House approves bill gutting ObamaCare, cutting Planned Parenthood

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that apparently guts the ACA and cuts Planned Parenthood funding !!

Democrats called it a waste of time.

Probably true because the Senate may not not pass it and Obama sure won't sign it.

But it does send a message.


House approves bill gutting ObamaCare, cutting Planned Parenthood

The Republican-controlled House approved legislation Friday that would undo parts of ObamaCare and block federal funding to Planned Parenthood – though it faces turbulence in the Senate, and a certain veto from President Obama should it reach his desk.

The bill passed 240-189.

Though Republicans have gone after the Affordable Care Act before, as well as Planned Parenthood, this bill is unique in that it uses a parliamentary tactic to make it easier to pass the Senate. Republicans wrapped the bill in a procedure that would shield it from a Senate filibuster -- meaning it will need only 51 votes to pass that chamber, as opposed to 60.

a reply to: xuenchen

I know the next President would sign it.

Trump 2016.

a reply to: xuenchen

Wasn't this supposed to go through the house yesterday? Either way it's an example of what lawmakers shouldn't be doing. Passing bills that have no chance at getting through Congress much less the Presidents desk is a waste of everyones time. They should be trying to find something a majority can agree to.

Then again, I like having a functional rather than symbolic government.

a reply to: Aazadan

Would you rather be sitting on a fireracker that doesn't work, or an atomic bomb that does?

a reply to: Aazadan

Wrong my friend. The idea of the house of reps is to REPRESENT their constituency. Democracy...whether you agree with this or not ... depends on it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: xuenchen

Then again, I like having a functional rather than symbolic government.

How is government *NOT* functioning?

Would you rather see a full blown dictatorship like North Korea or Cuba?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Aazadan

Wrong my friend. The idea of the house of reps is to REPRESENT their constituency. Democracy...whether you agree with this or not ... depends on it.

And people seem to forget the Majority in the House of Representatives represents the majority of Citizens by population.

I could care less about the planned parenthood portion. But God I hope it passes. Obama Care is awful.

The stupid government wants me to pay like a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance. Something I don't need nor want. I don't have $2000 to pay the fine. Guess the government wants me to lose my house.

Oh yeah... I COULD pay like $400 a month for ObamaCare, and have a $6000 deductible I'll never meet. Yeah, pay $400 a month for something I can't even use.

Honestly, #### you Obama

a reply to: xuenchen

Exactly. There is a reason we have three branches of government. Government is supposed to be in gridlock to stop the liberal agenda. That is why we gave them the majority. If we had house leadership that would do what we put them there to do, Boehner wouldn't have been put out on his azz.

I didn't vote for them to go there and make friends.

originally posted by: WP4YT
I could care less about the planned parenthood portion. But God I hope it passes. Obama Care is awful.

The stupid government wants me to pay like a $2,000 fine for not having health insurance. Something I don't need nor want. I don't have $2000 to pay the fine. Guess the government wants me to lose my house.

Oh yeah... I COULD pay like $400 a month for ObamaCare, and have a $6000 deductible I'll never meet. Yeah, pay $400 a month for something I can't even use.

Honestly, #### you Obama

Well, by that logic, you seem perfectly fine letting me pay for your medical care when something catastrophic does happen to you.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Aazadan

Wrong my friend. The idea of the house of reps is to REPRESENT their constituency. Democracy...whether you agree with this or not ... depends on it.

And people seem to forget the Majority in the House of Representatives represents the majority of Citizens by population.

wrong, you are so wrong. how then did Obama get close to 5 MILLION more votes than Romney in 2012?....

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Aazadan

Wrong my friend. The idea of the house of reps is to REPRESENT their constituency. Democracy...whether you agree with this or not ... depends on it.

And people seem to forget the Majority in the House of Representatives represents the majority of Citizens by population.

are you even aware of the term "gerrymandering"?.....there are literally thousands of websites that can describe it for you....or are you even a citizen of the U.S.?....as an American like you that writes political posts, you should know this.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Aazadan

Wrong my friend. The idea of the house of reps is to REPRESENT their constituency. Democracy...whether you agree with this or not ... depends on it.

And people seem to forget the Majority in the House of Representatives represents the majority of Citizens by population.

wrong, you are so wrong. how then did Obama get close to 5 MILLION more votes than Romney in 2012?....

More uneducated people vote in Presidential elections than they do for congress and senate...

While the Presidency is important, real change happens in the legislative branch. However, most voters really only focus on the Presidency as that is what gets the media attention, not the election of your local congressman.

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: xuenchen

I know the next President would sign it.

Trump 2016.

Trump has advocated for PP AND for some form of Universal health care, hes actually for this system

Do you guys even research the candidates you like?

No he would absolutely NOT sign that, it goes against everything hes said repeatedly

Edit: This came of really really snarky lol that is not the way I intend it, so forgive me, hard to catch nuance on the internet

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: xuenchen

Wasn't this supposed to go through the house yesterday? Either way it's an example of what lawmakers shouldn't be doing. Passing bills that have no chance at getting through Congress much less the Presidents desk is a waste of everyones time. They should be trying to find something a majority can agree to.

Then again, I like having a functional rather than symbolic government.

I would agree that submitting this bill is counterproductive. Not because it won't pass but because, as a symbolic gesture, it fails to communicate the desired outcome, a complete repeal of the ACA (among other acts).

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: xuenchen

I know the next President would sign it.

Trump 2016.

Maybe he will "evolve" like Obama and Hillary did on gay rights and a host of other issues that they flip flopped on...

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: xuenchen

Wasn't this supposed to go through the house yesterday? Either way it's an example of what lawmakers shouldn't be doing. Passing bills that have no chance at getting through Congress much less the Presidents desk is a waste of everyones time. They should be trying to find something a majority can agree to.

Then again, I like having a functional rather than symbolic government.

When the GOP fails to pass something Obama wants, they're "obstructionists."
When the GOP sends something to Obama which he refuses to sign. they're "wasting time."

I'm thinking the GOP may want to start alerting the American people to the Obstructionist in Chief by sending more of these types of popular bills towards Obama. Put the onus solely on him for a change.

a reply to: jimmyx



Read the Constitution so you can find out what's in it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: jimmyx

Read the Constitution so you can find out what's in it.

funny....so, do you know what gerrymandering is?....

originally posted by: burdman30ott6When the GOP fails to pass something Obama wants, they're "obstructionists."
When the GOP sends something to Obama which he refuses to sign. they're "wasting time."

I'm thinking the GOP may want to start alerting the American people to the Obstructionist in Chief by sending more of these types of popular bills towards Obama. Put the onus solely on him for a change.

I don't care what Obama wants, the legislative and executive branches are supposed to have an adversarial relationship (though they're also supposed to try and find common ground). This isn't a bill that's ever going to get to that point though because it's not going to get through the Senate.