Obamacare Passes!!!

[SirJosephPorter]

Grade Obama's First Year in Office. (CBS Poll)


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6116297-503544.html?tag

He still is a failure.

End of first year is usually the worst time for president, ironsides. Obama is actually in a better position than Clinton was after one year, and about where Reagan was after one year. Let us see where it goes from here.

And only the worst kind of political partisan will declare a president a failure after just one year in office. I think his presidency has already been a huge success. He managed to pass health care reform, something that has eluded presidents for 100 years, since Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[ironsides]

States right to challenge health care reform’s constitutionality.

The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. They list the nation's fundamental limitations on government, which is ironic because Obama's health care reform expands government.
Included in those rights are our precious freedoms of religion, speech and press, our right to a fair trial, and the often-ignored Tenth Amendment, which asserts that powers not given by the Constitution to the Congress are reserved for the states and the people.
Bill of Rights got trampled in rush to health care reform - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

What President Obama did was illegal. Some of you wonder why some of us are so against this health care bill. The reason is pretty simple, most of you grew up not knowing what it was like to have the people run your country. You instead gave that right to your elected officials, who split you up so much that it is almost impossible for a majority party to gain power without some sort of coalition. For us who live in the U.S. the concept what happened to you is repugnant to what we feel is our individual independence. You like what you did ok, it works for you, not for us.

 

[ironsides]

End of first year is usually the worst time for president, ironsides. Obama is actually in a better position than Clinton was after one year, and about where Reagan was after one year. Let us see where it goes from here.

And only the worst kind of political partisan will declare a president a failure after just one year in office. I think his presidency has already been a huge success. He managed to pass health care reform, something that has eluded presidents for 100 years, since Teddy Roosevelt.

Right now he is unpopular. He lied after promising to be open to us with everything.

 

[ironsides]

U.S. Supreme Court may weigh coverage mandate

The same Supreme Court justices whom President Obama blasted during his State of the Union address this year may ultimately decide the fate of his crowning achievement as more than a dozen states have called on the courts to strike down the health insurance mandate of Democrats' health care overhaul - a move that would threaten the entire law.
Two major constitutional challenges have been levied against the new law, one by the state of Virginia, which enacted a law exempting its citizens from the federal health insurance mandate, and another by Florida and 12 other states. Legal scholars are divided on the merits of the cases, and even Congress - through its research service and its budget scorekeeper - has said it's an open question whether the provision could pass constitutional muster.
Supreme Court may weigh coverage mandate - Washington Times

 

[gopher]

"What President Obama did was illegal."


Such a comment is popular and politically correct. However, there isn't a word of truth in it as Congressional power to regulate commerce is virtually unlimited. Even far right fanatic judge Scalia has conceded that this is the truth:


http://oneillhealthreform.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/does-health-care-reform-violate-the-real-constitution-2/



quote:


''the Court has recognized for over a half century that insurance is economic activity ... The Court also noted in Raich, again citing precedents that go back to the 1930s, that the Commerce Clause not only authorizes Congress to regulate the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, but also intrastate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” (Justice Scalia, concurring, opined that more precisely, “Congress’s regulatory authority over intrastate activities that are not themselves part of interstate commerce . . . derives from the Necessary and Proper Clause,” because this authority is necessary to implement the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states.) ... If the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce reaches into a doctor’s surgery to govern the most intimate of medical procedures, it certainly permits a law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance rather than free-loading on their insured neighbors. I count only one reliable vote on the Court to the contrary.''

 

[gopher]

Here's a quick quiz for all you right wingers who still believe HCR is illegal:


When was the first bill signed into law which mandates privately financed health care insurance for USA citizens?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quite so, gopher. The prevailing opinion among legal scholars is that the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the reform law is dead on arrival. Apparently so far courts have not struck down even a single law passed by Congress using the Commerce Clause. Besides, the parts that they are challenging do not go into effect until 2014. So where is the harm to the plaintiffs? There is none as of now. The suit may be tossed on this technicality alone.

I don’t think the lawsuit has much chance of success. Republicans are filing the lawsuit to keep the issue alive. And also to placate the far right base, the teabaggers.

 

[gopher]

Yup. By the way the answer to my quiz: the year was 1798 by President Adams who was one of the Founding Fathers.

Thus, all this right wing propaganda is wrong, yet again.

 

[gopher]

^ Anybody want proof?

Lookee here:


In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insur=

 

[ironsides]

Obama: Journalists would be terrible farmers.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-mocks-journalists-for-touting-polls-showing-nation-still-divided-over-obamacare/​

 

[ironsides]

KING: 100 percent repeal of Obamacare

President Obama, speaking at a rally in Iowa City on March 25, challenged opponents of Obamacare who have vowed repeal. To repeal advocates, the President said, "Go for it."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/02/100-percent-repeal-of-obamacare/


​

 

[SirJosephPorter]

KING: 100 percent repeal of Obamacare

President Obama, speaking at a rally in Iowa City on March 25, challenged opponents of Obamacare who have vowed repeal. To repeal advocates, the President said, "Go for it."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/02/100-percent-repeal-of-obamacare/


​

Steve King is a right wing extremist. But it will be interesting to watch the fight between Republicans, those who want 100% repeal and those who want to repeal and replace. Incidentally, repeal and replace is nonsense anyway. First there will be repeal. Then there is no guarantee that it will be replaced with anything. Repeal and replace is the same as repeal.

But most Republicans don’t think it is politically expedient to run on the platform of repeal alone, they want a fig leaf of repeal and replace.

But democrats should call them out on it, push them all into the repeal camp, show the people how repeal and replace is really all repeal, no replace. Then they should show how Republicans want to deny coverage to children, how Republicans want to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions, how they are in the pocket of insurance companies etc.

Handled properly, the issue could be a winner for Democrats. About 50% of voters oppose repeal, so Democrats have a solid base to work on. What they need to do is hold Republican feet to the fire, paint them as right wing extremists in the pocket of insurance companies.

 

[ironsides]

I don't think there are that many who are against the health care bill, what they are against is how it was presented and rammed down our throats. It may only be appealed after the Nov. elections and if the republicans gain a lot in the Senate.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't think there are that many who are against the health care bill, what they are against is how it was presented and rammed down our throats. It may only be appealed after the Nov. elections and if the republicans gain a lot in the Senate.

If Republicans try to repeal it, it will be vetoed by Obama. By no stretch of imagination will the Republicans have enough votes to override the veto.

The bill is here to say at least until 2013. It will be repealed in 2013 only if Republicans win the presidency in 2012, have a majority in the House and at least 60 seats in the senate, a near impossible feat.

So repeal is highly unlikely, in spite of what the Republicans say. However, that doesn't mean that Democrats cannot amke political capital out of it.

 

[ironsides]

Report says health care will cover more, cost more. DUH!

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
Report says health care will cover more, cost more - Yahoo! News

How come everyone knew it but those democratic idiots?

 

[Icarus27k]

I always knew this, and always believed the health care law is still the greatest piece of legislation the federal government has passed since the 1960s.

The fundamentals have always been there: adding tens of millions of people to the roles of the insured is going to cost more. But "health care costs" has always been a vague term during this whole debate. Are we talking about federal expenditures or individuals' premiums? Most Americans won't see premium rises or tax increases. Plus, at least one of the tax increases that IS in the bill (the tax on expensive employer-provided health insurance plans) is the perfect tax since it raises workers wages, possibly leading to a net financial gain for workers. Plus, the higher costs in the first 10 years that this report and all other reports have projected is only going to last the first ten years. The costs to the federal government are decreased after that. Plus, the law reduces the federal budget deficit both in the near and distant future.

All in all, like I said, the greatest piece of legislation since the 60s.

 

[EagleSmack]

So even though the Democrats say there will be hikes in premiums and value added taxes... there really won't be?

FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL!

Forcing uninsured people to buy health care...

No they won't be spending any additional money...yes they have to by law buy insurance but they won't notice anything different. :roll:

 

[EagleSmack]

I always knew this, and always believed the health care law is still the greatest piece of legislation the federal government has passed since the 1960s.

The fundamentals have always been there: adding tens of millions of people to the roles of the insured is going to cost more. But "health care costs" has always been a vague term during this whole debate. Are we talking about federal expenditures or individuals' premiums? Most Americans won't see premium rises or tax increases. Plus, at least one of the tax increases that IS in the bill (the tax on expensive employer-provided health insurance plans) is the perfect tax since it raises workers wages, possibly leading to a net financial gain for workers. Plus, the higher costs in the first 10 years that this report and all other reports have projected is only going to last the first ten years. The costs to the federal government are decreased after that. Plus, the law reduces the federal budget deficit both in the near and distant future.

All in all, like I said, the greatest piece of legislation since the 60s.

So this will be the first government program EVER that actually saves money?

By the way I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Icarus27k]

I believe all the official reports, from like the CBO and HHS Department and stuff. It's pretty assured.

 

[DaSleeper]

Keep repeating.......I Believe I Believe....

YouTube - Kool-Aid Commercial