An outbreak of lawlessness

[NYcarbineer]

Doesn't anyone want to tell me why Krauthammer had exactly the opposite opinion in 2005?

 

[percysunshine]

I make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.

Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!

That is the current conventional wisdom, espoused by many in approval on the left and in horror on the right. I have my doubts. The Roberts court in NFIB v Sebelius held that the Medicaid expansion was coercive and the States had an opt out. Presumably that would apply to any federal single payer healthcare system. Maybe the original ACA law was written with the intent to force everyone into Medicaid or something else universally federal, but SCOTUS torpedoed that.

I think all we have now is a big giant mess.

 

[The T]

I make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.

Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!

That is the current conventional wisdom, espoused by many in approval on the left and in horror on the right. I have my doubts. The Roberts court in NFIB v Sebelius held that the Medicaid expansion was coercive and the States had an opt out. Presumably that would apply to any federal single payer healthcare system. Maybe the original ACA law was written with the intent to force everyone into Medicaid or something else universally federal, but SCOTUS torpedoed that.

I think all we have now is a big giant mess.

We do have a mess...and this administration has a track record of ignoring the courts. Again by design? Single Payer=Goal

 

[percysunshine]

I make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.

Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!

That is the current conventional wisdom, espoused by many in approval on the left and in horror on the right. I have my doubts. The Roberts court in NFIB v Sebelius held that the Medicaid expansion was coercive and the States had an opt out. Presumably that would apply to any federal single payer healthcare system. Maybe the original ACA law was written with the intent to force everyone into Medicaid or something else universally federal, but SCOTUS torpedoed that.

I think all we have now is a big giant mess.

We do have a mess...and this administration has a track record of ignoring the courts. Again by design? Single Payer=Goal

It has always been the goal. Heck, that was Hillarycare in 1993. I just don't see how they get there without both houses of Congress writing a new law that can withstand a Supreme Court challenge.

Obama will leave office with a big pile of excrement for someone else to clean up and move on to other, better disasters.

 

[The T]

That is the current conventional wisdom, espoused by many in approval on the left and in horror on the right. I have my doubts. The Roberts court in NFIB v Sebelius held that the Medicaid expansion was coercive and the States had an opt out. Presumably that would apply to any federal single payer healthcare system. Maybe the original ACA law was written with the intent to force everyone into Medicaid or something else universally federal, but SCOTUS torpedoed that.

I think all we have now is a big giant mess.

We do have a mess...and this administration has a track record of ignoring the courts. Again by design? Single Payer=Goal

It has always been the goal. Heck, that was Hillarycare in 1993. I just don't see how they get there without both houses of Congress writing a new law that can withstand a Supreme Court challenge.

Obama will leave office with a big pile of excrement for someone else to clean up and move on to other, better disasters.

Agreed.

 

[Freewill]

I make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.

Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!

How do you see Obamacare destroying the health care industry. I see it making the HC industry even bigger but doing surgery on the heart of the middle class.

 

[Flopper]

Here is an snippet of the article. The only saving grace of what the democrats are doing is that they will have no complaint, legitimate, if the Republicans ever do the same thing.

As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.


Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats? outbreak of lawlessness - The Washington Post

We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.

Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.

The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.

That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.

This is at least the 4th thread on this same stupid column.

Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk.

The president is not breaking any laws. He is administrating. That's what the executive branch does.

The Senate still has rules. It has a 1000 page rule book.

What ridiculous hyperbole.

Conservatives look like 3 year old having a temper tantrum.

Only 13 states, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine (theoretically), Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah allow filibusters and only 5 allow completely unlimited debate. The idea of the filibuster was to insure that Senate had the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue and thus promote debate. Today it's used to suppress debate and delay action.

 

[JoeB131]

[

This is at least the 4th thread on this same stupid column.

Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk.

The president is not breaking any laws. He is administrating. That's what the executive branch does.

The Senate still has rules. It has a 1000 page rule book.

What ridiculous hyperbole.

Conservatives look like 3 year old having a temper tantrum.

actually, that's kind of insulting to three year olds. Three year olds get over it after a few minutes.

 

[percysunshine]

Here is an snippet of the article. The only saving grace of what the democrats are doing is that they will have no complaint, legitimate, if the Republicans ever do the same thing.

As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.


Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats? outbreak of lawlessness - The Washington Post

We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.

Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.

The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.

That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.

This is at least the 4th thread on this same stupid column.

Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk.

The president is not breaking any laws. He is administrating. That's what the executive branch does.

The Senate still has rules. It has a 1000 page rule book.

What ridiculous hyperbole.

Conservatives look like 3 year old having a temper tantrum.

Only 13 states, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine (theoretically), Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah allow filibusters and only 5 allow completely unlimited debate. The idea of the filibuster was to insure that Senate had the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue and thus promote debate. Today it's used to suppress debate and delay action.

Hawaii is guilty of debate suppression? No way. An Hawaiian is POTUS, he would never allow that.

 

[peach174]

You do have representation when you're in the minority. You represent the party that doesn't have enough votes to pass anything on a party line vote.

Both parties had representation in the Senate as minority. Harry Reid changed that. Now only the majority rules in the Senate.
237 years of the minority having a voice, is out the window.
We were a nation that had majority and minority voices, where the majority ruled with the consent of the minority.
Now it's just the majority mob rule.

Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.

You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Both parties had representation in the Senate as minority. Harry Reid changed that. Now only the majority rules in the Senate.
237 years of the minority having a voice, is out the window.
We were a nation that had majority and minority voices, where the majority ruled with the consent of the minority.
Now it's just the majority mob rule.

Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.

You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.

What's the point of voting if winning doesn't get you anything?

How much say does Mitt Romney have in the current administration?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.

You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.

What's the point of voting if winning doesn't get you anything?

How much say does Mitt Romney have in the current administration?

Does it ever occur to you that winning isn't everything? Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. What's the point of winning if you don't get something productive and meaningful out of it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Both parties had representation in the Senate as minority. Harry Reid changed that. Now only the majority rules in the Senate.
237 years of the minority having a voice, is out the window.
We were a nation that had majority and minority voices, where the majority ruled with the consent of the minority.
Now it's just the majority mob rule.

Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.

You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.

Why doesn't your state Senate allow filibusters and require a 60% margin to pass measures?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Does it ever occur to you that winning isn't everything? Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. What's the point of winning if you don't get something productive and meaningful out of it?

We did get something meaningful.

We finally have universal health care in this country.

Deal with it.

 

[Mac1958]

I make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.

Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!

I sincerely hate to say this, but I've reached a point where I believe this may indeed the plan.

Once enough people realize that they don't qualify for subsidies and that their policies will have higher premiums or higher deductibles or both; once providers start going under and/or stop taking these plans because so few people are actually paying their deductibles after receiving treatment; once employers have to drop employees' nice plans and stick them on the high deductible plans; and once insurers start pulling out because they're bleeding money from the regulations, then it begins.

The Democrats, after making it essentially impossible for employers and insurance companies and providers to operate, will point the finger at those same employers and insurance companies and providers as being "evil" and "greedy". Then we make the nasty transition to single payer, and the inexorable march to a much stronger central planning environment in general.

The bill is law now; I wish the Dems would just be honest about this. They have always wanted single payer, most of them will admit it, and this was the only way to get there. Looks like things are moving according to plan.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Here is an snippet of the article. The only saving grace of what the democrats are doing is that they will have no complaint, legitimate, if the Republicans ever do the same thing.

As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.

Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.


Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats? outbreak of lawlessness - The Washington Post

We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.

Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.

The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.

That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.

This is at least the 4th thread on this same stupid column.

Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk.

The president is not breaking any laws. He is administrating. That's what the executive branch does.

The Senate still has rules. It has a 1000 page rule book.

What ridiculous hyperbole.

Conservatives look like 3 year old having a temper tantrum.

Oh sure, it's not like he's changing a law that's already been passed by Congress. Tell me, where in the law is he allowed to delay or amend a law as he so chooses? Perhaps the concept of checks and balances doesn't mean much to you, but it sure as heck means a lot to the rest of us.

"Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk" well yeah, he's a paraplegic who could run you and your liberal talking points under a table in 5 seconds flat. What a ridiculous thing to say about someone, given you have little else to debate with.

"The Senate has rules" you say? They HAD rules. As you can very well see, the rights of the minority party no longer mean much to the majority. Just remember, as Joe Biden once said of the Republican party: "You can't be the majority forever."

You look like someone who could use a better argument. It's funny too, you're accusing the republicans on this board of throwing tantrums like 3 year olds when you're the one who resorted to calling someone a 'stupid jerk.' How hypocritical.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.

You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.

Why doesn't your state Senate allow filibusters and require a 60% margin to pass measures?

Why are you asking these pointless questions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.

What's the point of voting if winning doesn't get you anything?

How much say does Mitt Romney have in the current administration?

Does it ever occur to you that winning isn't everything? Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. What's the point of winning if you don't get something productive and meaningful out of it?

Mitt Romney got fewer votes than Barack Obama. That's why we don't allow him to step in and block legislation for four years.

The Republicans are a minority in the Senate because fewer Americans wanted them in the Senate than wanted Democrats.

Now why on earth should they have the right, from that position, to block hundreds of bills and hundreds of nominees that the majority wants to pass and the President wants to sign?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.

Why doesn't your state Senate allow filibusters and require a 60% margin to pass measures?

Why are you asking these pointless questions?

Because the other poster believes that a condition of lawlessness, injustice, and tyranny exists in any legislature that can pass laws by a simple majority. I'd like her to tell us if that is how she feels about her own state,

or if not, I would like to be entertained by some inane excuse as to why she doesn't.

 

[JoeB131]

[quo

Oh sure, it's not like he's changing a law that's already been passed by Congress. Tell me, where in the law is he allowed to delay or amend a law as he so chooses? Perhaps the concept of checks and balances doesn't mean much to you, but it sure as heck means a lot to the rest of us.

"Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk" well yeah, he's a paraplegic who could run you and your liberal talking points under a table in 5 seconds flat. What a ridiculous thing to say about someone, given you have little else to debate with.

"The Senate has rules" you say? They HAD rules. As you can very well see, the rights of the minority party no longer mean much to the majority. Just remember, as Joe Biden once said of the Republican party: "You can't be the majority forever."

You look like someone who could use a better argument. It's funny too, you're accusing the republicans on this board of throwing tantrums like 3 year olds when you're the one who resorted to calling someone a 'stupid jerk.' How hypocritical.

Krauthammer is also one of these guys who insisted up and down that the Iraq War was a wonderful idea, proving that the disabled can be just as amoral, evil and remorseless as the fully-abled.

That he is even allowed to show his face in public after that fiasco, which for those playing along at home, resulted in a TRILLION dollars wasted, 5000 dead Americans and 100,000+ dead Iraqis, and has strengthened Iran's position in the region, is kind of a disgrace.