Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think Roberts voted as he did on purpose, because he knew that it would energizes the republicans and ensure an obama lose in November, and then the entire bill would be repealed anyway.
If they are smart, all governors would refuse to set up exchanges and other aspects of Obamacare, until they know what's what in November.
Why waste money?
What each state should do is start their own INS co. for their residents only. Have a huge pool and those who want to can participate. Those who don't are on their own.
Since Obamacare is a tax it is now appropriate to use Reconciliation to repeal it
In order to entice House Democrats to support the Senate bill, the leadership might promise to change the law through the budget process. You see, in the 1970s the Senate adopted a rule that applies to the budget process that allows for limited debate, which means that there cannot be a filibuster. The process is called "reconciliation."
Here's how reconciliation works. Each of the Senate and the House passes a concurrent resolution instructing one or more committees to report changes in a law affecting by a certain date. Those committees then support their reports to the budget committee, which combines them into a single omnibus bill. In the Senate, the reconciliation bill then gets only 20 hours of debate before the final vote. So there's no filibuster risk and the bill can pass with support of just 51 Senators.
Originally, this process was limited to bills passed to cover gaps between budget resolutions. In the 1980s, however, they came to be used for big omnibus budget resolutions that sought to reduce the budget deficit. In 1996, the Republicans changed the rules so that reconciliation could be used for almost any bill affecting spending or the collection of revenue
Read more: Health Care Reform And Reconciliation - Business Insider
Since Obamacare is a tax it is now appropriate to use Reconciliation to repeal it
In order to entice House Democrats to support the Senate bill, the leadership might promise to change the law through the budget process. You see, in the 1970s the Senate adopted a rule that applies to the budget process that allows for limited debate, which means that there cannot be a filibuster. The process is called "reconciliation."
Here's how reconciliation works. Each of the Senate and the House passes a concurrent resolution instructing one or more committees to report changes in a law affecting by a certain date. Those committees then support their reports to the budget committee, which combines them into a single omnibus bill. In the Senate, the reconciliation bill then gets only 20 hours of debate before the final vote. So there's no filibuster risk and the bill can pass with support of just 51 Senators.
Originally, this process was limited to bills passed to cover gaps between budget resolutions. In the 1980s, however, they came to be used for big omnibus budget resolutions that sought to reduce the budget deficit. In 1996, the Republicans changed the rules so that reconciliation could be used for almost any bill affecting spending or the collection of revenue
Read more: Health Care Reform And Reconciliation - Business Insider
We may see this as a bipartisan vote to repeal this bill. Democrats will remember 2010 and not be the scapgoats they experienced then. Obamacare is now a tax and everyone knows it. The majority of the citizens want it repealed and the many in Congress won't lay down for Obama this time.
So conservatives can attack Obama for not enforcing federal immigration law, but ignoring the ACA federal law is justified? Two wrongs don't make a right.
So conservatives can attack Obama for not enforcing federal immigration law, but ignoring the ACA federal law is justified? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Under the Affordable Care Act, states must set up a health insurance exchange program by Jan. 1, 2014, and will receive grants from the federal government to implement it.
States don't have to set up an exchange, though they're certainly encouraged to design and build their own exchange to best meet the particular needs of their population and their market.
But if a state government prefers not to run its own exchange, the law provides that the federal government will set up a federal exchange for them.
So conservatives can attack Obama for not enforcing federal immigration law, but ignoring the ACA federal law is justified? Two wrongs don't make a right.
if Jindal does this Obama will withhold all federal funding to the state of Louisiana. [/B]
He's smart. Why spend tax payer money on something that will be repealed shortly after Obama loses the election?
Do you truly think it can be repealed so easily? What would it take to repeal it?
Based upon the precedent that Obama has set , a simple executive order "refusing to implement" will be the first step. Then the Senate can vote to repeal the entire clusterfuck using a simple majority vote (google "reconciliation"). The House follows and.....Bang Boom Bam!! ObamataxandspendcuzwedontCare is shredded like a piece of garbage.....along with Obama's legacy of incompetence and failure.
Do you truly think it can be repealed so easily? What would it take to repeal it?
Based upon the precedent that Obama has set , a simple executive order "refusing to implement" will be the first step. Then the Senate can vote to repeal the entire clusterfuck using a simple majority vote (google "reconciliation"). The House follows and.....Bang Boom Bam!! ObamataxandspendcuzwedontCare is shredded like a piece of garbage.....along with Obama's legacy of incompetence and failure.
Reconciliation is for budgetary legislation, Zander. The GOP made a huge stink about the legislation being passed reconciliation. Of course, if the Dems keep the Senate, then none of it matters.
You are wrong. Reform and revise will happen, not repeal.
This is a strong bold move in defiance of the Supreme Court affirming President Obama's 'Affordable Care Act'. It is also a slap in the face to Obama but I fear if Jindal does this Obama will withhold all federal funding to the state of Louisiana.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare despite Supreme Court ruling | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Quote:
The Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law on Thursday, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it.
"We're not going to start implementing Obamacare," Jindal said during a conference call with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. "We're committed to working to elect Gov. Romney to repeal Obamacare."
Under the Affordable Care Act, states must set up a health insurance exchange program by Jan. 1, 2014, and will receive grants from the federal government to implement it. Several Republican governors, including both Jindal and McDonnell, have put off setting up the exchanges in the hope that the law would be repealed or struck down by the court. Now that the law has been upheld, Jindal said he won't change course and is looking to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to lead the repeal effort if he takes office in 2013.
You are a disengenuous moron. It is only a slap in the face of Louisians.
no different than when Alabama tried to stop forced integration of public schools.In the end the people will win and those that try to keep people from affordable healthcare will lose.
no different than when Alabama tried to stop forced integration of public schools.In the end the people will win and those that try to keep people from affordable healthcare will lose.
Good God.....
No different than Obama deciding not to enforce the laws he does not like.
Americans are evenly divided, 46 percent to 46 percent, on whether they support the Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care reform on Thursday, according to a new Gallup poll. Nearly 80 percent of Democrats agree with the court, compared to 45 percent of independents and only 13 percent of Republicans. Americans evenly divided on court
So conservatives can attack Obama for not enforcing federal immigration law, but ignoring the ACA federal law is justified? Two wrongs don't make a right.
