Posted on 07/01/2012 9:50:52 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
(CNN) — Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, said Sunday the Supreme Court decision upholding President Barack Obama’s health care measure should put to rest the national debate over the law’s practicality.
Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Lew said the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in 2010, needs to be fully implemented before Americans assess its merit, and that detractors of the law, including Obama’s opponent in the 2012 presidential election, were using it to divide the country.
“This was a plan that Gov. Romney supported,” Lew said, “and it’s something that I would have thought he would be proud of.”
The national debate over the law, which has been ongoing since the law was implemented, can now end with the court’s ruling, Lew said.
“It’s time now to get over the debate and implement that law,” he told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. “What the American people don’t want is, they don’t want to be taken back to the old divisive debate. They want to get on with it, and they want us to be focusing on economic growth and creating jobs.”
(Excerpt) Read more at fox8.com ...
Sorry, I made my post befoe I read yours—I wasn’t copying you LOL
Translation: Time to stop thinking.
Sooooo, what do you suggest: Vote for Obama?
“......and they want us to be focusing on economic growth and creating jobs.”
________________________________________________________
Really??? You, Hussien, and the other jackass democrats haven’t been focusing on jobs or the economy for the last 3-1/2 years!
Obama himself says things such as this often: the time for “debate is over.” It is incredibly arrogant and bordering on tyrannical.
What debate? You can't show me no stinking debate.
Obama ordered a weak Congress to pass it without a debate, so they didn't read it and passed it anyway. Looks like the only ones to read it other than Heritage Foundation was SCOTUS (I suppose). But there was no real debate there either. The four socialists will vote for socialism and Roberts thinks he can't overturn legislation that's unconstitutional.
So far, no debate of any real substance. That's because the Socialists lose every time in a substantive debate in the forum of ideas. Whatever they pass, it will be done without the Left having any serious or substantive argument in any kind of actual debate.
“Sooooo, what do you suggest: Vote for Obama?”
I’m praying for a miracle. I’ll know it when I see it.
Debate? What debate? I never saw no stinking debate.
Obama ordered a weak Congress to pass it without a debate, so they didn't read it and passed it anyway. Looks like the only ones to read it other than Heritage Foundation was SCOTUS (I suppose). But there was no real debate there either. The four socialists will vote for socialism and Roberts thinks he can't overturn legislation that's unconstitutional.
So far, no debate of any real substance. Whatever they pass, it will be done without the Left having any serious or substantive argument in any kind of actual debate. There never will be no stinking debate with the Socialist Left because they have no substantive argument and lose every time in the forum of ideas.
Romneycare - at least as far as its intention and purposes go - is not the same thing as Obamatax!
Unlike Barack Obama, Mitt Romney did not campaign on universal health care coverage when he was running for the office of Governor of Massachusetts.
It was only after he became Governor that Mitt Romney was more or less compelled to sign "Romneycare" into law when the Federal Government threatened to cut $385 million of Medicaid funding if the state did not reduce the number of uninsured recipients of health care services.
Romney sought to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state. This came after Staples founder Stemberg told him at the start of his term that doing so would be the best way he could help people, and after the federal government, owing to the rules of Medicaid funding, threatened to cut $385 million in those payments to Massachusetts if the state did not reduce the number of uninsured recipients of health care services.
Although he had not campaigned on the idea of universal health insurance, Romney decided that because people without insurance still received expensive health care, the money spent by the state for such care could be better used to subsidize insurance for the poor. After positing that any measure adopted not raise taxes and not resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillarycare" proposal, Romney formed a team of consultants from diverse political backgrounds. Beginning in late 2004, they came up with a set of proposals more ambitious than an incremental one from the Massachusetts Senate and more acceptable to him than one from the Massachusetts House of Representatives that incorporated a new payroll tax. In particular, Romney pushed for incorporating an individual mandate at the state level. Past rival Ted Kennedy, who had made universal health coverage his life's work and who, over time, had developed a warm relationship with Romney, gave the plan a positive reception, which encouraged Democratic legislators to cooperate. The effort eventually gained the support of all major stakeholders within the state, and Romney helped break a logjam between rival Democratic leaders in the legislature.
On April 12, 2006, the governor signed the resulting Massachusetts health reform law, commonly called "Romneycare", which requires nearly all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance coverage or face escalating tax penalties, such as the loss of their personal income tax exemption. The bill also establishes means-tested state subsidies for people who do not have adequate employer insurance and whose income is below a threshold, with funds that were previously used to compensate for the health costs of the uninsured. He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including a controversial $295-per-employee assessment on businesses that do not offer health insurance and provisions guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients.
The legislature overrode all eight vetoes, but the governor's office said the differences were not essential. The law was the first of its kind in the nation and became the signature achievement of Romney's term in office...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... _____________________________________________
The essential differences between Romneycare and the Obamatax are; namely, that Romneycare merely sought to get citizens here in Massachusetts insured so that our hospitals wouldn't go bankrupt providing expensive healthcare to uninsured recipients - especially if a threatened Medicaid cut were implemented by the Federal Government. Moreover, Mitt Romney never hesitated to admit that the penalty for non-compliance was a tax.
Romneycare never envisioned a government takeover and control of 1/6 of our state's economy as Obamatax envisions a government takeover and control of 1/6 of our nation's economy. Romneycare never envisioned gaining control over the lives of the citizens of Massachusetts.
We’ll give up on opposing Obamacare when you give up on shoving homo marriage down our throats no matter how times we pass propositions opposing it.
BUMP
Even if the left loses this November, they won’t be out until January ‘13, unfortunately, but we all know what you mean.
All RINOS out, but how do we, successfully, replace Mitt Romney with a small government conservative, instead?
Said Sarah Palin?
I’d like to put his job to rest.
Since Barack Obama will, probably, win “big” in Massachusetts, no matter what, conservatives in Massachusetts (ditto, all other strong, pro-leftist areas of the U.S.) don’t have to vote for “the lesser of two evils” in voting for RINO Mitt Romney. Conservatives in Massachusetts could vote for true conservatives and true conservatism with, either, Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, or they could vote for Tom Hoefling of America’s Party, instead. These options are out there, whether you, willingly, take them or not. If you choose to, still, vote for Mitt Romney, then I understand (the ABO option). I, just, see way too much leftist politics with, either, a “President Mitt Romney”, or more of President Barack Obama.
“What the American people don’t want is, they don’t want to be taken back to the old divisive debate. They want to get on with it, and they want us to be focusing on economic growth and creating jobs.””
No Sparky, what they American people don’t want, according to a lot of polls lately, is freaking Obamatax. So there will be no glossing over it slick.
Myself I would think its not over till its over.
Romney could have a stroke, he could die of an unknown ailment, he could have a visit of a holy nature and dragged screaming either up or down.his time wasn’t due yet, etc.
We really should have a backup candidate in the background.
There could be other long shot scenarios, I would not bet the farm on Romney.
He’s Emperor Obamus I.
lmao....hehehehehe...He is Obamus scumous serial lyus Lenin Khoemeini..
Do not question the thinking of the descended POS one, Obamma mamba jamma lenin Khoemeini..into the pit ya go..
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.