"especially Congress, have requested and been granted exemptions to the
law."Ben, a Republican put this into the law hoping that Obama
would find a problem with this and veto the bill. President Obama didn't
fall for this trap. So you may want to talk to your GOP about
that.The rest of the issues you brought up have been thoroughly
debunked for years now. I cannot help you if you don't want to do any
research on your own. Unfortunately, I'm guessing you already know that
there are realistic responses to your questions but you already have your mind
made up against Obamacare because of Obama and don't want to look any of
this information up.
Uh, 'cause Congress isn't exempt from Obamacare, and that no such
exemption has ever been requested? Factcheck.org has an excellent, factually
accurate story that explains the whole thing. The DN won't let me link to
the story, but it's easy to find; just google Congress exempt from
Obamacare? Congress is NOT exempt from participating in the Obamacare
Everyone who has employer provided health insurance is "exempt". The
whole system is designed to cover people who don't have coverage.
Roland: The problem with your statement is that now millions of employer
provided health insurance programs are going away, cancelled, deleted and
eliminated. Obamacare is a huge job killer and if you have been paying attention
to the news, it is already happening. The Achilles' heal of Obamacare is
far too few people paying into the system and massive increases of people taking
out with taxpayer subsidizes. Obamacare is nothing more than the largest welfare
program in the history of the world! There is no hope of us ever paying for it!
Obamacare will bankrupt our country, guaranteed!
I'm pretty sure the ObamaCare is going to go GREAT and everybody's
going to be dancing in the streets and thanking Obama for saving us. Years
from now we'll probably all be looking back on Obama as our savior (or
blaming him for America going into bankruptcy).
"The RNC echoes others conservative claims that the law is hindering
part-timers from finding full-time jobs. But the RNC’s 8.2 million figure
was the total number in June of part-time workers in the U.S. seeking full-time
work — what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “part-time for
economic reasons” — and there’s no evidence from BLS numbers
that the law has had an impact on such workers. There were more in this
“part-time for economic reasons” category in March 2010, when the
Affordable Care Act was signed into law (9.1 million). The latest figure, from
August, is 7.9 million."There is more discussion on jobs and
Obamacare at factcheck org)Congress is not exempt. In fact,
Congress is the ONLY large employer which is required to use the healthcare
exchanges to purchase insurance. (It was included in the bill by Republicans
trying to kill the bill). There have been some "waivers"
issued during the implementation process to allow companies to make the various
changes/adaptations required. Obviously the letter writer needs
more accurate sources.
If Obamacare is so bad why did the GOP endorse it in the 90s?If
Obamacare is so bad why didn't the Bush Administration do anything about
health care for 8 years? If the GOP had gotten off their lazy bums
to do something... Anything! About health care over 8 years we wouldn't be
having this discussion right now. Instead, they didn't do anything. And they still have yet to do anything. Sorry repubs,
ya'll can't complain until you come up with solutions!
"Obamacare will bankrupt our country, guaranteed!"I'm
pretty sure that you guaranteed a Romney victory. How'd that work out for
ya?Why anyone would believe in your guarantees is beyond me. Ever
heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf?
Maverick. You are wrong. I never guaranteed Romney would win. I hoped he would
win but predicted he would lose because the majority of Americans have
discovered they can vote themselves entitlements from the national treasury-at
least until we can't borrow any more money or pay the interest on the debt.
We are getting closer to that day and Obamacare will hasten it!
If some of the posters would spend as much time reading the Constitution as they
spend telling us what they think government should do, we would not have
ObamaCare. The Constitution allows Congress to tax us for seventeen authorized
duties. All other "duties" are to left to the States or to the People.
Personal health care is not on that list of federal duties. Obama,
who some consider to be a Constitutional expert, surely understands Article 1,
Section 8, yet he proposed and signed a bill that clearly violates the
authorized duties of the Federal Government. That tells us all that we need to
know about Obama. He took an oath of office to defend the Constitution. He
violated that oath. ObamaCare will bankrupt us. People will die
waiting for healthcare from the government. The "Secretary" will deny
service to millions. The government will spend ObamaCare funds on porkbarrel
projects, just as they've spent Social Security funds.When we
allow government to tax us for unauthorized programs we have failed as citizens
to do our job, which is to control government. It's time to study the
Constitution. It's our contract with the government.
Mike -- Please go back to September 17, 1787So woman can not
vote,Blacks can be slaves,and Governors can sign extermination
orders against Mormons. BTW - Obama hasn't violated his oath,
so says the Supreme Court, and regardless of what you say.
Actually I remember certain predictions about a Romney win too, more than one at
that.Why does the Dnews keep printing these low information letters that
are so easily proven wrong?Why is it a certain radio audience, perpetually
repeats this misleading rhetoric as facts only to look foolish again and
again?"ObamaCare will bankrupt us. People will die waiting for
healthcare from the government. The "Secretary" will deny service to
millions."Proselytizing seem to be a conservative standard, no
matter how many times it never "comes to pass."
Funny how a right wing, activist Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality
of the ACA. Not every so-called expert cherry picks what they want to believe.
Mike: Thanks for clearing up the meaning of the Constitution once
again. What a relief to know that we have a bona fide Constitutional expert
right here in our midst, whose qualifications eclipse those of that fellow who
was president of the Harvard Law Review, and who taught constitutional law at
one of the top law schools in the country. Let's see, remind us again
where you went to law school, in which journals your scholarly articles were
published, where (other than this forum) you have lectured on constitutional
law, how many cases you have argued before the Supreme Court, and other
pertinent accomplishments from your resume. Thanking you in advance . . . .
@Mountanman – “The problem with your statement is that now millions
of employer provided health insurance programs are going away, cancelled,
deleted and eliminated.”Looking at the economics of this, to
the extent employers get out of the health insurance business altogether (and
they can move in that direction - like Walgreens just did – by moving
employees onto the exchanges) this would be a job creator, not to mention the
mobility it will potentially create in the labor market - nothing has been more
detrimental to business startups than people not wanting to take the risk of
losing their large group medical insurance. And have you ever
wondered why so many auto manufacturing jobs moved to Canada (with their
communist single payer healthcare system)? It’s because Automakers
didn’t have to mess with healthcare – it’s worth more to their
bottom line to just pay the slightly higher wage.@Mike Richards
– “If some of the posters would spend as much time reading the
Constitution”Mike, if you ever got on the SC you would make
Scalia look like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
LDS LiberalI'd be careful with the Supreme Court ruling as an
argument, as you pointed out at the beginning, they supported many things that
today are illegal.ugotabekiddinYour point shows why this
in NOT a right wing court as some imply. In fact it is probably the most evenly
divided court we have ever had. With some exception the decisions are usually 5
to 4. Kennedy often being the swing vote.CurmudgeonIf
Obama was such a great lawyer, why didn't he clerk on the Supreme Court, or
even a federal court, as most top grads do? Maybe he was in truth a Salieri
When this is fully implemented... I don't want to hear any complaining from
you flaming Obana Fans. You think it's perfect and you got what you
wanted, so no complaining.Somehow I think the same people will be
complaining about healthcare (like always). It's never good
enough, or free enough for some people. But keep in mind... nothing's
free. Every cent of every insurance policy that needs to be sold before this
goes into affect has to be paid for, by somebody. You can keep hoping
it's not you, and it's somebody else who has to pay (your employer,
your exchange voucher, the tax payers, anybody but you). But SOMEBODY has to
pay the bill. There's no getting around that.
Maverick-How did a republican put anything in the ACA bill when they
weren't permitted into any of the meetings which drafted the bill? There is no republican hand in the ACA. No input on the wording because
they were denied by the democrats, and not one vote for it in either house. This is all democrat responsibility, and it has headed our country for
failure.Slipping in cute little lies, like this, when the popularity
is slipping is classic liberal deceit.
Obamacare isn't about healthcare (especially the part about making it
"affordable"), rather its all about government control.Why else is
the IRS involved? Do you REALLY want the IRS involved in your
healthcare?It is the job of the House of Representatives to set a
budget. If they make a budget without including Obamacare thats' their
right.All the people who WANT Obamacare can re-elect new House members in
2014 that will give them Obamacare (and more) "free stuff". Good
luck with that!Obamacare is the #1 job-killer in the country. It
will NEVER work for a variety of reasons. People are beginning to see the
negative effects in all kinds of ways.I'm totally in favor of a
government shutdown IF it preserves the constitutional limits of our elected
leaders.It will be worth it!
re:Badgerbadger"When Congress passed the health care law, U.S. Sen.
Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, included an amendment that required
lawmakers and their staffs to buy health insurance through the online exchanges
created by the law.Grassley’s amendment was intended to test
the commitment of Senate Democrats to the health care law. Would they be as
supportive of the law if they had to buy insurance through an exchange? The
you knew anything about the U.S. Constitution (or the law) you would know it is
one of the shortest constitutions in the world, thereby leaving many gaps and
room for interpretation. You would also know that even those who drafted
it--the Founding Fathers--disagreed on the "correct" interpretation, ie
its limitations. For example, where in the Constitution is the authority of the
Federal govt. to regulate illegal drugs? Why did regulation of alcohol require
an amendment but not illegal drugs? You can claim your
"interpretation is correct" but many Constitutional Law experts would
provide sound arguments as to why you are wrong. Other experts would argue why
you are correct. And so it goes.
@badgerbadger: Obamacare was designed by the ultra conservative Heritage
Foundation as an alternative to Clinton's healthcare proposals. It was
endorsed by virtually all prominent national Republicans at the time including
Newt Gingritch, Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar and many others. Even Jim
Demint, Mr. Tea Party himself, said it was an excellent model for a national
healthcare system.Mitt Romney used it as the blueprint for
Romneycare in Mass. And if Romney would have won the Republican nomination in
08, he would have run on a platform of implementing it nationally. My guess is
that you would have been an avid supporter. Republicans only started opposing
their own plan when President Obama introduced it.
Nice try libs.NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE! Not a conservative
republican. Not a moderate republican. Not a libertarian republican. Not an old
one, or a young one, or a short one, or a tall one. Not a male, or a female
republican. NONE. ZERO. NIL.So really, you want us to believe it was
a conservative republican bill?I realize you fraternize with very
gullible people, but that is your party, not mine.
@badgerbadger: "I realize you fraternize with very gullible people,
but that is your party, not mine."Instead of name calling, you
might refute one single part of my post. Since they are all true, I know you
can't. You also left out the part where the Republicans decided that their
number one priority was to make Obama fail. So they vote NO, even on their own
programs. Did you notice how many Republicans were supportive of getting
involved in Syria, but immediately changed their minds when the President
proposed doing it?
re:BadgerBadger"NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE!"November 7,
2009: The House of Representatives passed its version of healthcare reform
legislation, including a public option, by a narrow 220-215 vote. In the end, 39
Democrats vote against the bill and ONE Republican voted for it.rom
June-September 2009 the Senate Finance Committee held a series of 31 meetings to
develop of a health care reform bill. This group - in particular, Senators Max
Baucus (D-MT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Olympia Snowe (R-ME),
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Mike Enzi (R-WY) - met for more than 60 hours, and the
principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other Committees, became
the foundation of the Senate's health care reform bill. The meetings were
held in public and broadcast by C-SPAN and could be seen on the C-SPAN web site
or at the Committee's own web site.
"NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE! Not a conservative republican."And
what is this supposed to prove other than repubs have flip flopped and now deem
obstruction to Obama as a greater priority than sticking with their traditional
principles?"How did a republican put anything in the ACA bill
when they weren't permitted into any of the meetings which drafted the
bill?"Swing and a miss."There is no republican
hand in the ACA. No input on the wording because they were denied by the
democrats, and not one vote for it in either house."False. 0-3
now. The ACA was a Republican creation. "This is all democrat
responsibility, and it has headed our country for failure."Nope.
What had us heading to failure was the previous system, which allowed insurance
companies to cut and deny anyone coverage for any reason."I
don't want to hear any complaining from you flaming Obana Fans. You think
it's perfect and you got what you wanted, so no complaining."Wrong again. Obama fans wanted a single-payer system. Instead, we went with
the GOP's reform.
@Roland KayserYou are wrong.It was authored by extreme
leftist organizations funded by George Soros.Republicans had NOTHING
to do with it and had no reasons to offer any alternatives to the big mess that
was hillarycare as it provide alone all damage to the democratic party.
@Roland Keyser "Republicans only started opposing their own plan when
President Obama introduced it."You're leaving out the fact
that it was tried in Massachusetts, and failed. When Obama/Pelosi/Reid pushed
it, it was already a proven failure. It had failed to achieve universal
coverage, and it had failed to keep costs down. Some people learn from
experience, and others don't.
Truthseeker????Your quote on the meetings said they discussed
principles, very early on (2009). NOwhere did the republicans get to help with
the actual writing of the bill. By then the democrats had shut them out. Fail 1One republican voted for an EARLIER VERSION of the
bill. When it came back to the House in its final form, NO Republican Voted For
It.That is still Zero (0) republican votes for the bill that passed.
Fail 2Even if one had, how does that make this upcoming
mess the Republicans' fault?Only by delusion!Fail 3
coming up. (And you liberals know it. That is why you are already trying to pin
the blame on the republicans in advance)
The Supreme Court was wrong on Dred vs SCott and Roe Vs Wade. So there
interpretation is wrong sometimes. As for women not voting and slavery being
legal thing about the constitution is it found ways to end that. Since those
things were legal worldwide when the constitution was written. Great thing is
it had provisions to change those injustices in the near future.
@Mike Richards:"He (Obama) took an oath of office to defend the
Constitution. He violated that oath."So, let's get law
enforcement to impeach him. Wait! Law enforcement... i.e., the Attorney
General... is a trusted Obama cohort. We are in trouble when law enforcement is
in cahoots with the criminals.And the Senate chooses to close their
eyes and look the other way at these serious violations of our Constitution. "ObamaCare will bankrupt us."We... the US
government... are already bankrupt with an unprecedented $17 trillion debt...
and growing at the rate of $1 trillion per year as far as the eye can see."People will die waiting for healthcare from the government."Obama has already told us how his healthcare program will work...
'If you're old and need serious healthcare, just go home and take a
pain killer.'@LDS Liberal:"So woman can not vote,
"Blacks can be slaves..."Covered in Amendments."BTW - Obama hasn't violated his oath, so says the Supreme Court, and
regardless of what you say."The Court didn't rule on
Obamacare. It merely authorized the government to tax people rather than charge
Some people are still in wacko mode over social security.
@Truthseeker:"If you knew anything about the U.S. Constitution (or the
law) you would know it is one of the shortest constitutions in the world,
thereby leaving many gaps and room for interpretation."That
could mean there is no subject under the sun that the Federal government cannot
get involved in... Which can't be the case since Amendment 10 tells us
'powers not delegated to the US Government ... are reserved to the
states.'"For example, where in the Constitution is the
authority of the Federal govt. to regulate illegal drugs?"Is
money spent on illegal drugs? If the answer is 'yes,' then it's
part of commerce. And the government can regulate commerce per Article 1.8."Why did regulation of alcohol require an amendment but not illegal
drugs?"Because alcohol was prohibited by an Amendment (18)
which, thus, had to be canceled by another Amendment (21).Th bottom
line is... the federal government can do anything it wishes regardless of
limitations in Article 1.8 and the 10th Amendment... because... because there is
no one around who can put a stop to it.
"So, let's get law enforcement to impeach him. Wait! Law enforcement...
i.e., the Attorney General... is a trusted Obama cohort. We are in trouble when
law enforcement is in cahoots with the criminals."So, wrz,
clearly you have no idea how impeachment works. And yet you comment on the
Constitution like we should listen. "The Court didn't rule
on Obamacare. It merely authorized the government to tax people rather than
charge a penalty."Okay, and if they don't rule on it that
means that it IS the law of the land. But, wrz, you've already said that it
is Constitutional. So what does it matter to you? wrz: "Is money
spent on illegal drugs? If the answer is 'yes,' then it's part of
commerce. And the government can regulate commerce per Article 1.8."Is money spent on healthcare? Obviously yes, therefore according to you
its part of commerce and government can regulate commerce. Cool. Badger, I'm not blaming Republicans for a thing with regards to the ACA.
It is a success already, and it will be even more so in the future. No, the only
thing Republicans have done is obstruct.
LDS Liberal,It is obvious you are a constitutional scholar. As you loathe
the constitution, what what would you propose? A new constitutional convention?
Or is there something good in the constitution? Your argument that 1787 was all
bad because of certain institution that existed is really confusing. What about the division of government among three branches? Must be a pretty
bad idea.Separation between state and federal powers? Also a bad idea.All men created equal? (Even earlier than 1787)- horrible.A constitution
that can be amended? RidiculousMaybe we should amend the
constitution and remove freedom, democratic principles etc. so we can implement
a socialist regime. The world would be so much better if we could force everyone
to think the same way we liberals do.But still, please help me with
the logic that Mike was foolish in believing in ideas from 1787 could be
relevant today. There are so many ideas from 1787 and even earlier that I like
and it will be hard to let go.(I'm really attached to this idea
that the earth's mass exerts a mysterical force that keeps me from flying
off into space and that came from 17th C)
wwookie, can you provide us with the quotes from LDS liberals post that say what
you claim he is saying? That he loathes the Constitution and thinks all of it is
bad? You claimed: "Your argument that 1787 was all bad because of certain
institution that existed is really confusing." Can you show us where he made
this argument? Can you show us this, or are you just fighting straw
men? "please help me with the logic that Mike was foolish in
believing in ideas from 1787 could be relevant today. "The
problem with Mike's argument has nothing to do with believing in ideas from
1787 and their elevancy today (more straw men), the problem is that he does not
understand the Constitution, and his interpretation of it is critically flawed.
Question: How is "exemption" different from "waiver"?Answer: They're spelled different. :-)