Posted on 06/28/2012 11:49:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
But it’s so important to rename it. After all it was Romneycare before it was Obamacare. So let’s give credit to where credit is due.
But it’s so important to rename it. After all it was Romneycare before it was Obamacare. So let’s give credit to where credit is due.
I now call it RobertsCare.
SCOTUS also created a precedent today which made Fedzilla's power to tax unlimited, and which precedent will be cited by future SCOTUSs to uphold the most coercive taxes imaginable.
Freedom is a zero sum game. The more the government has, the less that citizen has. And Fedzilla just got it all today.
The difference is, Obamacare does not begin to exert it’s full evil force until 2014. So there is time to kill it before it gets too far embedded. We shall see if Romney is a man of his words very quickly since he promises to EO on first day in office.
You are, of course, correct.
SCOTUS did both today. They signed Obama’s political death warrant. And they destroyed the Constitution at the same time.
Now everything has to ride on making sure the wrong people never hold office again. Our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution intended to save us even if we made those mistakes. But now there is zero room for error.
Yep, exactly. I don't believe he was threatened or otherwise coerced;Roberts is a liberal who chose this bill to come out of the closet. Just my opinion..
Yes, Romneycare is the father of Obamacare. But there are diffrences. Obamacare is 2700 pages long and intrudes into more things than even the congress critters know since no one has read the entire thing. Romneycare is what 78 pages?
Another difference, Romneycare is a state’s rights issue. One can move to another state. There is no escape from Obamacare.
Another difference, Romneycare mandates health insurance ONLY via private insurance companies. Obamacare creates and funds government run pools for those who can not afford the ever escalating private insurance premiums.
OK, so if Romney won’t get rid of Obamacare then who? SCOTUS is out of it for good now. If Zero gets 4 more years, then Obamacare gets so deeply entrenched, we will never get rid of it. Michelle Bachmann has been explaining that for many months.
I am perfectly willing to give Romney 2 or 3 days in office to see if he is a man of his words. He has said 100 times he will sign EO on first day in office to all 57 states. If he does not, he is toast in 2016 just like Bush-41 was after “read my lips, no new taxes”.
One may be useless without the other.
It reminds me of a fellow trying to describe the difference between a conservative and a liberal to a friend. He offered this example.
A conservative is walking around a lake when he encounters a drowning man 50 feet from shore. The conservative throws the drowning man 25 feet of rope and encourages him to swim the 25 feet to reach the rope.
In a similar scenario, a liberal is walking around a lake when he encounters the drowning man 50 feet from shore. The liberal throws the drowning man 100 feet of rope and then wanders off looking for other good deeds to do.
The fate of the drowning man is the same in both scenarios, he drowns.
Of course what the man needed was someone to throw him 50 feet of rope and stay long enough to pull him in.
If you throw Romney the rope, you should plan on staying. Look at it as protecting your investment.
Well it’s the best your going to get from me.
I don’t give money to prochoice candidates.
I normally don’t give my vote to them either.
The sooner the better, if not sooner.
No, because States can do what they want. One-size-fits-all Federal program is very different ball of wax.
“Another difference, Romneycare is a state’s rights issue. One can move to another state. There is no escape from Obamacare.”
Sure there is. A lot of folks can’t see this, however.
What’s this business about the Obama administration granting “waivers” that exempt certain companies and organizations (such as labor unions) from some, many, or perhaps all of the provisions of ObamaCare? We read about this again and again in the news. Yes, it’s done for political reasons. But — it’s still done. Just what provisions are these organizations escaping?
Was not a key piece of bait in the original law, the lure that snared Ben Nelson’s vote, something called “The Cornhusker Kickback”, which exempted the ENTIRE STATE of Nebraska from some key provisions of the law? What was that about?
Well, waivers — as “politically tacky” as they may be — can work BOTH ways.
Since they seem to come from the executive bureaucracy, who gets what depends on who is sitting in the Oval Office.
Maybe it’s impossible to “repeal” ObamaCare (I’m not optimistic about it, I’m a realist). But, if the left can grant “waivers” to whomever it wishes, once the Republicans get charge of the federal bureaucracy, who’s to say that THEY don’t have the right to issue waivers, as well?
If an entire state such as Nebraska can be “waivered”, why can’t OTHER states apply and be granted such waivers, also?
Surely a state like Vermont would NOT want any such thing. Indeed, their legislature recently passed a “single payer” law.
But what about a state like North Dakota? If it’s Constitutional that Nebraska received a waiver, how could it NOT be Constitutional if North Dakota were to receive one?
Can you see where I’m going with this?
Suppose they passed a law, but granted waviers to anyone who asked to be exempted from it?
If the democrats do this when they have the power to do so, it’s going to be difficult for them to argue against Republicans doing the same thing once they have control (I expect the ‘rats to do so, regardless).
Just how many states have passed laws that try to exclude their residents from ObamaCare? Isn’t it up around 25 or so?
Rather than force this issue to the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds, why not “end run around it” by a Romney administration that simply grants waivers to those non-complying states that exempt them from as many provisions of ObamaCare as possible?
Help me, O Mormon One, you’re my only hope.
The waivers were only good for one year is how I understand it. If GOP wins congress and WH, the entire ACA can be repealed before it becomes entrenched with all those government run health exchanges, free contraceptives, and tax payer subsidies to the 47 million on food stamps to buy health care insurance.
“If GOP wins congress and WH, the entire ACA can be repealed before it becomes entrenched with all those government run health exchanges, free contraceptives, and tax payer subsidies to the 47 million on food stamps to buy health care insurance.”
We may have the numbers in the House to pass a repeal bill, but even if we retake the Senate, we probably won’t have a filibuster-proof super-majority there.
It takes 60 votes to force cloture in the Senate. We’re not going to have 60 Republican senators in 2013, no way.
All it takes is one ‘rat senator to filibuster. Without a way to force cloture, “repeal” of ObamaCare is out of the question. The ‘rats know this, and they will NEVER permit a Senate vote to go forward so long as they have the ability to stop it.
Hmmm.... after writing that, I see a -possible- exception — the same one that I believe was used to ram the original ObamaCare bill through the Senate in the first place. That is, present it as a “fiscal matter”, since fiscal-related bills can’t be filibustered, but can pass on a 51-49 majority. Not sure if the Pubbies have the savvy to get this done, however.
I don’t like it any more than you do, but I’m a realist, and that’s how I see it.
Yeah, 60 in senate is a tall mountain to climb. However many wrenches can be thrown in the machine if GOP controls WH, House and majority in senate. 60 is not out of the question if economy keeps tanking through November and democrats have to defend Obamacare.
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.