Barack Obama Failed

[tay]

Barack Obama Failed







----------------------------------------

Canada needs to have a co-pay system to stop abuse.. it might save the Canadian "FREE" Health Care system. Fukking waiting on a person in the emergency who has a cold..

And why were you there?


I went to the ER some 25 years ago with what I thought was a brutal cold and I ended up staying over 2 weeks with pneumonia. I suppose if you saw me you would have wondered why I wasting your money or if you saw this guy with a sore arm or someone with a minor dog bite...............






“Just a Flesh Wound”




As I tried to bungee cord them into some semblance of security for movement, one of the cases toppled onto my left forearm. Ouch! It hurt, but I wasn’t all “911” about it. It was painful and swollen but I figured it would be okay without any medical intervention. Maybe a little bit of denial?


The next day, February 13, things seemed status quo. It was sore and swollen but seemingly no worse. Then, that night, things got worse. Both the pain and swelling increased. -




Miles O'Brien | Journalist








Ottawa mother loses 3 limbs after dog bite infection


Christine Caron, 49, was playing tug-of-war with her dogs on May 22 when one of the dogs, a Shih Tzu mix named Buster, nipped her hand.


The dog backed off, and then the other dogs licked her hand, she said.


Caron thought nothing of it, but three days later, she was rushed to hospital, and was put in a coma for a month and a half.






http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/117587-ottawa-mother-loses-3-limbs.html?highlight=Caron

 

[B00Mer]

A co-pay does stop abuse... if you feel sick enough you'll pay the $100 or $50 for urgent care... or better yet make a fukking apointment with your doctor..

People are just to lazy and abuse the system in Canada.. typical Liberals abuse the system someone elses is paying for it... tax tax tax

Why was I there.. lets see the 3 times I have been to a Hospital, first time I was dead after a car accident (and no visions or white light) however they called my father down, 2nd time I was gased and last time a parotid mass Cancer..

Otherwise I go to my doctor...

 

[BornRuff]

Oh please Ruff... spare me.


You've lost the argument and you know it.


I am well aware how the US Congress works. It is you who has the comprehension problem.


You're trying to say that because Massachusetts elected a GOP Senator who would enable a sustainable filibuster when seated in the Senate that the Democrats had to vote for a bill they didn't want.

Yes. It is pretty simple.

Once the GOP gained 41 votes, the house was limited to passing the Senate bill or nothing. Their only wiggle room was on issues that were strictly budgetary. That is very different than them being able to pass whatever bill they wanted. That is very different than the normal process where the house and the senate would hash out their differences and pass a new bill.

Well the fact of the matter is that the Democrats spent the majority of 2009 battling each other over this bill and had all the time in the world to go back and forth between each house of Congress. Instead the Democrats fought for exemptions and pork and tried to please their special interests groups. Not to mention lying to the American public about it.


The Senate passed a bill and the House of Representatives passed it as well. It was a Democrat bill 100%. If they thought it was bad legislation then they shouldn't have passed it and they have only themselves to blame. Shame on the Democrats for passing a bill just to save face of the Democrat Party and the President. They put their party and Obama ahead of the American people.


Now we have Obamacare and Democrats are trying to pin this on the GOP. It's not working... it won't work. Not everyone guzzles the Kool-Aid like you.

Why do you keep focusing on the time before the bill was actually passed? The fact is that that isn't when the bill made it out of congress and was signed into law. When the bill actually made it out of congress, the GOPs 41 votes in the senate had a huge impact on what the democrats could do.

If you can't understand that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

You were way off on your impression of the timeline, so maybe you should consider that you might be off base on other things too.

 

[BaalsTears]

I am kind of upset that I read that only to find out that it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

This is what you said:

"There were non-budgetary differences between the two versions that sent it back to the Senate after the Democrats lost the sixtieth vote. Rather than be stymied Senator Harry Reid characterized the differences as being merely budgetary and use the budget reconciliation process to send the legislation to Obama for signature."

Please provide examples of what those non-budgetary issues that were characterized as budgetary issues are.

Don't get upset. Compose yourself. This is just cyberspace.

When the Senate and House pass two pieces of legislation that differ in material terms the proper procedure is for a Conference Committee to meet and iron out the differences and for the Conference legislation to be reported back to each chamber. The Democrats split up the legislation using a parliamentary maneuver than designed to circumvent Scott Brown's election. This is called a step transaction. It was used to circumvent regular order. In doing so it ensured that the ACA would lack legitimacy in the eyes of more than half of the citizens. The ACA seizes one sixth of the US economy on a purely partisan basis. That's why opposition to the ACA isn't going to end. I apologize for reference to "non-budetary differences" if that caused you confusion. In my opinion the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, etc. are substantive differences that the House of Representatives would not accept. Proper order would have required use of a Conference Committee for reconciliation instead of the parliamentary trick of Budget Act reconciliation for legislation fully as important as the Social Security Act and Medicare Act...which did have bipartisan support.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yes. It is pretty simple.

Once the GOP gained 41 votes, the house was limited to passing the Senate bill or nothing. Their only wiggle room was on issues that were strictly budgetary. That is very different than them being able to pass whatever bill they wanted.

They could have passed the bill anytime before Scott Brown was seated. Instead they fought over it.

And No they weren't limited. They could have sent it back to the Senate and continued the process for better of for worse. That would have kept within the process.

Instead they choose to pass bad legislation just to save face.

Democrats have only themselves to blame.

That is very different than the normal process where the house and the senate would hash out their differences and pass a new bill.

The Democrats in the House could have sent a revised bill to the Senate. Nobody was stopping them. You need to learn a little more about the US Congress before you speak on such issues.

But you wanted a Congress that was fully controlled by the Democrats to hash it out without Republican interference. Sorry Charlie... the Democrats waited too long for that. They could have been passing the bill back and forth months before Brown won the election.

Why do you keep focusing on the time before the bill was actually passed? The fact is that that isn't when the bill made it out of congress and was signed into law. When the bill actually made it out of congress, the GOPs 41 votes in the senate had a huge impact on what the democrats could do.

Irrelevant. Don't blame the GOP for winning a Senate seat in a time that was inopportune for the Democrats. That was a Democrat problem... not a GOP problem.

The Democrats chose to pass poor legislation instead.

Democrats have only themselves to blame.

If you can't understand that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

You were way off on your impression of the timeline, so maybe you should consider that you might be off base on other things too.

No I wasn't way off.

Nice try to dig your way out though but you fail again.

 

[BornRuff]

They could have passed the bill anytime before Scott Brown was seated. Instead they fought over it.

And No they weren't limited. They could have sent it back to the Senate and continued the process for better of for worse. That would have kept within the process.

Instead they choose to pass bad legislation just to save face.

Democrats have only themselves to blame.

The Democrats in the House could have sent a revised bill to the Senate. Nobody was stopping them. You need to learn a little more about the US Congress before you speak on such issues.

But you wanted a Congress that was fully controlled by the Democrats to hash it out without Republican interference. Sorry Charlie... the Democrats waited too long for that. They could have been passing the bill back and forth months before Brown won the election.


Irrelevant. Don't blame the GOP for winning a Senate seat in a time that was inopportune for the Democrats. That was a Democrat problem... not a GOP problem.

The Democrats chose to pass poor legislation instead.

Democrats have only themselves to blame.

If you can't understand that, I don't know what else I can tell you.

No I wasn't way off.

Nice try to dig your way out though but you fail again.

So, in short, you finally agree that the GOP did have an effect on this bill.

It is nice to finally settle that one.

Don't get upset. Compose yourself. This is just cyberspace.

When the Senate and House pass two pieces of legislation that differ in material terms the proper procedure is for a Conference Committee to meet and iron out the differences and for the Conference legislation to be reported back to each chamber. The Democrats split up the legislation using a parliamentary maneuver than designed to circumvent Scott Brown's election. This is called a step transaction. It was used to circumvent regular order. In doing so it ensured that the ACA would lack legitimacy in the eyes of more than half of the citizens. The ACA seizes one sixth of the US economy on a purely partisan basis. That's why opposition to the ACA isn't going to end. I apologize for reference to "non-budetary differences" if that caused you confusion. In my opinion the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, etc. are substantive differences that the House of Representatives would not accept. Proper order would have required use of a Conference Committee for reconciliation instead of the parliamentary trick of Budget Act reconciliation for legislation fully as important as the Social Security Act and Medicare Act...which did have bipartisan support.

Lol, if I ask you to give examples of your very specific accusations, I am the one who is confused.

You claimed that they used reconciliation to pass non-budgetary measures, not "substantive differences", there is a very "substantive difference" between those two statements.

 

[EagleSmack]

So, in short, you finally agree that the GOP did have an effect on this bill.

It is nice to finally settle that one.

No, the bill was a creation of the Democrat Party. It was passed by Democrats only and signed by a Democrat President. The GOP wanted nothing to do with it except to stop it. The responsibility of this disastrous law rests squarely on the Democrat Party. No matter how much they want to deflect and blame this is the law they created all by themselves.

If you wish to retreat please do so!

But this is a 100% Democrat law and the Democrats alone are responsible for the utter failure of the law.

 

[BornRuff]

No, the bill was a creation of the Democrat Party. It was passed by Democrats only and signed by a Democrat President. The GOP wanted nothing to do with it except to stop it. The responsibility of this disastrous law rests squarely on the Democrat Party. No matter how much they want to deflect and blame this is the law they created all by themselves.

If you wish to retreat please do so!

But this is a 100% Democrat law and the Democrats alone are responsible for the utter failure of the law.

But as you pointed out, the election of the 41st GOP senator restricted what they could pass in the Senate, AKA, influenced the final bill.

I am glad we can finally put this matter to bed.

 

[EagleSmack]

But as you pointed out, the election of the 41st GOP senator restricted what they could pass in the Senate, AKA, influenced the final bill.

I didn't point that out. Putting words in my mouth will not save you either.

The Democrats had all the time in the world to pass whatever bill they want.

You're justifying the passage of bad legislation on something that never happened... i.e the bill going back to the Senate and the GOP having a say on it. Nope, the House passed it and that was that. All the President had to do was sign. Democrats at fault 100%.

The Democrats wanted Obamacare, celebrated it. Now the bill is law and it is an abomination. The Democrats are to blame 100% for this law.

I am glad we can finally put this matter to bed.

You are wrong.

You may tuck your tails between your legs and run.

 

[BornRuff]

I didn't point that out. Putting words in my mouth will not save you either.

The Democrats had all the time in the world to pass whatever bill they want.

You're justifying the passage of bad legislation on something that never happened... i.e the bill going back to the Senate and the GOP having a say on it. Nope, the House passed it and that was that. All the President had to do was sign. Democrats at fault 100%.

The Democrats wanted Obamacare, celebrated it. Now the bill is law and it is an abomination. The Democrats are to blame 100% for this law.

You are wrong.

You may tuck your tails between your legs and run.

See, we are not so different, you and I.

You recognize that the bill couldn't be put back through the senate due to the 41st GOP vote. Everyone seems to understand that without that 41st vote, they would have put a different bill through both the Senate and the House once they had a conference to reconcile the differences.

You can talk for hours about what congress should have done at different times. The issue we are talking about here is how things played out when congress passed this bill.

When congress passed this bill, the GOP had 41 votes in the senate, which was a HUGE factor in how this bill played out. Even the most casual political observer could see that.

 

[pgs]

Sarcasm can be humorous or it can be used for purposes of ridicule.

For those with a sense of humor mirth at the expense of politicians is always productive of a laugh.

For purposes of ridicule sarcasm is a weapon which is usually productive to inflict partisan injury.



Are you asking for other examples of situations in which the budget reconciliation process was used for non-budgetary purposes?

Not being a constitutional lawyer like eagle smack and born ruff I may be mistaken once again (highly unlikely ) .
But everything I have read about the subject at hand is that ACA is the largest piece of legislation ever passed through both houses with no bipartisan support .

 

[EagleSmack]

See, we are not so different, you and I.

Sure we are.

You recognize that the bill couldn't be put back through the senate due to the 41st GOP vote.

I do not recognize that at all. The House Democrats could have absolutely sent the bill back to the Senate. They chose not to and all voted YES!

Everyone seems to understand that without that 41st vote, they would have put a different bill through both the Senate and the House once they had a conference to reconcile the differences.

Irrelevant. The Senate passed the bill and sent it to the House. They House overwhelmingly approved of the bill. One need only look at the voter tally.

Sorry Charlie.

You can talk for hours about what congress should have done at different times. The issue we are talking about here is how things played out when congress passed this bill.

You are the one talking about what would have happened.

I am dealing what did happen.

The Democrats ran the bill through... the bill they created and approved with an overwhelming majority.

Now the bill is shown to be a complete disaster. One of the most horrible pieces of legislation ever rammed down the people of the United States throats.

The Democrats can't admit they were wrong and are trying desperately to blame the GOP for their failure here. It was their bill... it is their law... the Democrats are 100% responsible.

When congress passed this bill, the GOP had 41 votes in the senate, which was a HUGE factor in how this bill played out. Even the most casual political observer could see that.

How did Scott Brown vote? lmao

(psst... you can't win)

 

[BornRuff]

I do not recognize that at all. The House Democrats could have absolutely sent the bill back to the Senate. They chose not to and all voted YES!

Lol, anyone can send anything to the senate. The key word you missed was through.

 

[BaalsTears]

So, in short, you finally agree that the GOP did have an effect on this bill.

It is nice to finally settle that one.



Lol, if I ask you to give examples of your very specific accusations, I am the one who is confused.

You claimed that they used reconciliation to pass non-budgetary measures, not "substantive differences", there is a very "substantive difference" between those two statements.

A couple of points. When someone is trying to be polite to you the best response is to be gracious. It's the right thing to do.

Secondly, the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, etc. were substantive matters because they involved political corruption. The Budget Reconciliation Act was never intended to be used to deal with matters beyond minor adjustments to funding. On this matter we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[BornRuff]

A couple of points. When someone is trying to be polite to you the best response is to be gracious. It's the right thing to do.

Secondly, the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, etc. were substantive matters because they involved political corruption. The Budget Reconciliation Act was never intended to be used to deal with matters beyond minor adjustments to funding. On this matter we will have to agree to disagree.

Who is arguing that they were not "substantive"? Changing the amount of money allocated to certain things is clearly of substance.

The rules are that reconciliation can only be used on matters that are strictly budgetary, not that it can't be use on issues that are "substantive".

To be clear though, how did the bill actually address political corruption? Did it change some laws or regulations to prevent corruption? Or did it simply adjust the amount of money allocated to certain areas?

 

[EagleSmack]

Lol, anyone can send anything to the senate. The key word you missed was through.

And? Did they?

How did Scott Brown vote again?

 

[BaalsTears]

Not being a constitutional lawyer like eagle smack and born ruff I may be mistaken once again (highly unlikely ) .
But everything I have read about the subject at hand is that ACA is the largest piece of legislation ever passed through both houses with no bipartisan support .

That's correct. The ACA seizes one sixth of the American economy and places it under federal control. The ACA is ostensibly designed to further the objective of social welfare.

The Social Security Act and Medicare Act were also designed to further the objective of providing for social welfare...but they were passed with bipartisan majorities. The same thing is true for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. All passed with large bipartisan majorities.

The importance of having bipartisan support is that it provides political legitimacy through consensus. Since the ACA was passed without bipartisan support it lacks political legitimacy (as opposed to legal legitimacy). One of the results of a lack of political legitimacy is that the ACA will always be contentious and a source of division. The ACA creates winners and losers, and the losers will be mobilized to never accept their status as losers.

 

[EagleSmack]

To be clear though, how did the bill actually address political corruption? Did it change some laws or regulations to prevent corruption? Or did it simply adjust the amount of money allocated to certain areas?

If you are talking about the ACA it will not stop political corruption. On the contrary there is plenty of room for corruption, greed, and fraud. That is happening as we speak.

Obamacare will forever be the fault of the Democrat Party.

 

[BaalsTears]

Who is arguing that they were not "substantive"? Changing the amount of money allocated to certain things is clearly of substance.

The rules are that reconciliation can only be used on matters that are strictly budgetary, not that it can't be use on issues that are "substantive".

To be clear though, how did the bill actually address political corruption? Did it change some laws or regulations to prevent corruption? Or did it simply adjust the amount of money allocated to certain areas?

The amendments to the ACA that passed through budget reconciliation rather than conference committee reconciliation (proper order) eliminated the aforementioned items of graft that were so egregious that the House of Representatives balked at passage of the corrupt Senate legislation. The reallocation of funds was incidental. Your argument is like the tail wagging the dog because it elevates form over substance. There is no getting around the fact that proper order was not used by the Democrats because they wanted to circumvent the election of Scott Brown. Thus, they had an improper purpose in resorting to the budget reconciliation process instead of the conference committee reconciliation process.

 

[EagleSmack]

Secondly, the Cornhusker Kickback,

Speaking of the Cornhusker Kickback...

Former Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, who voted for Obamacare after securing the “Cornhusker kickback” for his state, met with President Barack Obama Wednesday to talk about how to fix the law.
Nelson retired from the Senate in January and almost immediately boosted his salary over five times by becoming the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC).

Read more: 'Cornhusker kickback' senator meets with Obama to talk Obamacare | The Daily Caller
​