losing their current Medicaid funding. This part of the bill was also under the constitutional microscope. The result was a 5-4 overturning of this part of the bill. Here is the crux of the issue:
Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for States to act in accordance with federal policies. But when “pressure turns into compulsion,” ibid., the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.
More specifically, the decision came down to the accountability of our democratic system:
…when the State has no choice, the Federal Government can achieve its objectives without accountability…
“[W]here the Federal Government directs the States to regulate, it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.” Id., at 169.
Had non-compliance only risked loss of the medicaid expansion funding, it may have survived constitutionality in this regard:
…Spending Clause programs do not pose this danger when a State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds.
Implications:
For practical purposes, the threat of losing current medicaid funding will not be permitted to induce compliance to the new regulations. The decision, also, sets a strict precedent limiting the power of the federal to govern the states.
You mean, states don't get to pull a Calhoun anytime they wish, simply because they don't like the law?
Jumping Christ!
Illegal immigration for those under 30, with Obama's dreamy executive order. Congress made the law, Obama decided not to comply. Hmm...
Has anybody reformed them? Or is it only the Republicans who are responsible? They and the Democrats are equally guilty of abusing it....
But, but, but....How can that be?....All conservatives are old white men.....:shock:
Then you're still faulty for blaming Pelosi when all she said was the truth of the matter, especially when the other side isn't willing to do anything to make the situation better.
I'm sure you know I meant a law where the defiance was of the President, not by the President. To put it more simply, laws that apply to you Mr. Citizen, not the overlords.
Maybe we'll have a Medical Revolution where rebel groups in camouflage put up a die-hard resistance to insurance but really, that's kind of hopeless.
I had a "reacher" back in the humanism era who told us to examine every situation where we were fearful by asking this one question:
If this comes to pass, what is your worst negative fantasy?
So, I''ll ask... What will this law do at its worst?
No, I'm not 'faulty'..... she said the words, and boy were they correct.....
Yes she said them. But she was not the one who has made rules in the House in regards to how bills are amended. So it's faulty to blame her for that. Especially when Republicans don't reform the House rules.
What does how bills are amended have to do with what she said and what the bill contained at the time it was passed? You keep posting as though it was the sole responsibility of the Republicans (of which I am not) to amend the rules for bills....
but not all old white men are conservatives.....trust me....
I'm not saying it's the sole responsibility of the Republicans to reform the rules to amending a bill.
However, it's hypocritical to blame Pelosi for the lack of reform by bringing up that quote, especially when it isn't an advocacy of that position on the rules but merely stating how the rules are.
No Demo should ever be held accountable for anything, because we all know, it is Bush's fault.
You can hold Pelosi accountable for saying the truth about how the House rules on amending bills are.
To blame Pelosi herself for those rules, however, is partisan idiocy, though.
Especially when the Republicans - or at least as far as I'm aware - haven't reformed those rules.
Most of these changes in the PPACA law are "refinements" or blanks filled in by the executive agencies implementing the "details" (an ongoing process). The same is true of other federal laws, like the ones that make hundreds of "street" or "recreational" drugs illegal - the original law listed some "controlled and dangerous" substances yet many more were later added to that list without further specific congressional debate/action.
House rules have little to do with these "post passage amendments".
I'm not saying it's the sole responsibility of the Republicans to reform the rules to amending a bill.
However, it's hypocritical to blame Pelosi for the lack of reform by bringing up that quote, especially when it isn't an advocacy of that position on the rules but merely stating how the rules are.
Okay, you are taking the begining, and grabbing the end, and trying to come up with something in the middle......
BEFORE the bill was passed (you can't amend a bill that hasn't passed yet) Pelosi said, 'you have to pass it to see what's in it', which when all was said and done, was a bag of garbage that was foisted on the American public.
Therefore, Pelosi IS responsible for her words. She did NOT say, 'well, you might not want to vote for this', or disown any part of it. Therefore she IS responsible for her words.
What they did or did not do with it after that, since anything the R's try to amend it with will be shot down, will also be laid at her door. She allowed it to be passed as it was.
She is responsible for her words, yes.
But she is not responsible that bills can be amended up until they are passed.
That is determined by the rules of the House.
You can hold Pelosi accountable for saying the truth about how the House rules on amending bills are.
To blame Pelosi herself for those rules, however, is partisan idiocy, though.
Especially when the Republicans - or at least as far as I'm aware - haven't reformed those rules.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.
Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules | Conservative News, Views & Books
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?