It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is Obama Abandoning Obamacare?

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
reply to post by jdub297
 


Obama is the ultimate bait and switch president. On basically everything. He single handedly destroyed the American progressive movement. What he has done has nothing to do with real progressive values. Everything he has done has been about corporatism (also known as fascism, by it's strict definition - Mussolini)



Yes, total yes. This is what is really going on. You explain it well!

edit on 8-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
reply to post by jdub297
 


My take from the beginning was that it was never intended to actually be implemented (documented on this site somewhere), and this may be why the unconstitutional provision of requiring an individual to buy healthcare was made a centerpiece of the legislation, knowing that it would kill the bill after the fact. I still don't fully understand what the bill does, but it appears to me to be corporatized healthcare. He promised socialized healthcare, and this was the bait and switch.

Obama is the ultimate bait and switch president. On basically everything. He single handedly destroyed the American progressive movement. What he has done has nothing to do with real progressive values. Everything he has done has been about corporatism (also known as fascism, by it's strict definition - Mussolini)
edit on 7-8-2013 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2013 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)


Exactly. That's why its mind numbing to read people on here calling him a liberal.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I commented in the past about the possibility that ObamaCare was designed to fail.

The goal would be to create a 'default' to Medicare for everybody.

Right you are, sir!

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Correct, as have many Conservatives point end out this was designed to be a massive failure from the start because the Democrats really wanted a single-payer system. When this train wreck derails they will then say "See, we tried the free-market approach and that just won't work, we'll have to repeal and replace this system with a single-payer format."

Suckers.


Even before it was passed (as in, January, 2009), Obamacare advocates were willing to says what it was: the first step to "single-payer," all government, all the time health care.
Dem. Congresswoman Admits Obama’s Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Insurance

www.breitbart.tv...
www.freerepublic.com...

Here's a couple of links to different ideas.
"Healthcare X Prize"

"Why Health Insurance Doesn’t Work"

I'm sure there're dozens of others floating around the ether if anyone wants to look instead of having MSM and BHO feed them their dreams.

We can be creative and think of ways to return our health to our own hands, not those of others with more money and other motives than our personal well-being.

Deny ignorance.

jw
edit on 8-8-2013 by jdub297 because: add comment



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


it was his baby...are you kidding?

and if it worked it wouldnt be thanks to him?

he gambled and lost. thing is ....some things you don't play with....
edit on 8-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide


This is a long aside to discuss the issues that the ACA wars have clouded. We are fighting tooth and nail to get back a system that was 37th in the world, overall ( 15th in actual quality ), but 2nd highest in cost.

Given this, it causes my draw to actually drop every time I see people fighting to keep the status quo here. The status quo sucked.



Heff,

Taxation Without Representation

That's what this boils down to.



My jaw drops EVERY TIME I see this video. Its a Bill? That's not what the Supreme Court made it out to be.

If The Status Quo is broken, then this TAX is shattered..........



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Just an aside to clear some of the propaganda based misinformation on this issue... In the year 2000 the United States did not, despite what people tend to believe, come in as having the best medical care in the world. In fact the US was not even in the top ten.
The US was number 37.
Actual list here.


Sorry, you've been fooled by the "one world" thinkers; here's the "source" of that ludicrously-supported list:"Source: WHO World Health Report."

No one seems to notice that all of the "leaders" in the WHO report have about 5 to 35% of the U.S. population, and that the systems cited actually are far more costly and perform worse when examined individually.

Just looking at WHO criteria misleads the "low-information" into the delusion the we can't compete or do better than 3rd and 3nd World economies.

Remember, of the 36 on the list ahead of us, WE SUBSIDIZE a large portion of their annual budget! So, if their "costs" are lower, it's because US taxpayers and healthcare consumers are paying for them!

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

The rulings of the Supreme Court are unconstitutional? Who would it be that determines that, since the Supreme Court is, quite literally, charged with determining what is and isn't Constitutional in this nation, under our system?
I must have misread you on that.


All you have to do is read some of what Constitutional Scholar Lino Graglia has published; he will explain how most SCOTUS decisions are politicized, poorly supported, unnecessary and just legally WRONG.

It doesn't take a Con-Law scholar to know that a farmer feeding his family from a portion of his production is NOT "affecting interstate commerce" and, therefore, subject to Federal regulation. (Just as an example.)

jw



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I see your point 100% and I don't think the court is above error or stupid calls any more than anyone else. It's why they don't just rule on something and say that's it. No more on this topic, it's been settled forever.

I guess what comes to annoy me a bit is how we've come to define our own little realities to the point where the law isn't the law for cops to enforce ..because we say it isn't. The Constitution isn't the law of the land...because we personally disagree with it.. or in this case, the duties and obligation of the Supreme Court isn't what the Constitution says it is because we don't like the outcomes.

Their rulings are Constitutional because the only power above them to say otherwise is God himself and it doesn't appear He has an opinion to offer on such trivial matters of Man. Outside that? We can say SCOTUS was wrong or even ignorant ...but saying they were Unconstitutional is like saying an ice cube is actually warm and our nerves are misunderstanding it ....because someone said so based on their interpretation of matters.

This is why Presidential selection DOES matter in a hell of a lot more than each President's little dream of their 'changed America'. They each have the opportunity to make changes through the court which literally *DO* carry for generations in many cases and well past their own lives in many others.

edit on 8-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 



Taxation Without Representation

That's what this boils down to.


How do you figure?

Do you not have two Senators for your State and a Representative for your District?

I'm not sure you know what that phrase means.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by benrl

Neo, you really are one of my favorite posters, I just think at times you focus far to much on a tree in a forest of problems.


Well this particular trees roots are starting to gunk up the plumbing in this entire country. Time to cut it down, I'll say.
edit on 8-8-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)


Ill tell you this much, I fully be willing to say it was all Obama the day the next president steps up to the plate, and undo's or at least makes a real effort to fix all of "Obama's" Choices.

You know like Obama did about Bush, and if the next one ACTUALLY does, Ill admit you are all right it was all Obama.


I won't hold my breath, it will be more of the same, more government encroachment on our rights, more wars, more corporate cronyism , just this time republican probably even be Jeb Bush.

And all the Obama defenders on here will switch roles, and All the Obama Bashers will become the new Defenders.

Happens every single election and meanwhile the agenda marches on.

Next it won't be health care, but some Republican bloated government boondoggle that serves to do one thing, divide us.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by sonnny1
 



Taxation Without Representation

That's what this boils down to.


How do you figure?

Do you not have two Senators for your State and a Representative for your District?

I'm not sure you know what that phrase means.


Obamacare is a Tax. FACT.

My representatives are not working for me. They are working for their own interests. FACT.

Hence, Taxation Without Representation .

No taxation without representation is a slogan, not a definition......



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by sonnny1
 



Taxation Without Representation

That's what this boils down to.


How do you figure?

Do you not have two Senators for your State and a Representative for your District?

I'm not sure you know what that phrase means.


Obamacare is a Tax. FACT.

My representatives are not working for me. They are working for their own interests. FACT.

Hence, Taxation Without Representation .

No taxation without representation is a slogan, not a definition......


I'm not going to be paying any additional tax due to the ACA. The penalty will be enforced as a tax, but that doesn't mean that "Obamacare is a tax".

If you don't like your Representatives, go out and work to get one elected that you agree with. Just because the person you support doesn't win doesn't mean you have no Representation.

No taxation without representation IS a slogan...but that slogan has a very specific DEFINITION. You can't just go around saying it willy nilly when it doesn't apply, and in the way you used it...it doesn't apply. Now if the UN passed a tax on us, then you could use it.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience


I'm not going to be paying any additional tax due to the ACA. The penalty will be enforced as a tax, but that doesn't mean that "Obamacare is a tax".


You sound like Nancy Pelosi now.......






Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill.


Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes



Originally posted by AlienScience
If you don't like your Representatives, go out and work to get one elected that you agree with. Just because the person you support doesn't win doesn't mean you have no Representation.



Sure it does.. Especially if my "representation" is the problem. This isn't about wins or loses. Its about the sheer stupidity that R and D are playing with America.



Originally posted by AlienScience
but that slogan has a very specific DEFINITION.


And a "slogan" is a war cry of a Scottish clan.... See how this works?




Originally posted by AlienScience
You can't just go around saying it willy nilly when it doesn't apply, and in the way you used it...it doesn't apply.


Sure I can.

Taxation without representation.


Did it again.

Many people "understand" what it means. You?

Not so much.


The Supreme Court has upheld the penalty for not purchasing a qualifying health care plan — a.k.a. the individual mandate — as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power. What was not described as a tax by anyone during the debates over the law — not by Congress, not by the President, not by media — has been retroactively turned into a tax. As a result, the Court has given a dangerous new power to Congress.



Finally, let’s not forget an important, but often forgotten, point: the individual mandate was one of the largest, if not the largest, governmental gift to private industry in history. Today, the Supreme Court held that Congress can use “taxes” to coerce people into purchasing a product from a private business. The shared grievance of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street — that big business and government are too intertwined — is given a significant boon by today’s decision. Do not expect Congress to leave this new gift unopened.


Supreme Court Decision: Obamacare is Taxation Without Representation



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Yep, I'm familiar with all the taxes...I'm not paying any new taxes.

And I don't think you understand how a Republic works. Just because you don't agree with your Representative, doesn't mean you aren't being represented under a Republic. You got to voice your opinion in the form of a vote, you were defeated if the Rep that got elected doesn't agree with your viewpoint.

How would you like the government to run? Everyone is their own Representative that goes and votes on everything? That is a pure Democracy, that is mob rule, that is one of the worst systems right along with Dictatorship.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience

Yep, I'm familiar with all the taxes...I'm not paying any new taxes.









Originally posted by AlienScience
And I don't think you understand how a Republic works.




This Republic?

Since we are getting into semantics........Let me correct you.

A Constitutional Republic.






Originally posted by AlienScience
Just because you don't agree with your Representative, doesn't mean you aren't being represented




If the representative only has his best interest at heart, then hell yes he isn't representing me or anyone else.........



edit on 8-8-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 



Since we are getting into semantics........Let me correct you.

A Constitutional Republic.


Do you care to lay out the differences of a "Republic" and a "Constitutional Republic" and how that makes a difference in this context?


If the representative only has his best interest at heart, then hell yes he isn't representing me or anyone else


Prove it.

And if he truly only has HIS best interest at heart, no one will benefit from him being in office and he won't be elected next time.

I think all you have is sour grapes that your political ideology is quickly becoming the minority and instead of accepting it like a proud citizen of the country, you want to change the system to keep your viewpoint relevant.

Sorry, that is not how our Constitution works, so you must not be a big fan of the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


If you have a forest full of problems you kinda have to deal with it one tree at a time.

Personally I don't think that Obama is giving up on Obamacare. I just think that he is trying to wait until after the midterms. Basically he doesn't want to lose seats in the senate. Which is what would happen if Obamacare moves forward when it was originally supposed to.

People simply do not support Obama-care anymore. They finally read it and they know what is in it, and it aint good.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


.. or in this case, the duties and obligation of the Supreme Court isn't what the Constitution says it is because we don't like the outcomes.

Their rulings are Constitutional because the only power above them to say otherwise is God himself and it doesn't appear He has an opinion to offer on such trivial matters of Man. Outside that? We can say SCOTUS was wrong or even ignorant ...but saying they were Unconstitutional is like saying an ice cube is actually warm and our nerves are misunderstanding it ....because someone said so based on their interpretation of matters.

I hate to get dragged off-topic, but this needs to be addressed.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the SCOTUS the power to strike down laws as "unconstitutional!"
Article III Section 2 describes the Court as follows:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

The Supremes took it upon themselves to "find" the power in the case of "Marbury v. Madison," 5 U.S. 137 .
It is not exactly clear to me why the Federal Government should be entitled to decide what the Federal Government should, or should not, be doing. What ever happened to "States' Rights," reserved to them under the l10th Amendment?

There are many "scholars" today who will argue that a law passed in contravention of the Constitution is unenforceable in ANY court. There's no reason why the feds should be entitled to the final say.

Recall, too, that this is a Republic, in which the people have delegated certain powers to the feds, [I]but not all.[/I].

For too long we've allowed the feds to run our states and our individual lives. When will take the reins back?



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Well, what do you know? You have something of a point.

From Marbury vs. Madison official archive records...


“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.


and I think the logic is rather sound.... Madison, of course, being James Madison of Constitution writing fame and here, subjecting himself and case to the authority of the Court. Also a key thing, during years where the nation was literally still making sense of the framework the original documents had established. As the next part states.


The Constitution gave Congress the power to impeach and remove officials, including judges or the President himself. The President was given the veto power to restrain Congress and the authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this intricate system, the role of the Supreme Court had not been defined. It therefore fell to a strong Chief Justice like Marshall to complete the triangular structure of checks and balances by establishing the principle of judicial review. Although no other law was declared unconstitutional until the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate Federal and state laws that are contrary to the Constitution has never been seriously challenged.
Source: Our Documents / Public Domain Government Documents

So I suppose their authority as practiced since almost the first day of their being as a Branch of Government is open to challenge as anything else rightly is under this system. 210 year old precedent will be the mother of all nuts to crack though, and of course...the only ones who could by review are the ones it would be ruling against. The odds of hitting the lottery may be slightly better, I'm thinking.

I guess like so much else in legal areas, precedent by leaving it lay at the time and since defined the authority as it's practiced today.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join