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.
Were they given the time to read? No. You have to approve it to read it.
The law is 2000+ pages. If it is for the people, why do you need 2000 pages? You can do it in 1 paragraph.
You must have many pages in order to create over 50 bureaucracies to administer this kind of law. Why can't people understand that? Why can't people see that more bureaucracy just weakens our system?
Exactly! They know it isn't going any where and if they could repeal it they have nothing in the works for their new and improved one.
You need to start watching Fox News to find out what is going on. Today a woman who is a Representative (R) gave a short form of the bill she plans to introduce tomorrow. No they have no plans to replace this thing, at least when you listen to only Democrats.
I absolutely love it, you have a Representative saying that the vote to repeal is not 'merely symbolic" and yet they know there is no chance of it passing the Senate Floor.Just another way to garner votes in the 2012 Election. Oh and a humongous WASTE of money and time in the mean time. Gotta love those Politicians.
I hate to say this but just today I read on two different sites about how the Senate Dems could bust their backs and manage to get to put this thing to a vote. Dirty Harry is not sure he could get the votes to support his crap or he would just put the thing to a vote tomorrow. Anyone with a brain knows that there are fool rules in the Senate that might get them into trouble. Therefore, i will tell you about my sources after they screw up if they do.
They did vote to repeal it today, and of-course we know it is going no where but right past the Senate straight to the President where it will be vetoed. End of story, mission accomplished, as in promise kept by the right, and by retaining the bill by the left. Now maybe everyone can get down to the real business at hand.
Casper
Can the President veto a bill that has passed only one house? I wonder why that would happen. Maybe you need to read the bolded words in your post to see what I am talking about and then tell me how much sense that makes.
If the refuticans were SOOO interested in healthcare why did'nt they do anything the last eight years? All of this crap is petty politics, if you want to save money make ALL of the Congressmen, senators, judges and anyone else who earns over 125,000 a year pay for their own. Does anyone think that they and their families cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare? I really believe since they do not have to pay for theirs, and they take having gold star health insurance for granted. But what really burns my drawers is the fact that they have the audacity to keep others for getting any kind of affordable healthcare regardless of the cost. The budget? The hell with it! I can recall when this country went to war on borrowed money that is STILL is not all accounted for. So now since these are the same men and women who in the last eight or so years were spending money like a sailor or shore leave all of the sudden want to close up the purse strings when it comes to helping the very same people that got them their "cushy" jobs in the first place!
So some of you who have some sort of heallthcare coverage find a need to complain about the cost of it for the less fortunate, ---- ---! To those of you who don't have any healthcare coverage but support the repeal (and by the way no real plan of making it work) you deserve whatever you get
Everyone was bitching abut how many pages it is and so i wonder if any of them has actually read it?
I think the ones that sign on the dotted line are responsible for knowing what was in the bill. We hear about elderly people being taking advantage of all the time because they don't know what they are signing. Is this what we want our congress to be like. are those idiots in congress to old to know better? no!! They are too lazy to care about what they are doing to the American people. those people who vote for a bill with out reading it, should be fired!!!
heyhave now but of course the administation still hasn't figured out how to implement much of it. Its those who voted not knowig what it contained that really should be worried about same as they did the stimulus and so many bills.If i had been told that the stimulus was a massive infrastructure bill that wouold creat millions of jobs and then saw where the moeny went :i also would be piossed but then alos relaise that I voted that way and my admitting it would mean I am gone in the next election.
"Constitutionality of any law is determined by the judicial system. The constitution couldn’t be more specific than that on the subject."
Not sure what specific part of the Constitution you are using to arrive at that conclusion, but if that is in fact the case, the courts correctly determined African slaves and their children could never be US citizens and were property which a slave owner had a Constitutional right to possess. Moreover, using your logic, the courts which have reversed themselves and lower courts on countless occasions have been correct with every original decision and the subsequent reversals of those same decisions.
The Constitution was written in everyday English so each US citizen could read it, understand it, live out its principles and fight to defend it. Creating a judicial king to replace George III was never the plan, though some have used the courts to circumvent the Constitution.
"Personally, I couldn’t care less about mandate to buy insurance. In fact, it doesn't come as a surprise to me that it was floated by republicans in the 1990s in the alternate health care plan. Perhaps a lesson to take out of this is to never take republican ideas and try to implement them. They can backfire and you get blamed for it. Clinton certainly got the blame, and deservedly so, for repealing Glass-Steagall act, for example."
I must admit I've never read this Republican proposal which I have heard so much about and am not familiar with the details involved. Having said that, were a single payer system proposed with taxes used to pay for it taken from the general fund, that proposal would pass Constitutional muster. Democrats might have proposed that if creating health care reform that provides benefits for all citizens were ever the goal of Obamacare, but it wasn't and it isn't. Obamacare was designed to pacify enough of the population with attractive benefits long enough to bankrupt private insurers. Under the Obamacare plan, individuals can simply pay the modest non-compliance fine while healthy, purchase a policy when they become sick and then drop the policy once the medical bills are paid. With private insurers out of the way, the federal government would be in a position to force whatever changes on us they like and which specifically serve the interests of office holders over the people.
I say, let us all work to repeal that aspect of the law and see how republican politicians react to it. They don’t like it, right? There just might be greater possibility of getting THAT done than the political posturing being staged at the Capitol Hill as we speak.
What do you say?
The last election was a referendum on the self-dealing and corruption in Washington. Poll after poll showed voter anger has never been greater or confidence in Congress lower. Furthermore, many of those who lost their seats were defeated in so small measure for supporting Obamacare, and many of those who replaced them won because they pledged to repeal it. Further compromising on flawed, destructive and unwanted legislation will simply pour more salt on fresh wounds. I say let the Democrats continue to resist the expressed will of the voters since that will make a conservative clean sweep easier next year.
P.S. Clinton and the Democrats in Congress opposed the repeal of Glass-Steigall until GLBA included provisions for strengthening the CRA so groups like ACORN could more easily shake-down banks. The final bill was widely supported by both parties and serves as an excellent example of why bi-partisanship should be viewed with a high degree of skepticism.
Of the 45 Democratic Senators, 38 voted in favor of the bill. In the House 151 of 211 Democratic Representatives voted to pass the bill with 5 not voting.
Can the President veto a bill that has passed only one house? I wonder why that would happen. Maybe you need to read the bolded words in your post to see what I am talking about and then tell me how much sense that makes.
It will fly through the Senate, may go back from there. No matter what the repeal is history.
Casper
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.
