PDA

View Full Version : Delay: Obama set to unsheath and hand Ted Cruz the ACA Mandate Sword


Taco John
10-23-2013, 06:23 PM
The Obama administration will delay enforcement of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance mandate, extending how long Americans may go uninsured before facing a penalty under the law, MarketWatch has learned.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-mandate-may-be-delayed-2013-10-23?link=MW_home_latest_news

peacepipe
10-23-2013, 06:27 PM
ted cruz ain't doing squat. there may be a couple month delay at most to fix the gliches in the website.

Meck77
10-23-2013, 06:31 PM
CNN....

White House spokesman "We haven't ruled out scrapping the healthcare.gov website".

Taco John
10-23-2013, 06:31 PM
ted cruz ain't doing squat. there may be a couple month delay at most to fix the gliches in the website.

Oh, believe me, Ted Cruz is doing plenty of squat. This is exactly the opening that he's looking for to push the "Repeal and Replace (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fhealthwatch %2Fhealth-reform-implementation%2F322955-conservatives-unveil-obamacare-replacement&ei=nWpoUtehE8XgiwK9i4D4AQ&usg=AFQjCNHyyBFruNz4BQMgTAx21Vsx0MfR1g&sig2=cpwS0FOKB6BFCv9CMoniwg&bvm=bv.55123115,d.cGE)" initiative that they've got sitting in the wings waiting for this event.

peacepipe
10-23-2013, 06:43 PM
Oh, believe me, Ted Cruz is doing plenty of squat. This is exactly the opening that he's looking for to push the "Repeal and Replace (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fhealthwatch %2Fhealth-reform-implementation%2F322955-conservatives-unveil-obamacare-replacement&ei=nWpoUtehE8XgiwK9i4D4AQ&usg=AFQjCNHyyBFruNz4BQMgTAx21Vsx0MfR1g&sig2=cpwS0FOKB6BFCv9CMoniwg&bvm=bv.55123115,d.cGE)" initiative that they've got sitting in the wings waiting for this event.the guy is a pariah within his own party, he won't get the support to do anything.

The Lone Bolt
10-23-2013, 06:58 PM
Oh, believe me, Ted Cruz is doing plenty of squat. This is exactly the opening that he's looking for to push the "Repeal and Replace (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fhealthwatch %2Fhealth-reform-implementation%2F322955-conservatives-unveil-obamacare-replacement&ei=nWpoUtehE8XgiwK9i4D4AQ&usg=AFQjCNHyyBFruNz4BQMgTAx21Vsx0MfR1g&sig2=cpwS0FOKB6BFCv9CMoniwg&bvm=bv.55123115,d.cGE)" initiative that they've got sitting in the wings waiting for this event.

It's about damn time they put out a plan. Not that it's necessarily got the full support of republicans in congress.

They're going to find out however that it's a lot easier to take shots at somebody else's ideas than come up with your own and defend them. Dems and their supporters are going to rip on this plan the same way Cruz ripped on Obamacare. Should be fun to watch.

BTW, where the hell was this plan ten years ago?

Edit: You know, I just noticed that article was from over a month ago. What's its current status? I haven't heard squat from republicans on this plan.

B-Large
10-23-2013, 08:01 PM
Oh, believe me, Ted Cruz is doing plenty of squat. This is exactly the opening that he's looking for to push the "Repeal and Replace (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fhealthwatch %2Fhealth-reform-implementation%2F322955-conservatives-unveil-obamacare-replacement&ei=nWpoUtehE8XgiwK9i4D4AQ&usg=AFQjCNHyyBFruNz4BQMgTAx21Vsx0MfR1g&sig2=cpwS0FOKB6BFCv9CMoniwg&bvm=bv.55123115,d.cGE)" initiative that they've got sitting in the wings waiting for this event.

It would repeal and do nothing... Unacceptable..

I happen to agree with a finite delay... Until the retards responsible for the web rollout get their **** together..

B-Large
10-23-2013, 08:06 PM
It's about damn time they put out a plan. Not that it's necessarily got the full support of republicans in congress.

They're going to find out however that it's a lot easier to take shots at somebody else's ideas than come up with your own and defend them. Dems and their supporters are going to rip on this plan the same way Cruz ripped on Obamacare. Should be fun to watch.

BTW, where the hell was this plan ten years ago?

Edit: You know, I just noticed that article was from over a month ago. What's its current status? I haven't heard squat from republicans on this plan.

It would be the ACA, just called "Patriot Health Freedom Act" or some stupid ****... Same reforms, same amount of evil Socialsim.. Lol

cutthemdown
10-23-2013, 08:14 PM
LOL Obama could have ended the shut down way earlier by saying how about debt limit raise for a 6 mos delay to Obamacare mandate. Shut down on Obama.

peacepipe
10-23-2013, 08:33 PM
LOL Obama could have ended the shut down way earlier by saying how about debt limit raise for a 6 mos delay to Obamacare mandate. Shut down on Obama.

You're FOS as usual. You know as well as I do the shutdown is on rethugs, just cause obama didn't give in to their extortion demands doesn't put the shutdown on obama.

cutthemdown
10-23-2013, 08:39 PM
LOL Obama knew all along he was going to have to delay the mandate. he just didn't want to make it look like the repubs made it happen. Shut down on Obama!

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 08:02 AM
LOL Obama knew all along he was going to have to delay the mandate. he just didn't want to make it look like the repubs made it happen. Shut down on Obama!

Ob really!? Prove it.

Rohirrim
10-24-2013, 08:13 AM
Ted Cruz is TJ's new hero? The guy is a sociopath.

TonyR
10-24-2013, 08:50 AM
Ted Cruz is TJ's new hero? The guy is a sociopath.

The poll linked below shows how out of touch people like TJ are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-major-damage-to-gop-after-shutdown-and-broad-dissatisfaction-with-government/2013/10/21/dae5c062-3a84-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html?hpid=z1

Meck77
10-24-2013, 08:53 AM
Ironically enough it's rumored the White House is considering delaying the mandate a year. That just so happens to be the amount of time Cruz suggested.

Out of touch? Don't think so. I call that spot on as he saw the train wreck coming. I call that vision and so are some Democrats who now see it.

TonyR
10-24-2013, 08:57 AM
Out of touch?

Out of touch with respect to public opinion and winning elections.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 09:08 AM
They're going to find out however that it's a lot easier to take shots at somebody else's ideas than come up with your own and defend them. Dems and their supporters are going to rip on this plan the same way Cruz ripped on Obamacare. Should be fun to watch.

BTW, where the hell was this plan ten years ago?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FknJLMc84bo?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LOL

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 09:09 AM
CNN....

White House spokesman "We haven't ruled out scrapping the healthcare.gov website".

LOL

"We shut down the government for it. But we're not sure if it'll ever work."

LOL

TonyR
10-24-2013, 09:10 AM
On the surface, demanding an end to Obamacare in return for reopening the federal government was an insane negotiating strategy. Attempting to analyze these demands in strategic terms misses the point. It’s not a plan to achieve a defined legislative end. It’s a demonstration of dissent from a political faction that has no chance of winning through regular political channels. The problem they are attempting to solve in each case is not “how do we achieve this policy objective?” but “how can we express our outrage?” http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/shutdown-was-not-a-strategy-at-all.html?mid=rss

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 09:13 AM
Ironically enough it's rumored the White House is considering delaying the mandate a year. That just so happens to be the amount of time Cruz suggested.

Out of touch? Don't think so. I call that spot on as he saw the train wreck coming. I call that vision and so are some Democrats who now see it.

Their answer is "Well Shutdown was bad politics, so they're stupid"

Never mind that averting this epic train wreck was just the right thing to do. That's not their concern.

Rigs11
10-24-2013, 10:27 AM
Cruz=the male Palin. Hey taco maybe he can sign a copy of green eggs and ham for you.Ha!

Garcia Bronco
10-24-2013, 11:39 AM
this administration is embarrassing if true. A year delay on the mandate is exactly what the Tea Party asked for and the Obama Admin and Senate said no after the Admin gave Corps and Unions waivers. Now they're considering suspending the mandate. What a bunch of knuckleheads.

The Lone Bolt
10-24-2013, 11:50 AM
this administration is embarrassing if true. A year delay on the mandate is exactly what the Tea Party asked for and the Obama Admin and Senate said no after the Admin gave Corps and Unions waivers. Now they're considering suspending the mandate. What a bunch of knuckleheads.

So now you guys are clinging to a unsubstantiated rumor from an unidentified source to bash Obama. Could you be any more desperate?

broncocalijohn
10-24-2013, 12:01 PM
Ob really!? Prove it.

They knew this thing wasn't ready to roll out. You BETA test these things. Faster you put it out, the easier it is to say, "Sorry but we can't change or cancel it. We already started!" makes Obama and the supporters look extremely bad IMO not the other way around. This is a complete train wreck. $400,000,000 to get this program going just on the computer and they can't do it after a year or more. PATHETIC!

BTW, is this ACA going to now include illegals or will they actually vote on something like that if it was to be recommended as added to ACA. This would piss me off (and I am sure many Democrats).

This thing is failing big time. Now that everyone is finding out how much it is costing their families and getting cut to part time work, how much support will this get? This is why Obama hurried out the unworkable program. Peacepipe, it doesn't take too much to see why.

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 12:08 PM
They knew this thing wasn't ready to roll out. You BETA test these things. Faster you put it out, the easier it is to say, "Sorry but we can't change or cancel it. We already started!" makes Obama and the supporters look extremely bad IMO not the other way around. This is a complete train wreck. $400,000,000 to get this program going just on the computer and they can't do it after a year or more. PATHETIC!

BTW, is this ACA going to now include illegals or will they actually vote on something like that if it was to be recommended as added to ACA. This would piss me off (and I am sure many Democrats).

This thing is failing big time. Now that everyone is finding out how much it is costing their families and getting cut to part time work, how much support will this get? This is why Obama hurried out the unworkable program. Peacepipe, it doesn't take too much to see why.
relax dumbass,like I said if all conservatives got is a computer glich than have at it . they got nothing.

illegals!? WTF are you talking about. all that **** was vetted long ago in the debate prior to ACA becoming law. you're a bit late to the game on that one.

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 12:09 PM
this administration is embarrassing if true. A year delay on the mandate is exactly what the Tea Party asked for and the Obama Admin and Senate said no after the Admin gave Corps and Unions waivers. Now they're considering suspending the mandate. What a bunch of knuckleheads.

really. where are they talking about suspending the mandate?

bronco militia
10-24-2013, 12:10 PM
So now you guys are clinging to a unsubstantiated rumor from an unidentified source to bash Obama. Could you be any more desperate?

the tea party is desperate to bash obama......again?

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 12:11 PM
So now you guys are clinging to a unsubstantiated rumor from an unidentified source to bash Obama. Could you be any more desperate?

exactly! they don't got ****.

Garcia Bronco
10-24-2013, 12:20 PM
really. where are they talking about suspending the mandate?

I clearly state in my post "If true".

That should answer your specific question.

Garcia Bronco
10-24-2013, 12:20 PM
So now you guys are clinging to a unsubstantiated rumor from an unidentified source to bash Obama. Could you be any more desperate?

refer to my previous post.

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 12:34 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/frank-pallone-monkey-court_n_4156487.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

got to love frank Pallone for calling out the GOP on their sham of a hearing. everyone should watch it, it's an instant classic.

"I will not yield to this monkey court!" Pallone said after being asked to yield to Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas).

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 01:04 PM
So now you guys are clinging to a unsubstantiated rumor from an unidentified source to bash Obama. Could you be any more desperate?

Looks like the Democratic Party is developing it's own Tea Party Terrorist caucus.

http://www.msnbc.com/jansing-co/blumenthal-delay-obama-care

LOL

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 01:21 PM
Looks like the Democratic Party is developing it's own Tea Party Terrorist caucus.

http://www.msnbc.com/jansing-co/blumenthal-delay-obama-care

LOL

where does it say 1 yr delay?

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 01:36 PM
where does it say 1 yr delay?

You can't draw fine distinctions over timeframes when Obama pointedly refused to negotiate on ANY kind of delay.

I'm sure Republicans would've taken a 6 or even 3 month delay to end the shutdown. At the end of the day, Democrats kept the government shut down only to avoid doing what ultimately needed to be done. Because they had a pissin' match to win.

And when it's all said and done the delay might HAVE to be a year.

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 01:55 PM
You can't draw fine distinctions over timeframes when Obama pointedly refused to negotiate on ANY kind of delay.

I'm sure Republicans would've taken a 6 or even 3 month delay to end the shutdown. At the end of the day, Democrats kept the government shut down only to avoid doing what ultimately needed to be done. Because they had a pissin' match to win.

And when it's all said and done the delay might HAVE to be a year.
what idiot would negotiate terms under extortion. Obama did what any president dem or rep should've done. you don't set the presidence that this tactic can be used.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 02:02 PM
what idiot would negotiate terms under extortion. Obama did what any president dem or rep should've done. you don't set the presidence that this tactic can be used.

In the real world it's called "leverage" and it's really the only tool there is for meaningful compromise. Ask Tip O'Neill. :)

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 02:16 PM
In the real world it's called "leverage" and it's really the only tool there is for meaningful compromise. Ask Tip O'Neill. :)

in the real world and by law its called extortion.

Taco John
10-24-2013, 02:19 PM
It's ok not to vote for debt ceiling increases until it's not ok. Back when Obama was not voting for debt ceiling increases, it was cool because he was merely trying to make a principled stand that nobody else was making. When other people followed in his wake to make the same principled stand in larger numbers though - well those people are just extortionists and terrorists.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 02:26 PM
in the real world and by law its called extortion.

Extortion involves threat of illegal activities.

Somewhere in that thing called the Constitution, Congress is given primary responsibility for budgets and spending.

What they did wasn't just legal, it was by institutional design.

But more practically, under your model, how could they ever achieve any kind of compromise, if the threat of not going along with whatever budget the President wants is considered "extortion"

cutthemdown
10-24-2013, 02:27 PM
This is only the start. Just think when the system has to actually start paying money out to doctors. LOL the amount of fraud for govt subsidies is going to be huge.

cutthemdown
10-24-2013, 02:28 PM
Extortion involves threat of illegal activities.

Somewhere in that thing called the Constitution, Congress is given primary responsibility for budgets and spending.

What they did wasn't just legal, it was by institutional design.

But more practically, under your model, how could they ever achieve any kind of compromise, if the threat of not going along with whatever budget the President wants is considered "extortion"

It's only extortion if the repubs do it.

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 02:34 PM
Extortion involves threat of illegal activities.

Somewhere in that thing called the Constitution, Congress is given primary responsibility for budgets and spending.

What they did wasn't just legal, it was by institutional design.

But more practically, under your model, how could they ever achieve any kind of compromise, if the threat of not going along with whatever budget the President wants is considered "extortion"

yeah that's right, our constitution.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1

as you were saying.

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 02:36 PM
It's ok not to vote for debt ceiling increases until it's not ok. Back when Obama was not voting for debt ceiling increases, it was cool because he was merely trying to make a principled stand that nobody else was making. When other people followed in his wake to make the same principled stand in larger numbers though - well those people are just extortionists and terrorists.

refresh my memory TJ. did the government get shutdown or was defaulting on our debt really a threat at the time? the answer would be NO.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 02:36 PM
yeah that's right, our constitution.



as you were saying.

Were you trying to start a debt ceiling thread?

Oh, and when you do that, start off with whether 2006 Obama was committing Treason whilst voting against and railing against increasing the debt ceiling. LOL

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 02:38 PM
Were you trying to start a debt ceiling thread?

Oh, and when you do that, start off with whether 2006 Obama was committing Treason whilst voting against and railing against increasing the debt ceiling. LOL

read my response to TJ.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 02:49 PM
read my response to TJ.

Yeah, any trial for 'extortion' is always going to start off by allowing the criminal to argue that he didn't really have the capacity to deliver on the empty threats he made. LOL

Rohirrim
10-24-2013, 03:20 PM
It's ok not to vote for debt ceiling increases until it's not ok. Back when Obama was not voting for debt ceiling increases, it was cool because he was merely trying to make a principled stand that nobody else was making. When other people followed in his wake to make the same principled stand in larger numbers though - well those people are just extortionists and terrorists.

42 times they tried to kill Obamacare. 42 times they lost. It's clear that through normal channels of legislature, they don't have a chance. It's not going to happen. To then turn around and hold the economy of the country hostage for an already proven losing proposition is extortion. It's nothing more than grandstanding for the sake of ideological fanaticism. It does actual harm to people's lives and yet accomplishes nothing. Even McCain, and others, said this at the outset. Bad strategy. Losing proposition. The Tea Party lost, and lost convincingly, but refused to accept the judgement of democracy. So they resorted to legislative terrorism.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 03:36 PM
42 times they tried to kill Obamacare. 42 times they lost. It's clear that through normal channels of legislature, they don't have a chance. It's not going to happen. To then turn around and hold the economy of the country hostage for an already proven losing proposition is extortion. It's nothing more than grandstanding for the sake of ideological fanaticism. It does actual harm to people's lives and yet accomplishes nothing. Even McCain, and others, said this at the outset. Bad strategy. Losing proposition. The Tea Party lost, and lost convincingly, but refused to accept the judgement of democracy. So they resorted to legislative terrorism.

You always talk about these things in terms of politics and strategy.

What if they just thought the whole thing was a crap sandwich? (Signs point to yes)

What would you expect them to do?

Rohirrim
10-24-2013, 03:38 PM
You always talk about these things in terms of politics and strategy.

What if they just thought the whole thing was a crap sandwich? (Signs point to yes)

What would you expect them to do?

Accept the loss gracefully. They got outvoted. When you are in the minority, that's democracy for ya.

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 03:40 PM
You always talk about these things in terms of politics and strategy.

What if they just thought the whole thing was a crap sandwich? (Signs point to yes)

What would you expect them to do?

IDK, work on winning some elections. its been standard practice for a couple centuries now.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 03:59 PM
Accept the loss gracefully. They got outvoted. When you are in the minority, that's democracy for ya.

Huh. The Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader are in the minority. Learn somethin' every day. :)

Rohirrim
10-24-2013, 04:07 PM
Huh. The Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader are in the minority. Learn somethin' every day. :)

Minority in the country, bozo.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 04:25 PM
Minority in the country, bozo.

Yeah, this whole separation of powers thing is total bull**** man.

We should just take one big national vote on which team is most popular. Then that team tells us who the king is for the next 4 years. It's like so simple.

Democracy man. Democracy.

Rohirrim
10-24-2013, 04:29 PM
Yeah. Instead we should just let every disgruntled minority tear down the government whenever the mood hits them.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 04:31 PM
Yeah. Instead we should just let every disgruntled minority tear down the government whenever the mood hits them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 04:45 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

OH! so that is what was happening during all those years 2000-2006 when rethugs controlled all houses.

Rohirrim
10-24-2013, 04:45 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

And yet the current threat of a shutdown should be viewed as a particularly juvenile example of political narcissism for the following reasons:

“Obamacare” was the signature act of the President’s first term. Its enactment helped fuel the tea party movement that brought Republicans to power in the House. But only the House.

The President was decisively reelected, the first Democrat to have twice won a majority of the popular vote since FDR. If there was one signature issue of the 2012 election, it was Obamacare. Mitt Romney promised to repeal the law on day one. He lost.

More Americans who voted in congressional races in 2012 voted Democratic than Republican but because of their concentration and redistricting, Republicans held their majority. That should give some pause before declaring their actions are popularly justified.

Many Republicans understand that this dynamic means the Affordable Care Act is not going to be repealed. But a fair number of their radical colleagues now operate under the impression that elections have no consequences.

This is the logical extension to what Benjamin Ginsberg and Martin Shefter called Politics by Other Means, the replacement of elections with ongoing lawsuits, special prosecutors, and investigations. Their view of politics in the 1980s and into the 1990s was the season of governing had given way to a never-ending season of electoral warfare.

Certain House and Senate Republicans have added a new feature to this modern development: simply ignoring election results, acting as if they never happened at all. They will of course continue to claim they're acting on principle but only if principle is now defined as narcissism. They are in love with their own reflection, which reinforces their belief in their righteousness.
http://www.masspoliticsprofs.com/2013/09/30/the-country-without-election-results/

Rohirrim
10-24-2013, 04:46 PM
People who lost a presidential election act as if they won by seeking to defund an act of Congress ratified by the Supreme Court and a national electorate. We have moved further along into the strange new world where elections have no meaning and we are being driven there by a new breed of narcissistic politicians. And because they pay little attention to election results, it’s not at all clear that democratic norms can penetrate their self-reflection.

Politics by other means remains the new normal. (ibid.)

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 04:58 PM
And yet the current threat of a shutdown should be viewed as a particularly juvenile example of political narcissism for the following reasons:

“Obamacare” was the signature act of the President’s first term. Its enactment helped fuel the tea party movement that brought Republicans to power in the House. But only the House.

The President was decisively reelected, the first Democrat to have twice won a majority of the popular vote since FDR. If there was one signature issue of the 2012 election, it was Obamacare. Mitt Romney promised to repeal the law on day one. He lost.

More Americans who voted in congressional races in 2012 voted Democratic than Republican but because of their concentration and redistricting, Republicans held their majority. That should give some pause before declaring their actions are popularly justified.

Many Republicans understand that this dynamic means the Affordable Care Act is not going to be repealed. But a fair number of their radical colleagues now operate under the impression that elections have no consequences.

This is the logical extension to what Benjamin Ginsberg and Martin Shefter called Politics by Other Means, the replacement of elections with ongoing lawsuits, special prosecutors, and investigations. Their view of politics in the 1980s and into the 1990s was the season of governing had given way to a never-ending season of electoral warfare.

Certain House and Senate Republicans have added a new feature to this modern development: simply ignoring election results, acting as if they never happened at all. They will of course continue to claim they're acting on principle but only if principle is now defined as narcissism. They are in love with their own reflection, which reinforces their belief in their righteousness.
http://www.masspoliticsprofs.com/2013/09/30/the-country-without-election-results/

In 2010, there was no possibility of Republicans winning anything other than the House. They definitely won the overall vote though, with Obamacare being issue #1 (which you can't really say about the 2012 Presidential Election)

So anyway, what you're really saying is 2011 Obama should've worked with Republicans in 2011 to repeal Obamacare. Because Republicans won the election, and Separation of Powers is bull****. LOL

Rohirrim
10-24-2013, 05:08 PM
In 2010, there was no possibility of Republicans winning anything other than the House. They definitely won the overall vote though, with Obamacare being issue #1 (which you can't really say about the 2012 Presidential Election)

So anyway, what you're really saying is 2011 Obama should've worked with Republicans in 2011 to repeal Obamacare. Because Republicans won the election, and Separation of Powers is bull****. LOL

Your argument is so completely devoid of logic that I can't scare up the slightest clue at what point you are trying to make.

BroncoBeavis
10-24-2013, 08:32 PM
Your argument is so completely devoid of logic that I can't scare up the slightest clue at what point you are trying to make.

That President Obama was a TeaPartyesque Terrorist Extortionist for refusing to respect the outcome of the 2010 elections? LOL

ant1999e
10-24-2013, 09:40 PM
Yeah. Instead we should just let every disgruntled minority tear down the government whenever the mood hits them.

See Wisconsin protests...

peacepipe
10-24-2013, 11:01 PM
See Wisconsin protests...

don't forget the teabaggers

cutthemdown
10-25-2013, 01:27 AM
Siebullus said she needed 5 yrs, not 3 to get site right. If that is true how do they fix it in a few months? This is looking more and more like a 6mos to 1 yr delay done through a bill the repubs will only need 15 dems to support in the Senate. Then Obama will be forced to sign it. Repubs should wait until she testifies, then vote on the bill and send it to the Senate. it's ridiculous to ask Americans to follow the law when big biz got a waiver delay. That is not a liberal move people. To tax the people and let big biz off the hook?

Rohirrim
10-25-2013, 03:25 AM
See Wisconsin protests...

Oh boy! Another episode of the false equivalency game. This is all the Right Wingers have: "Quick! Look over there!"

Mecklomaniac
10-25-2013, 07:23 AM
Oh boy! Another episode of the false equivalency game. This is all the Right Wingers have: "Quick! Look over there!"


False equivalency?

Reps in the majority of the US House have worked within the system to try and delay, weaken, repeal or replace the poorly thought out Obamacare crap sandwich. Shut down the US government because they wouldn't rubber stamp the CR that Dems in Senate and WH wanted. They unsuccessfully tried to negotiated with their coequal branch of congress in the senate, while President Obama and Harry Reid did nothing. The processes were ugly but were within the system


Dems in minority in Wisconsin refused to do their jobs and fled the state and went into hiding to shut the government down.

cutthemdown
10-25-2013, 07:30 AM
Not to mention dems started the challenge election results, do a recall BS. That last one didn't work out to well as they got that handed back to them over the gun BS in Colo. Dems are who the repubs learned from when it comes to obstruction from the minority position.

BroncoBeavis
10-25-2013, 08:08 AM
Not to mention dems started the challenge election results, do a recall BS. That last one didn't work out to well as they got that handed back to them over the gun BS in Colo. Dems are who the repubs learned from when it comes to obstruction from the minority position.

Elections only mean things when their guy is standing on top of the podium. LOL

Rohirrim
10-25-2013, 08:16 AM
False equivalency?

Reps in the majority of the US House have worked within the system to try and delay, weaken, repeal or replace the poorly thought out Obamacare crap sandwich. Shut down the US government because they wouldn't rubber stamp the CR that Dems in Senate and WH wanted. They unsuccessfully tried to negotiated with their coequal branch of congress in the senate, while President Obama and Harry Reid did nothing. The processes were ugly but were within the system


Dems in minority in Wisconsin refused to do their jobs and fled the state and went into hiding to shut the government down.

Gov. Scott Walker thought he could just erase long established labor bargaining rights by fiat. How can that possibly compare to a law that passed both houses of the legislature, was signed by the president and then vetted by the SCOTUS?

Mecklomaniac
10-25-2013, 08:25 AM
Gov. Scott Walker thought he could just erase long established labor bargaining rights by fiat. How can that possibly compare to a law that passed both houses of the legislature, was signed by the president and then vetted by the SCOTUS?

By fiat? Hardly. Dems left their jobs and fled the state to avoid a quorum to stop a bill they didn't have the votes to stop. Eventually they had to return, the bill was passed by a majority and upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme court.

BroncoBeavis
10-25-2013, 08:53 AM
By fiat? Hardly. Dems left their jobs and fled the state to avoid a quorum to stop a bill they didn't have the votes to stop. Eventually they had to return, the bill was passed by a majority and upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme court.

It's always fiat when they no like. And then it's always "by the book" even if they have to demonpass reconciliation-steamroll the filibuster a time or three to get some progressive achievement on the table. LOL

The ends justify the means. That's the only standard.

Garcia Bronco
10-25-2013, 09:03 AM
It is neither immoral or illegal for Congress to refuse to fund something. It's Constitutional. That's their job.

Rigs11
10-25-2013, 10:14 AM
Ahh yes the constitution. I'm sure the founding fathers thought that one day a group of small extremists in a minority party would use it to hold the governmeent hostage. Hilarious!fascinating.

Pony Boy
10-25-2013, 10:27 AM
Yeah. Instead we should just let every disgruntled minority tear down the government whenever the mood hits them.

Obama would say our government hasn't worked as smoothly as it was supposed to work but don’t worry it just a few glitches and hiccups…… nothing to worry about.

BroncoBeavis
10-25-2013, 10:28 AM
Ahh yes the constitution. I'm sure the founding fathers thought that one day a group of small extremists in a minority party would use it to hold the governmeent hostage. Hilarious!fascinating.

Yeah, that damned fringe minority group with a 31-seat majority in the House. LOL

Rigs11
10-25-2013, 10:50 AM
Yeah, that damned fringe minority group with a 31-seat majority in the House. LOL

Dems hold the presidency and senate. try to keep up.

Drunken.Broncoholic2
10-25-2013, 11:14 AM
The govt can't even keep fraud out of the EITC cause "it's too big". Can't do anything about it. I'm guessing health care fraud or subsidies compensation etc will be huge and they "can't do anything about it" either.

Rohirrim
10-25-2013, 01:36 PM
By fiat? Hardly. Dems left their jobs and fled the state to avoid a quorum to stop a bill they didn't have the votes to stop. Eventually they had to return, the bill was passed by a majority and upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme court.

Which just goes to show how much smarter the Dems are than the Republicants. They tried it once. Didn't work. They gave up. The Republicants tried 42 times. Still wouldn't quit. ;D

Garcia Bronco
10-25-2013, 02:11 PM
Ahh yes the constitution. I'm sure the founding fathers thought that one day a group of small extremists in a minority party would use it to hold the governmeent hostage. Hilarious!fascinating.

No one held the Government hostage. That's a bunch of bull****. Further there is no "minority" party right now. It's set up for gridlock, which is exactly what we need.

Fedaykin
10-25-2013, 02:28 PM
Dems hold the presidency and senate. try to keep up.

only only hold the house due to gerrymandering.

Rigs11
10-25-2013, 02:38 PM
No one held the Government hostage. That's a bunch of bull****. Further there is no "minority" party right now. It's set up for gridlock, which is exactly what we need.

Wow. Boner had the votes to pass a clean bill with no ACA defunding in it,he chose not to. The house also passed a bill so only Cantor could bring the billb up for a vote. Get your head pit of your ads.

Garcia Bronco
10-25-2013, 03:38 PM
Wow. Boner had the votes to pass a clean bill with no ACA defunding in it,he chose not to. The house also passed a bill so only Cantor could bring the billb up for a vote. Get your head pit of your ads.

Apparently he didn't. What does that have to do with the Tea Party? The Tea Party isn't the Republican party.

If you are of the opinion that the Government was held hostage then you must look at all the parties involved. That includes the Senate, House, and President.

peacepipe
10-25-2013, 04:07 PM
Apparently he didn't. What does that have to do with the Tea Party? The Tea Party isn't the Republican party. If you are of the opinion that the Government was held hostage then you must look at all the parties involved. That includes the Senate, House, and President.

BS. the teabaggers are the republican base always has been. it's complete fantasy to think otherwise.

El Minion
10-25-2013, 06:53 PM
Dems hold the presidency and senate. try to keep up.

IIRC, didn't the Dems hold the popular vote across the board, if you added the collective votes for the House, the Republicans even lost that. Thanks to gerrymandering.

barryr
10-25-2013, 08:31 PM
Funny watching liberals complaining the minority is getting an advantage on something LOL Also watching them change the subject whenever that stupid website on Obamacare doesn't even work after years in the making. Just pathetic of these amateurs in this admin., but there's Obama going around telling everyone it works fine. Idiot. "Oh, the high numbers of people visiting the site means a lot of interest." Of course, we'll ignore it was made a law that people sign up, with under the table deals and kickbacks and not letting the public see it before it was signed as Obama promised all bills would.

El Minion
10-25-2013, 10:02 PM
Funny watching liberals complaining the minority is getting an advantage on something LOL Also watching them change the subject whenever that stupid website on Obamacare doesn't even work after years in the making. Just pathetic of these amateurs in this admin., but there's Obama going around telling everyone it works fine. Idiot. "Oh, the high numbers of people visiting the site means a lot of interest." Of course, we'll ignore it was made a law that people sign up, with under the table deals and kickbacks and not letting the public see it before it was signed as Obama promised all bills would.

Fear the spam bot, everyone! LOL

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c3yRpCv5zT8/TejqtD1l_QI/AAAAAAAAGow/tVgPF5DqpPI/s1600/spambot.png

barryr
10-26-2013, 07:42 AM
Fear the spam bot, everyone! LOL

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c3yRpCv5zT8/TejqtD1l_QI/AAAAAAAAGow/tVgPF5DqpPI/s1600/spambot.png

"Also watching them change the subject whenever that stupid website on Obamacare doesn't even work after years in the making."

Just like I stated, thanks for proving my point LOL

BroncoBeavis
10-26-2013, 10:50 AM
IIRC, didn't the Dems hold the popular vote across the board, if you added the collective votes for the House, the Republicans even lost that. Thanks to gerrymandering.

Federalism is such a problem for Progressives, isn't it. LOL

News flash. The House isn't a Collective. Neither is the Senate. Even the Presidency isn't a simple majority vote.

I know you'd love to live in a world where rural states were forced to bend to the will of Proggie CaliforniYork. Fortunately, the founders had something different in mind.

barryr
10-27-2013, 09:11 AM
The democrats had the full majority Obama's first 2 years and did squat, and didn't even pass a budget. But it was the republican's fault.

cutthemdown
10-27-2013, 11:07 AM
The democrats had the full majority Obama's first 2 years and did squat, and didn't even pass a budget. But it was the republican's fault.

They don't want to own their budget and tax policies.

Rohirrim
10-27-2013, 12:21 PM
They don't want to own their budget and tax policies.

They keep stopping those Scrooges on the Right from taking the last crumbs left on the plates of the poor and giving even those to the rich. What aholes. :oyvey:

Rigs11
10-28-2013, 12:07 PM
Flashback: GOP Wanted To 'Fix' Medicare Part D After 'Horrendous' Rollout

A few weeks into the launch of the most sweeping health care reform law in a generation, John Boehner declared that the implementation was a disaster.

"The implementation," the Republican leader said, "has been horrendous. We've made it far more complicated than it should be."

Boehner, of course, was talking about the rollout of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit -- known as Part D -- enacted in 2003 by President George W. Bush. He discussed the implementation woes during a Feb. 6, 2006 appearance on "Fox News Sunday," on his fifth day as House majority leader.

But did he want to repeal the benefit? No. The future Speaker soberly acknowledged the problems but saw potential in the law and called for improving it. "The good news is that the competition that's being created has lowered premiums significantly below where Congress thought they'd be when we put the bill together, so the competition side is good," he said. "I think the implementation side continues to need to be improved."
It was a rough time for the law's proponents. The soft launch was "anything but smooth," according to the Washington Post, marred by at least two delays along with other, deeper problems. Upon launch, the Bush administration admitted to receiving "tens of thousands of complaints by seniors, pharmacists and others" about implementation failures. Health and Human Services vowed to "fix every problem as quickly as possible."

Boehner was far from alone in pushing to fix the problematic law, rather than repealing or dismantling it. And his judgment was vindicated -- the Medicare Part D program turned out to be a success, expanding medical coverage for millions of seniors at a lower cost than many expected. Today it is a fixture of the Medicare program. Fortunately for Bush and his party, Democrats were a willing partner in tweaking and improving the law.

Nearly eight years later, Boehner leads a Republican Party that has taken a radically different approach to the troubled rollout of a new, ambitious health care reform law -- this time enacted by a Democratic president. Four weeks into its pre-launch, Obamacare is under the gun for significant problems and glitches, and Republicans took turns excoriating the law during a GOP-led hearing Thursday. But while the Obama administration wants to fix the problems, a united GOP insists that the Affordable Care Act's online enrollment woes suggest the law should be wiped off the books, or at least dismantled piece by piece.

What Democrats are now saying about Obamacare -- fix it, don't nix it -- sounds eerily similar to what many Republicans were saying on the dawning of Medicare Part D.

"This is a huge undertaking and there are going to be glitches," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) on Feb. 15, 2006. "My goal is the same as yours: Get rid of the glitches."

"Rather than trying to scare and confuse seniors, I would hope that we can work together as we go through the implementation phase to find out what is wrong with the program and if we can make some changes to fix it, let us do it and let us do it on a bipartisan basis," Barton pleaded during an Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on March 6, 2006. "We owe that to all of the millions of Medicare beneficiaries."

Republican Rep. Nathan Deal, now the governor of Georgia, cautioned critics that "most significant programs" have problems early on, and that's no reason to give up on them.

"Like most significant programs, the new benefit has not gone without a few isolated glitches and unexpected problems," he said at the same hearing. "But I believe that if there is anything wrong with the plan, most of it has been fixed and that that hasn't can be fixed over time."

"Any time something is new, there is going to be some glitches," Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) said on April 6, 2006. "No matter what one does in life, when it is something new in learning the ropes of it, it is going to take a little adjustment."

Boehner's office denies that the two situations are similar.

"Medicare Part D is a sound, popular program that faced some technical problems when it began," an aide to the Speaker, who requested anonymity, said on Thursday. "The ACA is fundamentally flawed, and the problems with the website are just the tip of the iceberg."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-medicare-part-d-obamacare

broncocalijohn
10-28-2013, 12:47 PM
Flashback: GOP Wanted To 'Fix' Medicare Part D After 'Horrendous' Rollout

A few weeks into the launch of the most sweeping health care reform law in a generation, John Boehner declared that the implementation was a disaster.

"The implementation," the Republican leader said, "has been horrendous. We've made it far more complicated than it should be."

Boehner, of course, was talking about the rollout of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit -- known as Part D -- enacted in 2003 by President George W. Bush. He discussed the implementation woes during a Feb. 6, 2006 appearance on "Fox News Sunday," on his fifth day as House majority leader.

But did he want to repeal the benefit? No. The future Speaker soberly acknowledged the problems but saw potential in the law and called for improving it. "The good news is that the competition that's being created has lowered premiums significantly below where Congress thought they'd be when we put the bill together, so the competition side is good," he said. "I think the implementation side continues to need to be improved."


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-medicare-part-d-obamacare

Dude, they should have got rid of that piss of **** bill too. Bush trying to kiss ass to the AARP and it has cost way more than original cost...just like Obamacare. I would not bring up this POS bill to prove a point. If anything I dislike of the Tea Party is they should have been formed before or right after this bill made it to Bush's desk. BLOATED, BLOATED and BLOATED!

Rigs11
10-28-2013, 01:56 PM
Dude, they should have got rid of that piss of **** bill too. Bush trying to kiss ass to the AARP and it has cost way more than original cost...just like Obamacare. I would not bring up this POS bill to prove a point. If anything I dislike of the Tea Party is they should have been formed before or right after this bill made it to Bush's desk. BLOATED, BLOATED and BLOATED!

Just pointing out rightard hypocrisy.If you don't like a bill, win some seats and vote it out. Don't whine like a schoolgirl and throw a tantrum at the country's expense.

BroncoBeavis
10-28-2013, 02:20 PM
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-sticker-shock-20131027,0,2756077.story#axzz2ivawKJJz

But middle-income consumers face an estimated 30% rate increase, on average, in California due to several factors tied to the healthcare law.

Some may elect to go without coverage if they feel prices are too high. Penalties for opting out are very small initially. Defections could cause rates to skyrocket if a diverse mix of people don't sign up for health insurance.

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

"She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said.

Nearly 2 million Californians have individual insurance, and several hundred thousand of them are losing their health plans in a matter of weeks.

Blue Shield of California sent termination letters to 119,000 customers last month whose plans don't meet the new federal requirements. About two-thirds of those people will experience a rate increase from switching to a new health plan, according to the company.

Lube Up, Middle Class. Because Obamacares. LOL

peacepipe
10-28-2013, 02:39 PM
The democrats had the full majority Obama's first 2 years and did squat, and didn't even pass a budget. But it was the republican's fault.5 months, not 2 yrs.

BroncoBeavis
10-28-2013, 02:51 PM
5 months, not 2 yrs.

What are you talking about? Obama had a heavily Democratic Congress from January 2009 to January 2011.

peacepipe
10-28-2013, 02:58 PM
What are you talking about? Obama had a heavily Democratic Congress from January 2009 to January 2011.

did he have a supermajority? like 60 or more dems.was it filibuster proof? otherwise you can call it heavy,massive or whatever you want and it won't mean a thing.

Rohirrim
10-28-2013, 03:04 PM
If the ACA is "fundamentally flawed" as Boehner says, why was the GOP pushing it since Nixon, right up until Obama was elected? Why did Romney install it in Massachusetts and call it a success?

Methinks it's simply because the black man in the WH will get credit for it, eh? I'm all for tension between the three branches. That's the way it's supposed to be. But this idea of partisanship being so rabid that the goal of the GOP is not to block a president, but to destroy his presidency, needs to end. They did it to Clinton and they're even more vicious about it with Obama. They are hurting the country with their zealotry.

BroncoBeavis
10-28-2013, 03:04 PM
did he have a supermajority? like 60 or more dems.was it filibuster proof? otherwise you can call it heavy,massive or whatever you want and it won't mean a thing.

Oh, so Obama's off the hook because he only had a supermajority for 5 months? LOL

Name the last time any Republican had a supermajority. Maybe Warren G Harding? LOL

I guess you guys shouldn't have been complaining so much. LOL

BroncoBeavis
10-28-2013, 03:08 PM
If the ACA is "fundamentally flawed" as Boehner says, why was the GOP pushing it since Nixon, right up until Obama was elected? Why did Romney install it in Massachusetts and call it a success?

Methinks it's simply because the black man in the WH will get credit for it, eh? I'm all for tension between the three branches. That's the way it's supposed to be. But this idea of partisanship being so rabid that the goal of the GOP is not to block a president, but to destroy his presidency, needs to end. They did it to Clinton and they're even more vicious about it with Obama. They are hurting the country with their zealotry.

Richard "HMO" Nixon was a nanny state Republican. Romney governed in maybe the most liberal state in the country. What was his real alternative?

And how many different items did you kids want G-dub impeached over? Little late to start crying about political hyperbole. LOL

peacepipe
10-28-2013, 03:12 PM
Oh, so Obama's off the hook because he only had a supermajority for 5 months? LOL

Name the last time any Republican had a supermajority. Maybe Warren G Harding? LOL

I guess you guys shouldn't have been complaining so much. LOL

all I pointed out was the BS that you idiots always claim about Obama having a supermajority the first 2 yrs. dems actually respect elections and don't go crazy with filibustering,or the threat of,when rethugs have control.

BroncoBeavis
10-28-2013, 03:18 PM
all I pointed out was the BS that you idiots always claim about Obama having a supermajority the first 2 yrs. dems actually respect elections and don't go crazy with filibustering,or the threat of,when rethugs have control.

Here in the real world, being one Senate seat shy of a Supermajority is still more power than any President has had in more than a generation.

If you can't get stuff done under those conditions, it must be impossible to get anything done. Never mind the fact that Obamacare went Nuclear, ignored the Massachusetts special election, and was shoved through on a bare majority vote anyway.

Imagine what other Progressive Rainbow Pipe Dreams you guys could've had instead. LOL

Rohirrim
10-28-2013, 03:21 PM
Richard "HMO" Nixon was a nanny state Republican. Romney governed in maybe the most liberal state in the country. What was his real alternative?

And how many different items did you kids want G-dub impeached over? Little late to start crying about political hyperbole. LOL

Here's the truth: It's the healthcare plan hatched in the belly of the Heritage Foundation. It's been the healthcare plan of the Right for more than thirty years. It's the plan Dole ran on. So why does the Right go berserk about it when Obama gets it passed? Only one reason. And I don't even have to post a bunch of smilies to make my point. Imagine.

BroncoBeavis
10-28-2013, 03:28 PM
Here's the truth: It's the healthcare plan hatched in the belly of the Heritage Foundation. It's been the healthcare plan of the Right for more than thirty years. It's the plan Dole ran on. So why does the Right go berserk about it when Obama gets it passed? Only one reason. And I don't even have to post a bunch of smilies to make my point. Imagine.

People come up with some silly ideas when faced with even worse alternatives.

Oh and remember, Reaganomics was borrowed from JFK.

The mandate idea itself is hardly Conservative. Just because you can find a few RINOs behind it at any one point doesn't change the fundamental flaw of the idea. Hillary championed the idea during her campaign. Did that make it a Progressive idea? Obama constantly beat it down to win a primary, then adopted it as a "Smart Government" liberal.

Let's not pretend like any of it was about anything other than naked political wrestling.

broncocalijohn
10-28-2013, 03:47 PM
Here's the truth: It's the healthcare plan hatched in the belly of the Heritage Foundation. It's been the healthcare plan of the Right for more than thirty years. It's the plan Dole ran on. So why does the Right go berserk about it when Obama gets it passed? Only one reason. And I don't even have to post a bunch of smilies to make my point. Imagine.

Complete BS. Hillary's healthcare bill got shelved by her husband because of all the backlash. Or to you, it was because she was a female?

BroncoBeavis
10-28-2013, 03:49 PM
Complete BS. Hillary's healthcare bill got shelved by her husband because of all the backlash. Or to you, it was because she was a female?

Roh hates deh Girlz. LOL

Rohirrim
10-28-2013, 03:50 PM
No. What it means is that the GOP cares more about partisanship than they do about policy.

BroncoBeavis
10-28-2013, 03:54 PM
No. What it means is that the <s>GOP</s> Politicians care more about partisanship than they do about policy.

FIFY

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FknJLMc84bo?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rohirrim
10-28-2013, 04:01 PM
Given that the ACA in all its elements has been around for quite a while and all of its parts have been hashed over again and again by both parties, why would one party choose to shut down the government over it, killing a million jobs and blowing an estimated $24 billion?

See the point here? They wouldn't. So the shutdown (which starts again in January) is over something else. What?

ant1999e
10-28-2013, 05:16 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/24/after-insurance-industry-pow-wow-white-house-delays-obamacares-individual-mandate-by-six-weeks/

Yesterday afternoon, chief executives of 12 major health insurers—including Aetna, Humana, WellPoint, and Kaiser Permanente—trudged to the White House to “discuss…ongoing implementation of the Affordable Care Act.” The meeting was off the record, but we have a pretty good idea of what happened. Insurers were likely to urge the White House to delay the implementation of Obamacare’s exchanges until the website, Healthcare.gov, gets fixed. And it appears they got their wish. Last night, the White House confirmed that it intends to delay the enforcement of the individual mandate by as much as six weeks.

ant1999e
10-28-2013, 10:14 PM
I thought this was LAW??? How can the White House change law?

barryr
10-29-2013, 06:48 PM
all I pointed out was the BS that you idiots always claim about Obama having a supermajority the first 2 yrs. dems actually respect elections and don't go crazy with filibustering,or the threat of,when rethugs have control.

LOL, yeah, Wisconsin knows what democrats there do. SFI

broncocalijohn
10-29-2013, 08:31 PM
LOL, yeah, Wisconsin knows what democrats there do. SFI

That was a misunderstanding. It is a common knowledge that Wisconsin Democrats in their Senate and Assembly all go to Chicago at that time for their conference. It just happened to fall on that particular week and had nothing to do with the new Republican majority.