"GOP Sets a Trap for Itself"
Posted: Nov 19, 2014
The short version for the article below is that even if Republicans win in the Supreme Court, it is only for those states included in the lawsuit - and the subsidy loss for those states will be financially disastrous for the consumer.
The federal government has set aside subsidies for insurance companies in every state for marketplace, which has affected insurance rates in those states, whether they've set it up or not. Since insurance companies are unlikely to drop the rates just for those states, someone will need to make up the difference after subsidy loss. If employers can't or won't, the burden for those increased rates will be on the consumer.
In other words, it would be better financially for us to wait for Congress to try to repeal the whole thing than a Supreme Court win.
The point of Obamacare was not to foster dependency, but to force It private/employer-paid insurance companies to come down in their rates by being a competitor rather than try to pass laws to regulate them, which would never pass Congress, so that everyone can afford healthcare. Instead, insurance companies have responded by raising their rates and trying to kill Obamacare through politicians - and you're helping them?
You sure you wanna kill this whole thing rather than fix what's broken, New School GOP? Do you always have to win just for winning's sake because the corporations tell you to?
;
Republicans repeal Obamacare - backfiring
[ In Reply To ..]
The last election cycle there were countless back-to-back political ads from Republicans promising to repeal Obamacare. When and if people are kicked off their affordable plans, the Republicans will reap their just rewards.
Welll, you don't quite have it right. - No one's talking repeal in the first place...
[ In Reply To ..]
...it's "repeal and replace" - meaning a different approach for the uninsured that (a) gets scored HONESTLY by the CBO instead of the fakery from CrappaCare, and (b) doesn't friggin' BANKRUPT the country - oh yes, take a look at the latest numbers, over a $trillion added to the deficit over the next 10 years when it was supposed to be either deficit-neutral or BRING DOWN the deficit. Of course, those were among the many LIES told about CrappaCare from the very beginning, and which any thinking person knew didn't add up.
Second, they'd lose votes from exactly how many people who vote for them now? Answer: ZERO.
Third, they'd earn the undying gratitude of millions and millions of people who are now living under the dark cloud of CrappaCare.
No cigar and/or kewpie doll this time. Try again, just one nickel.
Which vote will come first? Repeal Obamacare - Immigration or impeachment?
[ In Reply To ..]
Lets see. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill on Immigration in 2013, which the House then refused to take up.
The House has voted at least 54 times to repeal or defund Obamacare.
Republican Golden Boy Cruz: "Republicans should “pursue every means possible to repeal Obamacare,” Cruz said, including forcing a vote through parliamentary procedures that would get around a possible filibuster by Democrats. If that leads to a veto by Obama, Cruz said, Republicans should then vote on provisions of the health law “one at a time.”
Then of course, there is the impeachment of Obama.
I think it will go:
1. Repeal Obamacare.
2. Impeach Obama.
3. Immigration.
They have to do the first 2 right away because they will have to rewrite history and hope that voters won't remember the blowback by the time of the next election.
They will push immigration reform down the road, because that is what they always do, and try to make sure there is some sort of campaign issue around it for 2016.
Okay, I'll play. Which unconstitutional executive order will - the Dear Leader issue first?
[ In Reply To ..]
That will probably determine the answer to your question.
He could consult Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon - and the Bushes for EO tips
[ In Reply To ..]
Because all of these presidents have issued more executive orders (sometimes just 1 term) than Obama. (See link)
In fact, of particular interest at this forum may be Eisenhower's executive orders on immigration and desegregation and Reagan's granting amnesty to 3 million immigrants in 1986.
If either were in office today, they would've been sued by the new version of their grand old party at least 10 times and government shutdowns would've occurred even more frequently.
So is it really we are against executive orders and government control or only when the person we wanted isn't in office?
PS: Well review their EO's, not consult them - obviously
[ In Reply To ..]
except the Bushes because, of course, the rest are no longer with us ;)
The legacy these Republicans left in the form of EO's on these issues, however, still exists as recorded historical fact
The number of EOs has nothing to do with anything. - It's the nature of those EOs that is importan
[ In Reply To ..]
Be more resistant to hoodwinkery.
If a President issued only one EO that set aside provisions of the Constitution or of the laws of the United States, and never issued another EO, that one order would be the undoing of our form of government.
And guess what? That's exactly what Obama has done - but not once, many times. Strictly on a legal basis, Obama is the most impeachable President in American history, including Nixon.
Oh, you mean like GWB's EO 13233 being unconstitutional - and revoked after lawsuit?
[ In Reply To ..]
You may have missed this link from above.
An EO 13233 by George W. Bush regarding investigating former members of the executive branch was overturned after lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of such an EO. In fact, GWB had to write EO 13489 to undo the prior one.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords
Again, since the purpose of EOs has been used to either add on to acts of congress to speed up their progress OR bypass "hostile" Congress, then we as a people need to make a decision.
We either get rid of EO's altogether, restrict them, or keep suing the presidents we don't like over them, what's it gonna be?
Because this suing the president and shutting down the government thing just isn't working for me.
I like people and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but make no mistake, I'm very adept at ferreting out hoodwinkery.
And I'm also not hindered by party, politics or propaganda so that I can do it objectively.
You?
I wish people would learn...sm - Rosie
[ In Reply To ..]
the difference between the debt and the deficit and not use them interchangeably. The deficit has gone down dramatically. The debt continues to rise, the reason for which is not current spending but the compounding interest for past irresponsible spending including the cost of the "off-the-books" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Similar Messages:
Obama Should Keep His Arrogant Trap Shut.Mar 08, 2010There's really just one conclusion to be reached, which is that the majority of Americans are coming to fear and hate Obama. He's shed independent voters at a rate never seen before since tracking began.
When Obama opened his big yap about healthcare, his rating was crappy at -12 (Rasmussen). Since then, it's dropped even further to -19. Now, I don't know if you realize it or not, but that puts Obama right smack dab in the middle of Bush territory when the financial cri ...
Walmart Sets Up Collection CansNov 19, 2013who can't afford Thanksgiving meal. ...
House GOP Sets Up Benghazi WebsiteFeb 06, 2014This will hopefully eventually have ALL the answers and lead to accountability. ...
KY Governor Sets Mitch McConnell Straight About The ACA.Dec 05, 2013(Complete with video)
Kentucky Governor To Mitch McConnell: Get Your Facts Straight On Obamacare
Posted: 12/05/2013 12:11 pm EST | Updated: 12/05/2013 3:25 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- It was just Wednesday night that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) railed against the Affordable Care Act, calling it a "catastrophic failure" for people everywhere.
"This is beyond fixing. It needs to be pulled out root and branch and we need to st ...
BO Sets Another Record Commuting More Felons' Sentences Oct 06, 2016Hundreds and hundreds of them - and 22% of them used guns in their crimes.
Commuting sentences isn't something that Presidents have typically done willy-nilly, or in such numbers.
Someone last year said "Thank God he only has one more year."
I took no comfort in that. I knew that, as bad as the first 7 years of this rogue President's term have been, the last year would be the very worst because there would be literally nothing to stop him from doing whatever he wants to do. ...
Maureen Dowd This Time Sets The Crosshairs Of Her WeaponDec 24, 2012
December 22, 2012
From Apocalypse to Dystopia
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
WE’RE a little overwrought now.
The N.R.A. understands that. It’s as patient with us as a husband with a tremulous pregnant wife prone to crying jags.
This is just a passing meltdown. We’ll get ourselves back under control soon and things will return to normal.
For decades, when the public has grown more sympathetic to gun control after an attempted assassination or a spike ...
Administration Sets Record For Withholding Government FilesMar 18, 2015The Obama administration set a record again for censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.
The government took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn't find documents and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy.
It also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 ...
Obama Admin Sets New Record For Denying, Censoring Government FilesMar 18, 2015Didn't he promise to have a transparent administration?
And go right ahead, libs, attack the source, but you can't refute the facts of what this lawless man is doing to our country. ...
Jon Stewart On The "health Care Trap"Feb 12, 2010Very funny, but oh so true!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-11-2010/the-apparent-trap ...