Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. The point you're missing is that Reid DID NOT have to bring it up for a vote. The Republicans didn't force them to do it--they can't. The vote was entirely for the record, because the Dems are standing behind the program, and most of them plan on running on that record--voting for HCR--in the next election. If you don't like the HCR program fine, but evidently the Dem's are confident that enough people DO like it that they're willing to do a public vote on it when they absolutely didn't have to. Food for thought...
He brought it up for a vote ebcause of mounting presssure. He saqw the last election.The democrats certainly didn't feeel that way when they rushed it to a first vote before the elction or pay attention to the pol numbers. Now they just have to sufer the coming consequeneces. As Obama said elctions have them.
Yes, I am starting a business as we speak...I also work for a very good small business...
As a business, you also must pay for it before right....how would you look as a company owner and tell you workers....o.k., i'm gonna cut your pay for (insert years here) and then I might give you a portion back....oh and you may or may not be here when its implimented.....finally...
The chaos is already here....why do you think we have 700+ waivers....before it even begins...
So, again if all these people are dying on the streets as some dems would have you believe....why is the health care portion not "right now."
If you have a 5 and 10 year plan for your business (as you should) do you phase in that plan as your business grows and as you have the time, staff support and infrastructure to do it, or do you just try to start everything at once and jumble through it? I started mine 15 years ago with steps, and I'm still building it. That's how most businesses, and new programs, start and develop. You also adjust the plan as you go to address problems.
The law had the waiver process built into it, and they're temporary--AGAIN--to give companies time to adjust and plan. If problems arise with the bill, then they need to take a look at it and make changes--they just did that in a bipartisan effort by removing the reporting requirements for small business. Changing provisions doesn't mean the entire program is a failure--just that like in any good business plan, you adapt to address issues that arise as you go.
They attached it to another bill....so it had to be voted on? Am I missing something here?
Also, Harry said "it would NOT come to a vote", and it did....
Yup, you're right Chucksnee, it was attached to another bill by Mitch McConnell in order to force the vote. This puts the Dems votes on public record for the next election. This is a precursor for the run up to the 2012 elections. Even if it had passed, Obama would have vetoed it. The bill needs to either be defunded, segment by segment or overturned by the SC.
He brought it up for a vote ebcause of mounting presssure. He saqw the last election.The democrats certainly didn't feeel that way when they rushed it to a first vote before the elction or pay attention to the pol numbers. Now they just have to sufer the coming consequeneces. As Obama said elctions have them.
Mounting pressure from who? The republicans? Do you honestly think that the Dem's would hold a vote that would hurt them because the R's were calling them out on it, and force the Prez into a veto position? If they were ashamed of their vote, then the smart thing would have been to let the repeal bill die and move on. They've already said from day one that the repeal bill would never pass the Senate. If you recall, the R's countered by saying that Reid just didn't have the votes to block the repeal--that the blue dogs would vote with the R's. They held the vote, and that sure didn't happen. I think it was more of a "shut the heck up--this settles the matter" move by the Senate Dems to the House R's.
They attached it to another bill....so it had to be voted on? Am I missing something here?
Also, Harry said "it would NOT come to a vote", and it did....
You know what--you're right--they put it on a budget bill. I stand corrected. Still, if the Dem's were so worried about their vote, do you think they would have voted in support of it TWICE. The voting record is already there from the first time around if the R's want to use it as a campaign issue. I think the R's are playing a risky game with this, and I understand that they have to--the far end of the base is demanding it. They're gambling that the public won't like the provisions in two years, and they want to use it as an election platform. Two years is a long time--as the provisions open up and become more popular, they might find themselves a day late and a dollar short. I think that's what the Dem's are betting on.
Additionally, a Federal Judge has rules the bill void so shouldn't it be......void? Or is Obummer going to ingnore that ruling.
Actually two Federal Judges have ruled (portions of) the bill unconstitutional.
But guess what?!
Two Federal Judges have also ruled it completely constitutional!
And it's not "Obummer", it's PRESIDENT Obama. Show some respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Nothing activist about this judge.
You're joking, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
His ruling was defined by numerous original constitutional writings to which he properly supported his decision. This is not like for instance a judge who rules based on their individual opinion and subjectively defines their reasons (such as the Arizona and California judges did with immigration and gay marriage).
The "Judicial Overreach" is nothing more than a baseless claim right out of the White house blog.
You are welcome though to use the details of his decision to argue your point that it is as such, I would certainly be interested to hear as to why you claim such? Or is your response contingent on the next reason the White House will give, if they give any actual reason at all?
The Constitutionality of this law isn't merely riding on "original constitutional writings", but on already decided law, in particular, Wickard v Filburn. In the Wickard decision, the Supreme Court unanimously reasoned that the cumulative effect of not participating in purchasing a good on the open market, could have a substantial impact on the price of said goods on the open market, and could therefore be controlled under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
The only way the current Health Care Law can be stricken down is for the Supreme Court to completely overturn Wickard, which has the benefit of more than 68 years in practice, giving it the distinct advantage of stare decisis on the matter.
So everyone arguing here that the government cannot compel you to participate in the health care market by mandate, is actually making an argument against the Constitutionality of established law -- Wickard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stayinformed40
Exactly! And those 26 states have the backing of most of their residents to get rid of this terrible HC bill.
No they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brien51
Unless of course if you vote "present" as cowards do in legislatures.
It's now time to go for those appropriations bills so the federal government can't hire the workers and while they are at it, do the same with the EPA.
Rulings from federal court don't generally overturn entire sections of federal law on constitutional issues--sorry. It's called judicial overreach. I know there's been lots of talk about activist judges in the past--here's an example. Of course they're going to appeal it until it goes to the SCOTUS.
Please point out specifically, using the text of the FL federal judges ruling, how his declaration of Obama's Health Care Law as unConstitutional was "activist" in nature. Provide your links please.
No ONLY did the Dems get hammered on the Federal level, but they ALSO got hammered on the State level.
I think there is a good bit of "buyer's remorse" developing. I know in Fla, the Govs approval rating is now at a blistering 35%. But, by all means, continue to pretend you don't see what's going on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
