• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pew: Tea Party support at record low

Do you really think Democrats wanted Obamacare?
What do you think health reform would look like if Democrats were able to put in place anything they wanted
....

First ... of course they did. They were unchallenged.

Second ... It will look like what'll be described as the fix for Obamacare.

As a couple of people you may have heard of have said ... abandon insurance as means of delivering healthcare ... and ... "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. We may not get there immediately," .

Can you guess who said those things?
 
First ... of course they did. They were unchallenged.

Second ... It will look like what'll be described as the fix for Obamacare.

As a couple of people you may have heard of have said ... abandon insurance as means of delivering healthcare ... and ... "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. We may not get there immediately," .

Can you guess who said those things?

So you're saying the Democrats would prefer a Single Payer system....why on earth do you think they used RomneyCare in Mass or the Heritage individual mandate and exchanges as a model?
 
I was discussing why I dislike the T Party.


They did

Nothing. Should he? Should a party that controls the house use a shutdown and debt ceiling in order to overturn major legislation that was passed through our political process? Should of House Dems in 2006 usde a shutdown in order to get out of Iraq? Should of southernors in the House band together in the 60's to overturn the civil rights Act? What kind of government do we have if calamity can be forced on everyone or we have to live by the dictates of one group in one chamber of the House? There are 32 more Republicans then Dems in the house...so
you're saying that should be enough to overturn major legislation
?


Of course not...all Dems have gotten tired of giving into House Republicans under the threat of shutdown or not raising the debt ceiling.

It was enough to create it and the President changes or ignores major legislation without either of the chambers that created it.
How does that work for ya?
 
It was enough to create it and the President changes or ignores major legislation without either of the chambers that created it.
How does that work for ya?

Not really. Can you be more clear? so you're saying you're fine with just one chamber of the house getting what it wants or threatening pain/ruin for everyone else?
 
So you're saying the Democrats would prefer a Single Payer system....why on earth do you think they used RomneyCare in Mass or the Heritage individual mandate and exchanges as a model?

You oughta read more about Romneycare vs Obamacare. May surprise you.

And the Democrats most definitely prefer Single Payer.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just an Obama lackey but that you're just, forgive me, horribly misguided about the intended role of Government.
 
Not really. Can you be more clear? so you're saying you're fine with just one chamber of the house getting what it wants or threatening pain/ruin for everyone else?
I'm suggesting our President changed Obamacare and ignored DOMA ... as examples.
He represents only one branch, after all.
Why is that better?
 
I'm suggesting our President changed Obamacare

He didn't change Obamacare. He use executive orders to make delays. The President has to carry out legislation passed but is given some discretionary powers over how it's done. In fact the Treasury cited multiple example of were delays and postponements were made when administration realized statutory deadline proved unworkable. The only time that delays can be challenged is if they are "unreasonably delayed" which requires taking the delays to court. Anyway...long story short...the executive orders are backed by precedent and law. The President has to carry out legislation but has discretionary powers of how it's done. Congress can't pass a bill "tomorrow every child get a new puppy"...the President would delay that legislation because it's unworkable.

ignored DOMA
Which is in his power.
Here's a good article that goes over executive power and the DOMA decision.
ILW.COM - immigration news: DOMA: What President Obama Can Do Now By Gary Endelman
 
You oughta read more about Romneycare vs Obamacare. May surprise you.

Of course there are differences. It's major legislation...but the core is the same. It has an individual mandate, it include subsidies for individuals at or slightly above the poverty line, and it includes exchanges. So are you saying Republicans are fine with those three things? Those are the only thing I hear criticized from the right.

And the Democrats most definitely prefer Single Payer.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just an Obama lackey but that you're just, forgive me, horribly misguided about the intended role of Government.
I'm not an Obama lackey. I voted for Hillary in the Primary but I preferred him over both McCain and Romney.
As for the role of Government...government serves the interest of the people. We have different views of the role of government but that is hashed out on voter booths and court rooms. This country would be a wreck if our government looked like the government in 1776.
 
Which is in his power.

What?!? You mean he used the tools at his disposal to make changes in the implementation of what he thought was a bad law over the objections of another branch of government? That terrorist asshole!
 
What?!? You mean he used the tools at his disposal to make changes in the implementation of what he thought was a bad law over the objections of another branch of government? That terrorist asshole!

Actually it was based on the constitutionality of the law not because he didn't like it. The Supreme Court ruling has supported his interpretation.
 
He didn't change Obamacare. He use executive orders to make delays. The President has to carry out legislation passed but is given some discretionary powers over how it's done. In fact the Treasury cited multiple example of were delays and postponements were made when administration realized statutory deadline proved unworkable. The only time that delays can be challenged is if they are "unreasonably delayed" which requires taking the delays to court. Anyway...long story short...the executive orders are backed by precedent and law. The President has to carry out legislation but has discretionary powers of how it's done.
Congress can't pass a bill "tomorrow every child get a new puppy"...the President would delay that legislation because it's unworkable.


Which is in his power.
Here's a good article that goes over executive power and the DOMA decision.
ILW.COM - immigration news: DOMA: What President Obama Can Do Now By Gary Endelman

We're not talking aout the usual executive orders.
That article dealt with interpretation of a law and it's constitutionality. Not a decision to not enforce what is written in a law and choosing who it should affect.
If that's what you think is in a President's authority then Chris Christie can ****can the whole thing in 2016 n his own.
As for the new puppy example ... the President should have known his new puppy was too ill to survive and left the bill unsigned.
He didn't and he has no authority to simply ingore the law's provisions.
 
Of course there are differences. It's major legislation...but the core is the same. It has an individual mandate, it include subsidies for individuals at or slightly above the poverty line, and it includes exchanges. So are you saying Republicans are fine with those three things? Those are the only thing I hear criticized from the right.


I'm not an Obama lackey. I voted for Hillary in the Primary but I preferred him over both McCain and Romney.
As for the role of Government...government serves the interest of the people. We have different views of the role of government but that is hashed out on voter booths and court rooms. This country would be a wreck if our government looked like the government in 1776.

You're supposed to make Constitutional changes via Amendments ... not electing an autocrat via the voting booth.
And ... the major difference between Mass. and the USA should be obvious ...
 
We're not talking aout the usual executive orders.
That article dealt with interpretation of a law and it's constitutionality. Not a decision to not enforce what is written in a law and choosing who it should affect.
If that's what you think is in a President's authority then Chris Christie can ****can the whole thing in 2016 n his own.

Every president in the modern era has used executive orders and if Christie every became President it's a given he would use Executive orders. Some will be controversial and unless it's an obvious breach of authority and challenged in court Dems will grumble like they did under Bush and Reagan and the world will move on. As for a hypothetical Chris Christie getting rid of it...no...he couldn't. It's not unconstitutional and if he delays it too much it will be challenged in courts.

This is what I don't understand about a lot of Conservative gripes about Obama....everything he does which done by other President always causes griping in the papers and on the record has turned into full fledged treason in your guys mind. Like it's all new and never done before.

As for the new puppy example ... the President should have known his new puppy was too ill to survive and left the bill unsigned.
He didn't and he has no authority to simply ingore the law's provisions.

Once again...he didn't ignore any of the laws provision...he delayed implementation...which has been countless times in the modern era as the Executive branch implements legislation.
 
We're not talking aout the usual executive orders.
That article dealt with interpretation of a law and it's constitutionality. Not a decision to not enforce what is written in a law and choosing who it should affect.
If that's what you think is in a President's authority then Chris Christie can ****can the whole thing in 2016 n his own.
As for the new puppy example ... the President should have known his new puppy was too ill to survive and left the bill unsigned.
He didn't and he has no authority to simply ingore the law's provisions.

I want to point out...the article dealt with DOMA...I addressed Obamacare provision being delayed. There's no article needed for that...that's run of the mill presidential discretionary authority to carry out legislation
 
Everything you say is so true, Pol ... BUT ... we must remember that creating something that "works" to achieve something we would consider sensible requires a system that achieves a goal that Obamacare was never intended to achieve.
To put it another way, Obamacare is a vehicle ... not a destination.
I get a chuckle when folks describe Obama as incompetent.
He is a very clever bad guy with a whole ton of support in strategic places.

I have been reading more and more lately that what he really hopes to achieve is "single payer," which simply means the government will be the payer, and will then control all health care... including Medicare and Medicaid... which is six percent of our economy. It has been suggested that the current law was written as it was to make it so onerous that people will object in outraged anger. When the noise gets loud enough, this administration will then step in and offer a solution...single payer. The people lose either way--they shut up and go with Obamacare with all its unfairness, or they get single payer. Very cleverly done, if that's true.

As a matter of information, do we have any other national laws that require the IRS to step in if people don't buy something the government says they must buy, or be fined? Just wondering, since I couldn't immediately think of any....
 
When I look at the rest of the world and compare it from five years ago compared to today, you dinky dow.

You need to compare back a few more years, selective memory doesn't make you correct. Obama didn't plunge us into a war in the desert nor the economy off a cliff. But the highly partisan rarely see the entire picture, just the parts they want to rant about. :2wave:
 
I want to point out...the article dealt with DOMA...I addressed Obamacare provision being delayed. There's no article needed for that...that's run of the mill presidential discretionary authority to carry out legislation

Oh no no no.
Past Presidents haven't decided who is affected by a law they signed that explicitly stated who and when aspects of the law should be in effect.
That's well beyond their purview.

If Presidents had the kind of power you claim for Obama he could have just declared there was no debt limit deadline.
 
I have been reading more and more lately that what he really hopes to achieve is "single payer," which simply means the government will be the payer, and will then control all health care... including Medicare and Medicaid... which is six percent of our economy. It has been suggested that the current law was written as it was to make it so onerous that people will object in outraged anger. When the noise gets loud enough, this administration will then step in and offer a solution...single payer. The people lose either way--they shut up and go with Obamacare with all its unfairness, or they get single payer. Very cleverly done, if that's true.

As a matter of information, do we have any other national laws that require the IRS to step in if people don't buy something the government says they must buy, or be fined? Just wondering, since I couldn't immediately think of any....

Bingo, Pol ... you got it.
See Comment #126
 
You're supposed to make Constitutional changes via Amendments ... not electing an autocrat via the voting booth

In what aspects...are you saying that unless it's 100% said in the constitution it requires an Amendment? That would be chaos. This government would of never lasted as long as it has.

And ... the major difference between Mass. and the USA should be obvious ...
What...ones a state the other is the country? It's an insurance market. If anything medical insurance being different in every state causes less efficiency and higher administrative costs. A nationwide insurance bill was needed.
 
Oh no no no.
Past Presidents haven't decided who is affected by a law they signed that explicitly stated who and when aspects of the law should be in effect.
That's well beyond their purview.

In what way? Are you talking DOMA or Obamacare? Last I checked he never changed the law he's just delayed provisions. In what way has he changed Congressional legislation?

If Presidents had the kind of power you claim for Obama he could have just declared there was no debt limit deadline.
Not true at all...I "claimed" that executive authority allows him to delay provisions because there is discretion when the executive branch carries out legislation.
 
Bingo, Pol ... you got it.
See Comment #126

I was running errands earlier, and just got back on DP a little while ago. Sorry I missed your previous post, but that's what I'm hearing. It's probably right wing propaganda, put out by the nasty hateful Unamerican Tea Party, right? :mrgreen:
 
You need to compare back a few more years, selective memory doesn't make you correct. Obama didn't plunge us into a war in the desert nor the economy off a cliff. But the highly partisan rarely see the entire picture, just the parts they want to rant about. :2wave:


Wars ? Your referring to Obama's Rules of Engagement (ROE) that favor the enemy that causes American troops to bleed in die in the name of political correctness.

The 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan on Obama's Watch

The 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan on Obama's Watch | CNS News

The economy going off the cliff ? Don't you mean Democrat policies that caused the economy to go off the cliff ?

Study Finds Democrats Fully to Blame for Subprime Mortgage Crisis that Caused 2008 Financial Disaster

>" State Sen. Barack Obama and Fr. Michael Pfleger led a protest against the payday loan industry demanding the State of Illinois to regulate loan businesses in January 2000. During his time as a community organizer Barack Obama led several protests against banks to make loans to high risk individuals. (NBC 5 Week of January 3, 2000)

Here’s something that won’t get any play in the liberal media…
A new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research found that Democrats are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, “Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”

Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas..."<

New Study Finds Democrats Fully to Blame for Subprime Mortgage Crisis that Caused 2008 Financial Disaster | The Gateway Pundit


Democrats Planted Seeds Of Recession Obama Now Blames On Bush Tax Cuts - Investors.com


Articles: 'The Policies That Caused the Mess in the First Place'
 
The Reverso-Meme in full flower: Bush starts two vanity wars costing $3T, and Apacherat blames Obama. Like clockwork.
 
Back
Top Bottom