Obama won the battle, but now likely not the war

[washunut]

If the Federal Government would spend the money to put some informational programs about ACA on the air -- explaining to people how it will work for them, then those who don't support the ACA because they don't really understand it would be eliminated.

Good idea. They could rent about 50 hours of time on TV, then have someone read the bill. The next week they could have someone explain what the other guy said.

 

[MarineTpartier]

You don't find it troubling that almost all of those accomplishments took place in the 19th century when, let's be honest, the makeup of the parties was completely different?

Did you read his post? He said in HISTORY. Did you read my post? I said they haven't done anything of worth since Clinton was POTUS. There's no debate here, stop trying to create one.

 

[Born Free]

I'm not worried about Obama. I want to know is when he wins his second term, will you all pack up your tents and go back home like good Americans do when they lose an election? It would show your love of country and your understanding of the democratic process.

I see you forgot the midterms in 2010.

 

[Born Free]

:lamo

I can't wait for that to start happening .

And I love how it's assumed that those who oppose it "must just not understand". As though we haven't hammered this thing out ad nauseum over the last two and a half years.

Yeah they'll talk all about the free stuff, and eliminate who has to pay for it, and how much it's going to raise the national debt.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

The "battle" in getting Obamacare passed was amongst the Democrats, themselves. The Republicans and the People were shut out...ignored. The Democrats reaped the reward for their actions in 2010 and...now that the Supremes have exposed Obama and the Democrats as liars...they will reap further rewards in 2012.

Good point; liberals did this behind closed doors without input from the other side of the isle. So much for transparency, eh? Partisan politics hard at work.

I don't really have a problem with this practice though, that's how our system works. The majority of American people are responsible for this because of who they elected. I defer to the remarks of Chief Justice John Roberts:

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Let's see if the 60% of Americans who didn't want Obamacare go to the polls in November.

 

[notquiteright]

The Republicans were not shut out, they got many opportunities to obstruct, throw huge numbers of amendments in the way. They got ample TV face time to try and push 'death panels' and smear campaigns. They excluded themselves by sitting on the far right refusing to negotiate. Hell even McCain's campaign pledges on healthcare reform were disavowed.

In short the GOP wasn't excluded but sat the debate out in the corner flinging poo. :doh

Oh yes it was a certification, the battle was in congress to get it passed. In town hall meetings where shieking old women collapsed crying for their country back and corrpulent old white men spoke in strangled angry words about death to tyrants, communism, government take over... THAT was the battlefield, not infront of the Supreme Court. Calling a court decision a battle seems awfully weak wristed. The Supreme Court reviewed the law, just like it does dozens of others after the battle is done and checks for Constitutionality, best either side gets to do is prance around infront of the 9 answering questions.

Now the losers can attempt to reopen the battle. They can attempt to snipe at it's heels looking for weak points. They can skirmish at the state level and herald every victory no matter how small and lament the fate of our Republic with every loss... :roll:

 

[Fletch]

The Republicans were not shut out, they got many opportunities to obstruct, throw huge numbers of amendments in the way. They got ample TV face time to try and push 'death panels' and smear campaigns. They excluded themselves by sitting on the far right refusing to negotiate. Hell even McCain's campaign pledges on healthcare reform were disavowed.

In short the GOP wasn't excluded but sat the debate out in the corner flinging poo. :doh

Oh yes it was a certification, the battle was in congress to get it passed. In town hall meetings where shieking old women collapsed crying for their country back and corrpulent old white men spoke in strangled angry words about death to tyrants, communism, government take over... THAT was the battlefield, not infront of the Supreme Court. Calling a court decision a battle seems awfully weak wristed. The Supreme Court reviewed the law, just like it does dozens of others after the battle is done and checks for Constitutionality, best either side gets to do is prance around infront of the 9 answering questions.

Now the losers can attempt to reopen the battle. They can attempt to snipe at it's heels looking for weak points. They can skirmish at the state level and herald every victory no matter how small and lament the fate of our Republic with every loss... :roll:

None of that is true, of course. Pelosi and the house locked the republicans out of the process, but that is how the house of representatives often works. The party in power has all the power and often uses it to the exclusion of the minority. In the senate, however, there was some bipartisanship early on, but republicans peeled off as deems realized they needed none of them to get the bill through. Even much lauded republican moderates like the two female senators from Maine walked away.

The truth is, obamacare really had little to do with Obama and nothing to do with bipartisanship, and everything to do with pelosi and Reid. Democrats rammed it through, paid the price in 2010 and may pay the price again this fall. The evidence for this will be seen in how little the deems want to talk about the bill. It is not good legislation and it's not popular and it will work against those that passed it.

 

[upsideguy]

This is probably one of the biggest falsehoods I have read in awhile on this website. I'm not Republican, but, if you want to make a statement, at least fact check it. I will agree with you that the GOP hasn't done anything of worth since Clintion was POTUS. However, to say they've never done anything in HISTORY, is inaccurate to say the least.

-In 1862, the Republican-controlled 37th Congress passed the Pacific Railway Act, establishing the transcontinental railroad. The bill, written by U.S. Representative Samuel Curtis (R-IA), was signed into law later that day by Republican President Abraham Lincoln.
-In 1862, the Republican-controlled 37th Congress passed the Land-Grant College Act. The law, written by Representative Justin Morrill (R-VT), distributed federal land to states to fund the establishment of colleges and universities throughout the country. The dozens of land-grant colleges include the Cornell University, Iowa State University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, and the University of Illinois, among many others.
-Congressional Republicans passed the 13th Amendment unanimously – against nearly unanimous Democrat opposition – and it was ratified within the year.
-The principal author of the 14th Amendment was U.S. Rep. John Bingham (R-OH). In Congress, all votes in favor of the 14th Amendment were from Republicans, and all votes against it were from Democrats.
-Just a few days after passage of the GOP’s 1957 Civil Rights Act, the Democrat governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to prevent the court-ordered racial integration of a public high school in Little Rock. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower refused to tolerate defiance of the federal judiciary. Under a plan suggested by his attorney general, the President placed the governor’s soldiers under federal control and ordered federal troops to the state, where they escorted African-American children to school.

Republicans were unfazed by the many Democrats, including John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who criticized President Eisenhower for the action he took to uphold civil rights.
-In August 1996, the Republican-controlled 104th Congress passed the GOP's Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act

Did you read his post? He said in HISTORY. Did you read my post? I said they haven't done anything of worth since Clinton was POTUS. There's no debate here, stop trying to create one.

yes, I did say history... and yes I did research the statement before posting it and found nothing particularly noteworthy in the past century. So perhaps I overstated my point in making my point. So, guilty as charged. Wow, am I the first DP poster to use hyperbole. I am so sorry!

Then again, in refuting my point, you had to go back 150 years and speak of a Republican party that none of us know today, as the Lincoln Republican party has almost ZERO in common with what we know as the Republican party of 2012. But thank you, as your answer did far more to affirm my statement than deny it. Yes, Land Grant colleges are great as is the 14th amendment, but these items were 150 year ago. You gave me maybe one example of the last 100; then told me I touted one of the biggest falsehoods ever perpetrated on this board (ah, help yourself to some hyperbole). Instead, I think you and I helped reveal of the great truths not previously understood on this board: The fact of the matter is The Republican legislative history is pretty damn pathetic.

 

[Mycroft]

yes, I did say history... and yes I did research the statement before posting it and found nothing particularly noteworthy in the past century. So perhaps I overstated my point in making my point. So, guilty as charged. Wow, am I the first DP poster to use hyperbole. I am so sorry!

Then again, in refuting my point, you had to go back 150 years and speak of a Republican party that none of us know today, as the Lincoln Republican party has almost ZERO in common with what we know as the Republican party of 2012. But thank you, as your answer did far more to affirm my statement than deny it. Yes, Land Grant colleges are great as is the 14th amendment, but these items were 150 year ago. You gave me maybe one example of the last 100; then told me I touted one of the biggest falsehoods ever perpetrated on this board (ah, help yourself to some hyperbole). Instead, I think you and I helped reveal of the great truths not previously understood on this board: The fact of the matter is The Republican legislative history is pretty damn pathetic.

It must be nice to be so politically biased that you are able to ignore or discount historical facts.

Now, regardless your ability to do so, I will shove the facts in front of your face. While another poster proved you wrong by providing evidence...there's more:

Political News: American Achievements: Political Achievements | RNC: Republican National Committee | GOP

Furthermore, Republicans have been quite active in the environmental front as well:

Top Republican Environmental Accomplishments - Environmental Republicans - The Daily Green

So, upsideguy, you are free to attempt to discount and diminish facts...but you can't erase them.

 

[haymarket]

the biggest lie put out was Obama claiming to the public the individual mandate was not a tax, and then out of the other side of his face, arguing to SCOTUS it is a tax.

Tax, assessment, fee, penalty, fine, burrito - who the hell cares if you are not paying it and the experience of Massachusetts is that only about 1% do end up hit by it.

Big deal. :roll:

 

[cpwill]

1. Democrats controlled the House for 40 years. Blaming Republicans for not leading the legislative agenda during that time frame is silly.

2. When Republicans did take control of the House, they balanced the budget and reformed welfare to get millions out of poverty. They managed to do these things on a bipartisan basis.

3. What are the Democrats Legislative achievements in the past couple of decades? They bailed out the banks, a partisan health insurance tax law and a barely-bipartisan stimulus that seems to have flopped.

 

[haymarket]

None of that is true, of course. Pelosi and the house locked the republicans out of the process, but that is how the house of representatives often works. The party in power has all the power and often uses it to the exclusion of the minority. In the senate, however, there was some bipartisanship early on, but republicans peeled off as deems realized they needed none of them to get the bill through. Even much lauded republican moderates like the two female senators from Maine walked away.

The USA - that is what you are describing? What you seem to recall is nothing what I remember in any way shape or form.

 

[clownboy]

The USA - that is what you are describing? What you seem to recall is nothing what I remember in any way shape or form.

Could very well be that you weren't paying attention, or that your partisan blinders were working all too well. Of course Pelosi and the dems got short-sheeted too. While she and the dems were touting the public option, the president was in closed door meetings with insurance execs promising them it was off the table.

 

[Paschendale]

Explain this to me. Obama claimed it wasn't going to be a tax. House members who are not named Barack Obama wrote the health care bill. House and Senate members also not named Barack Obama modified it, and are the ones who determined what would or would not be a tax. Lawyers who are not named Barack Obama wrote the briefs and arguments on both sides, alleging whether or not portions of the bill were a tax. And then supreme court justices, also not named Barack Obama, wrote opinions and were the ones who ultimately determined that it was a tax.

What does the opinion of the president have to do with this at all? Whether he wanted this to be a tax or not, he didn't actually get to decide it. The members of the other two branches of crafted this legislation and had the final word on this.

 

[Mycroft]

Explain this to me. Obama claimed it wasn't going to be a tax. House members who are not named Barack Obama wrote the health care bill. House and Senate members also not named Barack Obama modified it, and are the ones who determined what would or would not be a tax. Lawyers who are not named Barack Obama wrote the briefs and arguments on both sides, alleging whether or not portions of the bill were a tax. And then supreme court justices, also not named Barack Obama, wrote opinions and were the ones who ultimately determined that it was a tax.

What does the opinion of the president have to do with this at all? Whether he wanted this to be a tax or not, he didn't actually get to decide it. The members of the other two branches of crafted this legislation and had the final word on this.

You make it sound as if Obama had nothing to do with Obamacare...except to say it wasn't a tax. If I recall correctly, Obama has quite a bit of involvement in constructing this mess.

Here is only one bit of involvement by Obama's administration: GOP Probe Uncovers Deal Between Obama, Drug Cos. on Obamacare

I'm suspect there was more.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

For a long time I had expected the Supreme Court to toss out the ACA, and deem it unconstitutional (as many others feel it should have been).

[cut for space]

On the coasts and in major cities, both of those policies have enthusiastic support, but in most of America, those policies are either loudly derided, or subtly wished to not be discussed because the people find them so appauling, since they go against the beliefs they hold true and felt their country was founded on. In an election as close as this, where so many of these southern bible belt and rust belt states are going to play a key part of the election, and there was already enough distrust of Obama over his handling of the economy, I doubt he can afford the uproar against ObamaCare and gay marriage.

This Supreme Court decision could spell the end for Obama.

You're jumping the gun here. The mistake a lot of people make, that you appear to have made, is not acknowledging that a lot of the push back against the AHCA is that it didn't go far enough. That kind of push back is not going to hurt Obama because it's from people who think Romney's plan for healthcare (repealing it) is a millions times worse than Obama's.

Also, gay marriage isn't going to hurt him either.

 

[Debra]

Well, you certainly paint a rosy picture of the effects of Obamacare. Unfortunately, you leave out the truly devastating portions...particularly the fees and taxes.



And you have tried to think of every nickel you can find that MIGHT cost you something here is a fact ..you are already paying for all the freeloaders out there!!! Your cost are going to skyrocket anyway!! As long as everyone is paying in the cost will go down ..I spent a week in the hospital last year in ICU my insurance was billed 749000.00 you know it can't really cost that much, but that is what happens when everyone with no insurance goes there for free care.

 

[Mycroft]

Well, you certainly paint a rosy picture of the effects of Obamacare. Unfortunately, you leave out the truly devastating portions...particularly the fees and taxes.



And you have tried to think of every nickel you can find that MIGHT cost you something here is a fact ..you are already paying for all the freeloaders out there!!! Your cost are going to skyrocket anyway!! As long as everyone is paying in the cost will go down ..I spent a week in the hospital last year in ICU my insurance was billed 749000.00 you know it can't really cost that much, but that is what happens when everyone with no insurance goes there for free care.

Perhaps some relief for the hospitals is in order. Such as not requiring them to give away health care. That would go a long way toward reducing your bill, don't you think?

Or, would you rather increase costs to everyone...providers, consumers...the ethanol industry?


Heck, if you try hard enough I think you could make a case to tack on a fee to Colorado's whitewater rafting industry.

 

[washunut]

Tax, assessment, fee, penalty, fine, burrito - who the hell cares if you are not paying it and the experience of Massachusetts is that only about 1% do end up hit by it.

Big deal. :roll:

What percent of people in Mass had insurance prior to the bill being passed?

 

[Debra]

Perhaps some relief for the hospitals is in order. Such as not requiring them to give away health care. That would go a long way toward reducing your bill, don't you think?

Or, would you rather increase costs to everyone...providers, consumers...the ethanol industry?


Heck, if you try hard enough I think you could make a case to tack on a fee to Colorado's whitewater rafting industry.

You are ridiculous and exaggerating the cost. The typical GOP sky is falling hysterics sure didn't hear you all grumbling when Bush/Cheney were racking up billions on the country credit card for their cherry picked war in Iraq why don't you break down the cost of that per American?

 

[TurtleDude]

You are ridiculous and exaggerating the cost. The typical GOP sky is falling hysterics sure didn't hear you all grumbling when Bush/Cheney were racking up billions on the country credit card for their cherry picked war in Iraq why don't you break down the cost of that per American?

yeah we wasted a lot of money on that war that may not have been necessary

but the military is a clear constitutional power of the federal government

Pray tell where does the USC say that health care is a proper function

 

[cpwill]

Explain this to me. Obama claimed it wasn't going to be a tax. House members who are not named Barack Obama wrote the health care bill. House and Senate members also not named Barack Obama modified it, and are the ones who determined what would or would not be a tax. Lawyers who are not named Barack Obama wrote the briefs and arguments on both sides, alleging whether or not portions of the bill were a tax. And then supreme court justices, also not named Barack Obama, wrote opinions and were the ones who ultimately determined that it was a tax.

What does the opinion of the president have to do with this at all? Whether he wanted this to be a tax or not, he didn't actually get to decide it. The members of the other two branches of crafted this legislation and had the final word on this.

wait, so the new theory is that Obama didn't want a tax, but those wascally Democwats in the congwess twicked him?

 

[Mycroft]

You are ridiculous and exaggerating the cost. The typical GOP sky is falling hysterics sure didn't hear you all grumbling when Bush/Cheney were racking up billions on the country credit card for their cherry picked war in Iraq why don't you break down the cost of that per American?

You consider $502 billion over the next 10 years to be an exaggeration? The Top 10 Most Expensive Obamacare Taxes and Fees

And that's only 10 of the 18...rather, 19...tax increases in Obamacare.

Now...if you want to talk about the war in Iraq...then start a thread. It has nothing to do with Obamacare.

(I DO find it amusing when liberals start talking about "but Bush did it". It means they don't have any rational rebuttals. Sucks to be a liberal, some times.)

 

[Debra]

yeah we wasted a lot of money on that war that may not have been necessary

but the military is a clear constitutional power of the federal government

Pray tell where does the USC say that health care is a proper function

Preamble to the constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish..." (emphasis added).

 

[TurtleDude]

Preamble to the constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish..." (emphasis added).

Ah another person who failed con law 101

just because dems call something welfare does not get around the 10th amendment

using your idiotic definition, that means congress has no limits.