Is it any wonder that independents make up the biggest part of the electorate?
And, of course, there are those right wing zealot Tea Party people who for sure
base all their decisions on race, gender, and impulse. As I watch the parade of
zombies that fall in line with the Republican and Democratic "leaders" I
know there is no need to wonder why we have problems in this country! Here they
come defending Obama, then bush, then...as if there is any difference! How
silly of me to not trust our "leaders"; they are trying so hard to lead
our country back to universal justice and prosperity, if the (fill in the blank)
would just let them! How silly of me!
So if Obama (currently a sitting President) can retroactively and without
participation or approval from Congress change key portions of an existing law
(in this case Obamacare), could a future President independently and
retroactively overturn aspects of an existing law such as the reactivation of a
national military draft, which now would include men and women between the ages
of 18-23 or the Emancipation Proclamation?Unless the courts weigh in
or Congress censures the President, this scenario is a real possibility. Obama
supporters may be fine with this type of "Oval Office activism", but
sooner or later it will be "my guy" in the WH and not theirs.
Damage control by and for Democrats running for re-election this November in an
effort to distance themselves from the Obamacare debacle. The Congressional
Budget Office recently warned Americans that Obamacare will cost over 2 million
people their jobs and the Obamacare subsidies will incentivize millions of
people not to work, who of course, will have to be supported by taxpayers. The
Senate and the House will both be in GOP control and Obama will be irrelevant
(even with his pen and phone) for the rest of his term, courtesy of his ACA!
Its pretty simple really.The democrats controlled the White House,
the Senate, and the House when this LAW was crammed through.It is
law....yet the President is now picking and choosing which parts of the law will
go into effect.So I guess we live in a Banana Republic where a
single person gets to alter law after the Senate and House (who supposedly
represent us) have voted to pass the law?This makes no
sense...unless you are simply scheming to win elections and buy votes which is
exactly what the President/democrats are doing.We "......passed
it to find out what is in it...." and what we have found it is that as
republicans predicted the President lied to us when he told us we could keep our
doctor and our healthcare plan. He lied because he even knew at the time he
said it.We have also found out he is delaying the politically and
economically bad portions until after election because he knows they are bad
policy. Then the citizens can resume their suffering I guess?
Notice he has no proposal to fix what he tacitly has admitted doesn't
work.Wake up people.
The public has put the Republicans into a box. The House Republicans can
theoretically fight Obama's unlawful actions by defunding the ACA, or
perhaps other means, but when the Administration and the Democrats resist, the
only remedy is to allow the government to shut down. And the polls tell us that
the public blames the Republicans when a shutdown occurs.
Democrats & Obama supporters will first criticize the Deseret News for
continuing to publish reports that reveal the horrors & failure of
Obamacare.They will then criticize Republicans for "not having a
plan" to replace Obamacare with (not true).They will also
criticize Republicans for criticizing the president.But Obama
supporters will not address the problem that is Obamacare, other than to say
"leave the president alone".That is not a solution.Obamacare is a mess. It was poorly created, poorly written, poorly
implemented, it is hurting individuals, families, business, our economy, and the
country.Why do we tolerate Obamacare? It is a symbol of liberalism
and will hopefully bring about change we can believe in--rescinding Obamacare
and ridding the White House and Senate of Liberal leadership.
DR Thom - "Obama supporters may be fine with this type of "Oval Office
activism", but sooner or later it will be "my guy" in the WH and not
theirs."Do you mean like George W Bush taking this nation to war
in Iraq without a (Constitutionally required) Declaration of War by Congress?
That act of "your guy" cost this nation billions of dollars and the loss
of thousands of American lives.
Moderate,You may need to review your history because Congress voted
to send troops to Iraq. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and dozens of other
Democrats joined Republicans to authorize the sending of troops to Iraq. So if
there was any unconstitutionality involved in that Congressional vote, Democrats
are complicit with it.
Theme for the 2014 election: Don't reelect anyone who voted for Obamacare!
To "Moderate" actually, Bush did get the concent of congress. Bush was
Commander of the US military, so he could send them anywhere in the world that
he desired. There are laws in place that state that anything over a short
period of time requires approval from Congress. This was put into place to
prevent a President from getting the US into a large scale war.Congress only has the power to declare war, not to command troops.
To all the critics of Obamacare I ask, what exactly would you do to fix our
hopelessly broken healthcare system that is breaking the financial back of
American families? Would you just keep the existing system or what?
To "Meckofahess" that is really easy. We do need to scrap the current
system because the government is killing it. Here is what you need to do to fix
things:1. Cut back the number of state and federal mandates on
insurance companies. This accounts for around 60% of the cost of insurance
depending on where you live.2. Allow insurance companies to sell
across state lines. This could drop prices by a few percent more. This is the
whole idea behind the Federal exchanges. If it works for the Feds, businesses
can make it run more efficiently.3. Make malpractice lawsuits
harder to submit. Healthcare costs are really high because specialists like
OBGYN or surgeons pay $300,000 or more in malpractice each year.4.
Give Doctor's tax breaks for the cost of equipment and a portion of their
time in caring for the poor.5. Allow insurance companies to allow
you to pick and choose coverage. Why charge a 75 year old man for maternity
care?That is a start, and I am sure that there are ways to further
Everyone whines about Barack's lawlessness but nobody does anything about
it. I say put up or shut up. If Barack is breaking the law then how is that
happening with no consequences? If I break the law I go to jail. I think Barack
has things pretty much figured. He pushes the limit ...and nobody does
anything...he keeps pushing until somebody stops the man. So far all we have is
talkers but no one willing to act and stop this lawless tyrant.
Yes red shirt, thats the same old republican plan (that they never do anything
but talk about.)Patriot: Perhaps he hasn't broken any laws and you
are incorrect, but you won't do anything but whine either.
I suspect supporters have also weighed in; they just don't get column space
Affordable Health Care working great. Reality set in yet Utah?
@RedShirt,I like your ideas. I am not sure whether 3 would be beneficial.
The reason insurance is not sold across state lines is because it traditionally
has been controlled by state insurance commissions. It hasn't been a
federal issue because it did not require movement of goods or services across
state lines; interstate commerce. However, you will find companies like Blue
Cross doing business in each state and serving customers while traveling out of
state but subject to local control instead of the federal approach of
Obamacare.I would like to stop paying insurance for maintenance
expenses. Insurance should insure me against unpredictable catastrophic costs
and let me put the rest for predictable maintenance costs into a health savings
account.I'd also like fees published and be able to take my
business anywhere and not be restricted to a select group of physicians. The
doctors should compete for my business.I am sure there are those who
prefer to have the insurance collect premiums, take a cut of the money for
themselves, and then write a check to my physician. They should also have that
choice available.Choice / Freedom!!! What a novel idea!!!
What I find endlessly amusing is that critics cannot figure out why they get so
little traction on with this particular line of rhetoric when they have done
nothing but attempt to repeal, delay, defund and destroy the ACA since day one.
To Red Shirt; I respect your ideas. I don't necessarily agree
with them as a plan, however without the ACA we wouldn't even be having
this discussion.Aside from the moral issue providing health care
coverage, it's pretty hard to have any kind of reform without everyone
participating in the costs, because everyone does participate in the
benefits.There are only two ways to have that participation. One,
you mandate private participation, and two you create a national program of
single payer. It's the point pretty much every civilized
nation has realized, and had as a starting point for their systems. Even the
Heritage Foundation caught on to this when they weren't saddled with a hate
Obama agenda. Until Republicans can come up with something that
addresses this all the "cost lowering" gimmicks in the world are just
smoke in the wind.
To "Spoc" actually, #3 does have a lot of merit. There are quite a few
studies out there showing that where states have made malpractice lawsuits more
difficult that they have more doctors. It also lowers overhead costs for
doctors. When you have more doctors in an area, and lower their overhead costs,
you get cheaper healthcare.To "pragmatistferlife" what you
are asking for what many South and Central American countries enjoy. You end up
with 2 systems. One for the rich where they can afford all of the best
medications and doctors, and one that barely cares for everybody else.If you cut the massive regulations, the price will drop. There are numerous
studies showing how much of the cost of insurance is due to government mandates.