Why is Obama Abandoning Obamacare?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


What are you rambling on about? We can all read the Constitution for ourselves and clearly see that it says all tax bills must originate in the House. We know the justice department argued before the court that the ACA was a tax, we know that writing the opinion for the majority John Roberts affirmed the ACA is a tax, and we know that in 2009 the bill originated and first passed in the Senate.

The House isn't the Senate.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I wouldn't call it rambling. I'd call it the death knell to Obama's health care plan. He's choosing to play like it isn't there but the fact is, it's like a brick wall to crash his system anyway. The whole thing needs every state participating and particularly the populous ones.

The Roberts Court effectively left the tax be...and that is what Obama and the Obamacare supporters got all happy about. They totally ignored what destroyed their little party outright.

- In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA is constitutional.

- In writing the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, argued that the individual mandate is nothing more than a tax.

- However, the Court struck down the provision that would deny Medicaid funding to states that did not expand their Medicaid roles.

Source: How the Supreme Court Doomed the Affordable Care Act to Failure
(Emphasis By Me)

He took their stick away for forcing their way past the 10th amendment as they normally do. The States each take SO much money (about 1/3rd of all state dollars are federal in Missouri as one example) that they just threaten to take money from one place to force a state to do something in another. Well, not so in this case.....and it's why it was a very split decision despite the media giving absolutely no attention to it.

It allowed for this, in 2010...

Missourians ban Obamacare at ballot box

to mature into this in 2012..

Missouri Health Care Exchange Question (Prop E)

Which was:

Shall Missouri Law be amended to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature?

Source

Without the Roberts decision? That wouldn't have been possible as almost nothing is in defying the Feds. The leash is self imposed by states taking their money but in this case, the court said it cannot be used against them. Obama vows to do it anyway and just impose it. Well.. Good luck. My state isn't the only one (and our Governor was told where to keep his ideas of doing it anyway).

Game, Set and Match if we are still a nation of law. We'll seen soon because this issue is too big to push and it shoves right back. It'll have to be settled.

reply to post by AlienScience

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

We may well be cellmates, because I refuse to concede, as well.
The IRS has recently tried to impose a 200% tax on me for 2008, the year I helped organize our local April 15 "Tea Party" gathering at the Capital.

I've only just begun to fight.

reply to post by jdub297


You've attacked the source, but not provided any evidence at all as to why the findings of the WHO report should be considered erroneous or as a misrepresentation of fact. Simply summarily dismissing the data presented with a wave of the "one world" demonization does nothing at all to actually dispute the facts or table a discussion about their validity.

Still, since that study isn't "Murica" centric enough for you, here's some more proof.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I could be wrong, but I think the "Tea Party Movement" is as focused on the judicial branch as it has been interpreted to be on the legislative and executive.

We've grown so complacent in turning over every problem and question to a federal authority that we've unwittingly subjugated ourselves to the vagaries of a political class answerable to no one.

Deference to a berserk federal legislature and an ideologically-biased judiciary have led us to the point where the republican model no longer functions.

"How can legislatures be trusted not to violate the Constitution, if there is no check upon them?" many will ask. The check will be the people themselves. If our elected lawmakers violate the Constitution, they will be answerable to us. This is not the case under our current system: Our judges are answerable to no one.

townhall.com...

Are we too unsure of ourselves, too sheepish, to face the facts and address the shortcomings of the government we've meekly accepted for the last 100 years?

If so, we are doomed. If not, the time has definitely come to put up or shut up. Clayton Williams said it best in his disastrous campaign against Ann Richards when he said that rape victims "should relax and enjoy it."

Sadly, I think most Americans are willing to do just that.

So, who gets screwed in this scenario?

reply to post by Hefficide

You can certainly look at the threads and posts I offered to illuminate the shortcomings of comparing a nation of 2,500,000 to one of 350,000,000.

I will not derail this thread over a pointless and insipid argument that bears no relation to reality.

If you accept the WHO as authority, have you deeded your possessions to the Bangladeshi expatriates, yet; or the Darfur diaspora? Those are also "proven positions" of the WHO. Go for it, then send a papyrus to us here for an update.

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by sonnny1

 

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.

Wont be elected?

There are lifelong Politicians in office as we speak.

Prove it?

Oh my.

According to the survey, 83 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing in Washington, an all-time high in the poll. Just 12 percent approve of Congress' job, while 57 percent they would replace every member of Congress if they could.

Congress Disapproval Rating Hits All-Time High In NBC/WSJ Poll, Obama Approval Drops


You must be that 17% that approves, and part of the 43% that thinks they should continue.......

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by sonnny1

 

you were defeated if the Rep that got elected doesn't agree with your viewpoint.

isn`t that pretty much the definition of not being represented?

rep·re·sent
Verb
Be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), esp. in an official capacity.

How are my beliefs being represented in a government chamber if the person who is speaking for me has opposing beliefs and is campaigning for laws that are in conflict with what I believe?
Who is there to present my views and beliefs? nobody.

How am I being represented if there is nobody there to speak or act for me?

The key component of representing someone and speaking on their behalf is that you must present their beliefs and their views.

reply to post by Tardacus


Quite the logical way of looking at it, huh?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


But if Obama is abandoning it, that would mean he's leaving it. Which I would think means it is done, over, not happening, etc.
I'm just more going by the title of this post as I tried to read the other stuff and it's things I can't fully understand.

Originally posted by sarra1833
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

But if Obama is abandoning it, that would mean he's leaving it. Which I would think means it is done, over, not happening, etc.
I'm just more going by the title of this post as I tried to read the other stuff and it's things I can't fully understand.

No, laws don't just *poof* disappear. When someone says he is abandoning something like this ACA it's a figure of speech for pushing himself away from it, not touting it or embracing it.

reply to post by jdub297


Because they all passed a bad bill and know it. They expected to be able to change it in later years to make it right and work but with a House bent on ensuring Obama is seen as a failure this will never happen and they realize that now.

Obamacare was never meant to be left as is but with a congress that can do nothing we get nothing.

Making sure all Americans get good health care was a good cause but will never happen due to crazies in the House.

Originally posted by Xeven
reply to post by jdub297

 

Because they all passed a bad bill and know it. They expected to be able to change it in later years to make it right and work but with a House bent on ensuring Obama is seen as a failure this will never happen and they realize that now.

Obamacare was never meant to be left as is but with a congress that can do nothing we get nothing.

Making sure all Americans get good health care was a good cause but will never happen due to crazies in the House.

Ummm, when this passed the Democrats had the House. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker.

Originally posted by sarra1833
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

But if Obama is abandoning it, that would mean he's leaving it. Which I would think means it is done, over, not happening, etc.
I'm just more going by the title of this post as I tried to read the other stuff and it's things I can't fully understand.

Correct.

What we are going to end up with is NOT what was passed; it will be patched-up and chopped-up until all the special interests and "niche" markets are taken care of. This will not be "universal" or "affordable" when all the tinkering is finished. OMB and CBO have already raised the price tag by tens of $billions.
There will STILL be 30 million without coverage after it's over.

jw

Originally posted by Xeven
reply to post by jdub297

 

Because they all passed a bad bill and know it.

You should have stopped right there, because that's where facts end and rants begin.

They expected to be able to change it in later years to make it right

Please show me ONE advocate who took this position prior to passage. You can't; it is a fantasy made up to try to salvage credibility for the advocates who have ZERO left.

with a House bent on ensuring Obama is seen as a failure this will never happen and they realize that now.

The "House" passed the ACA as is, or did you not know that? No one in 2010 expected the November sweep that took some of the worst idiots out. No one then said anything about "we'll fix it later," or anything close.

This is 100% Obama/progressive/lib/Dem product and you and they can't stand it!

Obamacare was never meant to be left as is

Do you just make this crap up as you go along? Nancy assured us that it would be just fine and dandy if Congress (BOTH houses) passed the ACA, even without reading it or debating it. The law paved the way for thousands of executive and administrative manipulations, but it was a "complete package" from Day One.

with a congress that can do nothing we get nothing.

You got exactly what you wanted and deserved.

Making sure all Americans get good health care was a good cause but will never happen due to crazies in the House.

B. S.

When Americans get to control who gives their care, and at what price, "all Americans" will "get good health care."

Letting some third party or the federal government stand between the patient and the provider ensures that they NEVER will!

deny ignorance
jw