The tin god is dented, so they’re trying to hammer things out.
EDIT: It doesn’t seem to be working.
Yeah! . . . I thought he was gonna cave, but then . . . No! . . . he didn’t cave . . . He shoulda caved . . . for sure he shoulda caved. . .
Maybe tomorrow he’ll cave . . . but who knows . . .maybe he won’t even cave tomorrow . . . he should cave, but maybe he won’t cave . . . I mean, he shoulda caved already . . . but he still hasn’t caved. :neutral:
Uh . . . A little off topic there, jimi . . . :neutral:
We’re talkin’ about whether or not he shoulda caved. We think he shoulda caved.
His latest announcement is the long overdue cave plus denial that I had tentatively predicted during the shutdown. But he’s trying so desperately to save face that it’s not clear the cave will be adequate to the purpose.
Congress couldn’t make him face reality, but panicky Dems are starting to get through to him.
A day late and a dollar short.
I thought we were talkin’ about that crack-smokin’ Toronto mayor. 
HE shoulda caved.
:roflmao:
I don’t understand how Obama and the Dems can even be talking/thinking about making any changes to ObamaCare. After all, they just told all of us a month ago that Obamacare is SETTLED LAW! It was constitutionally passed via the democratic legislative process and the US Supreme Court upheld the LAW!
Now, a month later, they’re talking about making changes to this SETTLED LAW? Where’s BrentGolf and the others who railed on about how this SETTLED LAW cannot be changed?
:roflmao:
Meanwhile…
Public Disapproval of ObamaCare Rising… Now at 55% according to Gallup
I can’t decided whether this is a comedy or a tragedy… 
Oh, you’re talking about the US. I wondered what you were on about. A less oblique title might help so unsuspecting international politics readers don’t click on something of no interest to them accidentally? 
The U.S. government should go back to doing what it does best - fixing other countries - and stop trying to fix its own because it just makes a complete mess of everything it touches. Most likely the problem is because it’s trying to do both things at once most of the time but that’s not working because the problems are so big it requires one’s complete focus to get anywhere. So when Katrina is surging in New Orleans and you’re surging in Baghdad, for example, it’s hard to keep straight when you’re supposed to hit the accelerator and when you’re supposed to hit the brake so something has to give.
Obama probably needs to choose too. Is he going to spend most of his time helping pick drone bombing coordinates and hunting for that ever elusive WMD snipe in the Middle East like his predecessor and whatever time is left over fixing America’s health care mess or is he going to do what it takes to finally build a proper health care system in the United States? That is the real question.
Extending the deadline by a whole week. Oh boy.
It’s funny. The Americans tried to provide something most other advanced countries take for granted - universal health care.
But they couldn’t get the website to work.
Just give it up already.
Cave in.
Dig it?
[quote] they just told all of us a month ago that Obamacare is SETTLED LAW! It was constitutionally passed via the democratic legislative process and the US Supreme Court upheld the LAW!
Now, a month later, they’re talking about making changes to this SETTLED LAW? Where’s BrentGolf and the others who railed on about how this SETTLED LAW cannot be changed?[/quote]
Again I’m sorry to say, it sort of sounds like you’re confusing legalities with opinion. The Affordable Care Act was / is a law, as it did pass through all the appropriate levels of government. That’s how a bill becomes a law no? Senate, House, Supreme Court (not necessary but certainly helps) then the President signed it, seems like a law to me. Is that not exactly what a law is? You say you’re a lawyer so clearly you know better then me because all I have is Google.
Without insults, why is the Affordable Care Act NOT a law in your opinion? Everything I’ve read makes it pretty clear it was signed into law in 2010 and upheld in 2012. Do you have any legal reason to think that’s not true?
Also please point me in the right direction here. Where does it say that bills that are signed into law can’t be tweaked or changed to better serve the purpose of the program once it’s instituted? You mean they couldn’t change the age of social security? They couldn’t adjust the terms of unemployment insurance? They can’t change anything in Obama Care? Once signed into law that’s it, it can’t be tweaked?
What’s wrong with making changes to Obama Care if it helps the implementation go more smoothly?
[quote]they just told all of us a month ago that Obamacare is SETTLED LAW! It was constitutionally passed via the democratic legislative process and the US Supreme Court upheld the LAW!
Now, a month later, they’re talking about making changes to this SETTLED LAW? Where’s BrentGolf and the others who railed on about how this SETTLED LAW cannot be changed?[/quote]
[quote=“BrentGolf”]Again I’m sorry to say, it sort of sounds like you’re confusing legalities with opinion. The Affordable Care Act was / is a law, as it did pass through all the appropriate levels of government. That’s how a bill becomes a law no? Senate, House, Supreme Court (not necessary but certainly helps) then the President signed it, seems like a law to me. Is that not exactly what a law is? You say you’re a lawyer so clearly you know better then me because all I have is Google.
Without insults, why is the Affordable Care Act NOT a law in your opinion? Everything I’ve read makes it pretty clear it was signed into law in 2010 and upheld in 2012. Do you have any legal reason to think that’s not true?[/quote]
It would probably be nice to have a discussion with you, if only you could stop raising strawmen.
I have never stated that Obamacare is not a/the Law. In fact, I have stated clearly that it is Law, and have argued that the Dems were unreasonable to oppose the GOP demand for the following:
In response to my statements above, you railed on and on about how it was so wrong and irresponsible for the GOP in the House to request the delay of the individual mandate and went on and on about how Obamacare is SETTLED LAW and that it had been passed and enacted according to the constitutional democratic legislative process and didn’t I understand all that??!!
So, the GOP caved and the Dems and Obama went ahead with ObamaCare individual mandate roll-out and its a fiasco. Now, certain Dem senators are calling for a delay of the IM and even Obama is calling for a delay.
My question to you, obviously, is what happened to the idea that Obamacare is SETTLED LAW and that it cannot be changed except by the constitutional democratic legislative process?
You tell me. You were railing on about SETTLED LAW when the GOP in the House was asking for tweaks and changes.
Of course any law can be amended after passage and enactment. The issue is how this is done. I’m not going to hunt for it, but I posted a while ago that Obamacare is full of provisions that call on the administrator (HHS) to make decisions as the law is implemented. However, that is not how Obama has made changes to the law thus far. Surely you are aware of the criticisms of Obama’s changes to ObamaCare since it was passed and signed into law?
Well, I don’t like ObamaCare. I would rather see it repealed.
Yes I did, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If you read my point of view more carefully instead of lumping me in with everybody else you’ve heard speak on the subject, we may actually be able to have a real debate.
-
Obama Care is settled law, it passed through all the appropriate levels of government and was signed into law, then upheld by the Supreme Court. So nobody at this point is saying it isn’t a law right? It was also voted on by the people, being that it was a major election platform.
-
My point all along was that just because the opposition doesn’t happen to like the law, they should not use a budget negotiation, government shutdown, and debt ceiling fight to push changes through. That is not the democratic way. I wouldn’t support that if the Dems did the same thing. That’s just not the way to a smoothly running economy. There is already a perfectly acceptable method of making changes or even repealing an already existing law. Raise it in the senate, see if you can get the votes in the house, and if that all goes through the President will sign it and the change will have been accomplished democratically.
Ask yourself, what would happen if every time we reached the debt limit (which happens many many times by the way) the party that controls the house uses it to defund programs they don’t like? The US government would become even more dysfunctional than it already is. Don’t like social security? Wait until the next debt ceiling fight. Don’t like gun laws, wait until we reach the next debt ceiling. Etc etc, and further and further towards dysfunction we go…
If the GOP doesn’t like Obama Care, fine I have no problem with that. Debate it in the proper manner, in the proper houses of government, draw up new bills, get them signed into law using the already existing democratic process, and get it done. At some point the bickering, dysfunction, and obstructionism has to stop.
If it’s settled law, then God’s Gift To Mankind has no business extending deadlines unilaterally.
Settled law. What does that even mean anymore?
Dytsfunction? By what standard?
In my opinion settled law doesn’t mean it’s written in stone. It means that a law has been voted on, debated in the senate, passed through the house, and signed into law by the President. That certainly does not mean that the program in question can’t be changed or tweaked to better serve it’s purpose. The law is settled, meaning the Affordable Care Act has a green light to be implemented and it must be funded. It is still under the discretion of the President to implement it in the best possible way. Only if the tweaks and changes significantly deviated from it’s original form would it be necessary for the President to take it back through the democratic process.
As of now, only the website is proven to be a disaster. As of yet there is no data to make a determination on whether Obama Care itself is a success or failure. For that we’ll have to wait for more concrete numbers to come in. The website getting fixed and functioning smoothly is the obvious first step. After that, we’ll have a better idea of what’s going on.
edit By the way, I’ve personally never stated that I love Obama Care. I simply think it’s going to be better in the long run that the current #37 ranked healthcare system. I can think of many countries healthcare system that I like more than Obama Care.
Healthcare in other developed nations > Obama Care > Current American Healthcare system 
[quote=“BrentGolf”]In my opinion settled law doesn’t mean it’s written in stone. It means that a law has been voted on, debated in the senate, passed through the house, and signed into law by the President. That certainly does not mean that the program in question can’t be changed or tweaked to better serve it’s purpose. The law is settled, meaning the Affordable Care Act has a green light to be implemented and it must be funded. It is still under the discretion of the President to implement it in the best possible way. Only if the tweaks and changes significantly deviated from it’s original form would it be necessary for the President to take it back through the democratic process.
[/quote]
I would love to tour the southland in a traveling minstrel show.
You know this isn’t true.
I wouldn’t have said it if I didn’t believe it was true :loco: As of now there is no data to make a definitive call on Obama Care. For one not enough time has passed, and secondly due to website issues the country hasn’t had an opportunity to make their preferred healthcare decisions. All we can say for sure right now is it’s the saddest excuse for a website in existence, and Obama is as much a liar as the next politician. Beyond that, we’ll need to wait until some accurate numbers come in.
I read your point several times and I know what you were trying to assert.
You were complaining and whining that the GOP in the House should not have shut the government down (and you were wrong about that, as I explained, it was not the GOP in the House that shut the government down) and whining that the House GOP had no right to try to get the Senate to alter ObamaCare and delay it for a year on the IM. You argued that because the Obamacare had been passed and signed into law and upheld by the SC that the House GOP should not have tried to change it or delay it via budgeting. I explained to you that in fact, the House has that very power per the Constitution and as such the House GOP had every right to do as it did.
I also countered your whine about the people voting for Obamacare. That is false. Most people are opposed to ObamaCare. The politicians closest to and most accountable to the people are the House Representatives. Those Reps were elected to oppose ObamaCare.
I really don’t know what you are talking about? The US was established as a representative republican democracy. Our Constitution established the House to act as a check on the Senate. It is part of our system of checks and balances. It is integral to our system and the way it is supposed to work. The House’s authority and power of the purse is an acceptable and deliberately established method of making changes to already existing laws.
Really? Do you not understand this?
I don’t see any dysfunction. I see a system operating as intended.
You do realize that in fact it was Obama and the Dems who did not debate ObamaCare in the proper manner? Obama and his Democrat allies in Congress were unable to win a single Republican vote. Democrats shoved the crappy bill through on a straight party-line vote and all the way have refused to consider a single legislative change. There were NO votes from the Republicans for this healthcare bill and by refusing to swear in the new senator from Massachusetts (Brown R-MA), who would have been the defeating vote, Democrat Harry Reid kept Brown (who campaigned on voting against the bill) from voting and instead passed the bill behind closed doors with only 51 votes - 100% of the Democrats voted yes - 100% of the Republicans voted no.
After shoving a bill to law the way Obama and the Dems did (by deception and dirty politics), how could they possibly have failed to imagine that it might be quite difficult to implement?
A few weeks ago the libs were whining about the government shutdown and erroneously blaming the same on the GOP (and especially the Tea Party) in the House, when actually, the House had requested finally a year delay in implementation of the IM and getting rid of the med-device tax. The Dems and Obama refused to negotiate on those GOP suggestions and now, just a few weeks later, the crappy ObamaCare law is biting the Dems and Obama in their collectivist asses. The Dems up for re-election in red states are running as fast as they can away from ObamaCare and even Obama is suggesting, though only in a cynical ploy, that his Law be altered, again.
So, it looks like the GOP (and Tea Party) were correct at least in seeking a delay and likely correct in seeking ultimate repeal (that’s debatable and yet to be confirmed).
So, don’t come around here and lecture us on democratic process. 
Hostage takers and terrorists… GTFOOH! :roflmao: