Posted on 11/16/2013 8:01:43 AM PST by Innovative
You cannot fix stupid... but you can repeal it.
Your cartoon is right on the money — sad but true. This is exactly how it meant to work.
I think both our arguments have merits. I subscribe to the notion these guys were into this from day one. BTW, not all insurance companies are for profit. In fact, the largest healthcare ones are not for profit: BS/BC and Kaiser to name a few. If you recall at the outset of the debate about O care, non of the insurance companies uttered one word against it, they were bought off in my mind. You believe they were forced to acquiese. One of us will be correct but the result is the same, the public got screwed.
They figure on Hillary winning in 2016 and 2020, and another Democrat after her.
Obama and the Democrats are Law-Less because Republican Leaders are BALL-LESS!!
THAT is EXACTLY what I’ve been screaming about!!! Conservatives will NOT get the Health Care that Liberals will get.....they KNOW HOW WE VOTE and WHO WE GIVE MONEY TO!!! The DEATH PANELS WILL ENFORCE THIS.
A 1st aid manual: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/fm4_25x11.pdf
There is no difference than with the delay of the business mandate.
House members file brief for PLF’s “Origination Clause” challenge to Obamacare
Just because Obama promises not to prosecute your ins co does not mean that “substandard” coverage limits would stand up in civil court. A law passed by Congress would be necessary, and the Republicans have passed it in the House -but Obama says he would veto that law.
I had not thought about this issue from your perspective.
Another problem is that our Republican leadership has no strategic plan and no political passion to repeal ObamaCare.
So far, all the political damage to Obama has been inflicted by a slightly embarrassed MSM, not by Republicans.
It is just a question time until the MSM does what it always does - defend Democrats and assault Republicans.
“Obama says he would veto that law”
Just saying too, he would veto putting into actual LAW what he would PRETEND to do by fiat.
Can’t have it both ways. Except in rhetorical hyperbole, at which he (used to) excell(s).
There was some protest early on...then the carot of forced coverage, and guarantees against losses, combined with the stick of being locked out of the insurance market for four years if they didn’t play, along with needing administration - and state allies - approval to be allowed to offer plans kicked in. There WERE reports of complaint, and of threats, but they went away quickly.
“FISA governs foreign intelligence surveillance. It requires the executive branch to get a judicial warrant before it can eavesdrop on alien terrorists and other foreign agents who threaten national security.”
It requires the executive branch to get a judicial warrant for domestic surveillance of foreign agents...not just any surveillance. That said, even if the example is flawed in reality, it reflects the Liberal convenient interpretation for it.
Ah...he addresses that here:
First, when Bush gave assurances to the telecoms — the assurances that Obama ridiculed — he actually had a solid constitutional argument, supported by several court precedents, that his warrantless wiretapping program was legal. That is, because the Constitution vests the president with supremacy over foreign intelligence collection, Bush was not required to comply with FISA warrant provisions. The telecoms were thus able to contend that since Bush’s request for eavesdropping assistance was legal, their compliance with it was legal.
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.