Posted on 06/28/2012 3:40:40 PM PDT by LS
In a Dec. 24, 2009 blog at www.patriotshistoryusa.com I predicted almost exactly what the outcome of this would be. I warned "Forget Supreme Court Challenges to this Monstrosity." I warned that "anyone putting his faith in a Supreme Court reversal of any of this health non-care monstrosity has another think coming. First, the USSC seldom rules in favor of constitutionally limited government.
I then noted the incredible discipline with which the GOP fought against this: "The Republicans, both in the House and Senate, combined for a 256/257 votes against the bill (Cao, LA voting for the House version, but announcing he would vote against the conference bill). I don’t want to ever, ever again hear how the two parties are the same. You will never see such a stark difference in ideology, where even the limp-wristed RINOs voted against this horrid legislation. Elections do have consequences."
Just a week earlier I warned, contrary to what many here said about Dems being soooo concerned with "keeping their jobs": "Rush Limbaugh admitted that he was slow to this concept, but that he realizes the Dems are willing to lose their majorities in 2010 to get this horror of non-healthcare ensconced permanently.
I bring this up, not for pats on the back, but to recall that there was a debate about whether or not Obama was a "practical" politician who would look out for his party. I argued (and now am validated) that he was and is a radical who didn't care about his party and who rolled the dice that he could get five Supreme Court votes.
And now, Mitt Romney and a GOP majority senate (and, yes, we need both) are the only things that can possibly kill this vampire.
Once you get people dependent and expecting a benefit, it is almost impossible take it away from them. That is what all this is. Entrenching power. They don't care at all about helping sick people, nor do they care about redistributing wealth. All they care about is entrenching political power which means making people more and more dependent on that power.
It is like a crack dealer giving you little samples until you are hooked.
The spineless republicrats sat on their asses and waited for the court, big mistake, as we all know, now what.
I asked in another thread: what can be done if Republicans end up with 51 to 59 Senate seats?
The proof of this would come in 2013 if Romney wins in November and the GOP has majorities in both Houses of Congress. If you think conservatives are disappointed today, watch how downright depressed they will become when most of ObamaCare is still there by the time the 2016 election rolls around.
I fear this will never be repealed.
That’s nonsense, and it just shows you cannot allow yourself to be proven wrong: when a party votes 100% to oppose something and that is “proof” that they want it to pass? Seriously? This is your logic? No reasoning with such a person.
“I then noted the incredible discipline with which the GOP fought against this: “The Republicans, both in the House and Senate, combined for a 256/257 votes against the bill (Cao, LA voting for the House version, but announcing he would vote against the conference bill). I don’t want to ever, ever again hear how the two parties are the same. “
It’s also worth noting that ‘The U.S. House of Representatives has voted 30 times to repeal, defund or dismantle parts of Obamacare’ per my congressman.
Elections matter, just look at the carnage from 2008.
It will be interesting to see if your prediction stands though the coming court challenges of this as a ‘tax bill’. Probably...
A great deal: 51 solid votes (not a given) allows you to do a reconciliation only bill and defund it without a 2/3 vote.
Larry, I’ve always thought you to be ahead of the curve compared to other analysts. I just wish you’d been wrong.
Thanks, I really wish I was wrong on this one too. I did see early on that Zero (and some of the radical dems like Pelosi and Reid) would sacrifice EVERYTHING to get this in place, knowing how incredibly hard it would be to undo it.
I didn't say that "the unanimous GOP opposition to ObamaCare in Congress is proof that they actually supported it." I simply suggested that the unanimous GOP opposition in Congress was offered despite their implicit support of most of its provisions.
The first evidence to support my contention came just days after it was passed, when many GOP members of Congress who opposed it began making public statements that they found parts of it acceptable. This was the first indication to me that a GOP Congress and GOP president would NEVER overturn ObamaCare in its entirety -- and would probably (at best) just eliminate a couple of the most contentious provisions.
Disagree, and I think it’s beyond preposterous. That a politician, AFTER voting his conscience (not knowing how the vote would go) says, “Well, I can maybe make some lemonade out of this lemon” is common sense, and good politics. But you dodge the key issue of the fact that ALL of the Republicans except Cao voted against this, and voted against the stimulus too.
There is an ocean’s worth of difference between the two parties, and the gap between Romney and Obama grows larger by the day, it seems.
Yes, but does it take 60 votes to allow a reconciliation vote? I thought the barrier was 60, because any fewer and you could not get the Senate to vote? Or does reconciliation not require 60 to allow a voting to be held?
Ok, I’m no Congressional expert, but my understanding was that reconciliation only took a simple majority. That was, after all, how the Senate was going to get Obamacare through the first time.
He’s here; it’s not going anywhere unless and until it turns out to be a clear and unequivocal mammoth disaster.
Economic collapse will repeal it. Just make sure you have lots of ammo and food stored for that...
Given there’s only a 100 of them, that’s gonna be kinda tough
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.