Force Congress And Obama To Use Obamacare

[S.J.]

Finally a Republican figures it out. This is how we either stop Obamacare or make it palatable. If Rand Paul runs for President in 2016, he has my vote.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNB6mCUNwQI]Rand Paul On Obamacare: Congress Shouldn't Exempt Itself - YouTube[/ame]

 

[S.J.]

What citizen (from any party) could be opposed to this? Even liberals.

S.J.RES.25 -- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. (Introduced in Senate - IS)

SJ 25 IS

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. J. RES. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 11, 2013

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--

`Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.
`Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.
`Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
`Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'.

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[ABikerSailor]

So.......................you'd support Rand Paul?

****** is so stupid, he has to plagiarize parts of Wikipedia for his talking points against Obamacare.

Namely, the Wikipedia page about the movie Gattica.

Rand Paul Plagiarized Speech From Wikipedia, Rachel Maddow Says

 

[Two Thumbs]

So.......................you'd support Rand Paul?

****** is so stupid, he has to plagiarize parts of Wikipedia for his talking points against Obamacare.

Namely, the Wikipedia page about the movie Gattica.

Rand Paul Plagiarized Speech From Wikipedia, Rachel Maddow Says

ahh the old attack the messenger when you can't attack the message.

Gotta love it when the first liberal basically admits Paul is right by not being able to respond to the facts at hand.






Well congress made sure they were exempt by having a plan in place that exceeds aca standards

85% of our plans don't, so obama lied, and most of us will not keep our plans and will have to pay more, much more, on new plans



Why does obama hate the working class?

 

[S.J.]

So.......................you'd support Rand Paul?

****** is so stupid, he has to plagiarize parts of Wikipedia for his talking points against Obamacare.

Namely, the Wikipedia page about the movie Gattica.

Rand Paul Plagiarized Speech From Wikipedia, Rachel Maddow Says

Why are you trying to create a diversion instead of commenting on the bill? Should we assume you are against it? I'll give you a few minutes to figure out how to change the subject again.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I've noticed that nobody has commented on the stupidity of Rand Paul, but rather chose to follow him blindly.

And.....................exactly since WHEN have members of Congress been subjected to the same laws that the common man in this country have? Got news for you, they haven't, because they won't vote to be equal, they want to remain in their ivory tower.

If Rand Paul actually tried to get a law like that passed, it would be voted down by the others in the same ivory tower he's in.

If he wrote something like that, it was just for political points, but like many in the GOP, when Obama agreed with it, they would disavow it.

Check some of the other things that the GOP said they'd support (like Immigration Reform), but because Obama agrees with it, they suddenly want to disavow it.

 

[Politico]

Making them use it still wouldn't do shit for me. But I am all for it on principle.

 

[S.J.]

I've noticed that nobody has commented on the stupidity of Rand Paul, but rather chose to follow him blindly.

And.....................exactly since WHEN have members of Congress been subjected to the same laws that the common man in this country have? Got news for you, they haven't, because they won't vote to be equal, they want to remain in their ivory tower.

If Rand Paul actually tried to get a law like that passed, it would be voted down by the others in the same ivory tower he's in.

If he wrote something like that, it was just for political points, but like many in the GOP, when Obama agreed with it, they would disavow it.

Check some of the other things that the GOP said they'd support (like Immigration Reform), but because Obama agrees with it, they suddenly want to disavow it.

The thread isn't about your petty assertion that Rand Paul is stupid, or immigration reform, it's about this bill. I asked what citizen could be against it. If you're against it, why don't you say so? Or are you just here to troll the thread (as usual)?

 

[S.J.]

Making them use it still wouldn't do shit for me. But I am all for it on principle.

I disagree. If they were forced to use it, they would take all the bullshit out of it, or abandon it altogether. Not only with Obamacare, but Medicare, Social Security, they would all get fixed real fast. But if they don't have to live by their own laws, what is their incentive?

 

[LoneLaugher]

What citizen (from any party) could be opposed to this? Even liberals.

S.J.RES.25 -- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. (Introduced in Senate - IS)

SJ 25 IS

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. J. RES. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 11, 2013

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--

`Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.
`Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.
`Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
`Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'.

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

I wonder if you know where Rand got the wording for this "new" bill? Any guesses?

 

[S.J.]

What citizen (from any party) could be opposed to this? Even liberals.

S.J.RES.25 -- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. (Introduced in Senate - IS)

SJ 25 IS

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. J. RES. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 11, 2013

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--

`Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.
`Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.
`Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
`Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'.

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

I wonder if you know where Rand got the wording for this "new" bill? Any guesses?

I don't wanna hear any of your trolling bullshit. Are you for the bill or against it? If you don't have the balls to answer then get lost.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Making them use it still wouldn't do shit for me. But I am all for it on principle.

Well, I recall that just recently, during the "non-negotiations" to re-open the government - all the House asked for was that ALL government employees (to include Barry, his staff, his cabinet, and the Senate) be REQUIRED BY LAW to sign up for this crap - and not receive the huge subsidies that they will enjoy - and it went absolutely nowhere.

The next day the republicans caved and got nothing.

Remember…Kings and Queens are above the "little people".

 

[Sarah G]

What citizen (from any party) could be opposed to this? Even liberals.

S.J.RES.25 -- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government. (Introduced in Senate - IS)

SJ 25 IS

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. J. RES. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 11, 2013

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to applying laws equally to the citizens of the United States and the Federal Government.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article--

`Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.
`Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.
`Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
`Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'.

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

I wonder if you know where Rand got the wording for this "new" bill? Any guesses?

Oh yeah. He can't even write for himself. The big dummy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Force Congress And Obama To Use Obamacare

You and others on the right are so remarkably ignorant it defies words.

There is no ‘Obamacare,’ it’s not some kind of ‘health insurance’ or ‘government health delivery system,’ where one must go to an ‘Obamacare’ doctor only or an ‘Obamacare’ hospital only.

The ACA merely establishes a marketplace with subsidies to allow citizens to purchase private health insurance policies from the same health insurance companies that other individuals and employers use, with the same doctors, hospitals, and clinics, and with the same quality and level of care any other customer would receive if he were purchasing the insurance himself or as a member of an employer group.

It’s therefore idiocy to try to ‘force’ members of Congress or the president to ‘use Obamacare’ because there’s nothing to ‘force’ them into as they already have health insurance.

Again, the ignorance of conservatives, likely willful, on this subject is astonishing.

 

[S.J.]

Force Congress And Obama To Use Obamacare

You and others on the right are so remarkably ignorant it defies words.

There is no ‘Obamacare,’ it’s not some kind of ‘health insurance’ or ‘government health delivery system,’ where one must go to an ‘Obamacare’ doctor only or an ‘Obamacare’ hospital only.

The ACA merely establishes a marketplace with subsidies to allow citizens to purchase private health insurance policies from the same health insurance companies that other individuals and employers use, with the same doctors, hospitals, and clinics, and with the same quality and level of care any other customer would receive if he were purchasing the insurance himself or as a member of an employer group.

It’s therefore idiocy to try to ‘force’ members of Congress or the president to ‘use Obamacare’ because there’s nothing to ‘force’ them into as they already have health insurance.

Again, the ignorance of conservatives, likely willful, on this subject is astonishing.

Then why do they need exemptions from it? Hmmm? Maybe you should brush up on this subject before making a fool out of yourself again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Force Congress And Obama To Use Obamacare

You and others on the right are so remarkably ignorant it defies words.

There is no ‘Obamacare,’ it’s not some kind of ‘health insurance’ or ‘government health delivery system,’ where one must go to an ‘Obamacare’ doctor only or an ‘Obamacare’ hospital only.

The ACA merely establishes a marketplace with subsidies to allow citizens to purchase private health insurance policies from the same health insurance companies that other individuals and employers use, with the same doctors, hospitals, and clinics, and with the same quality and level of care any other customer would receive if he were purchasing the insurance himself or as a member of an employer group.

It’s therefore idiocy to try to ‘force’ members of Congress or the president to ‘use Obamacare’ because there’s nothing to ‘force’ them into as they already have health insurance.

Again, the ignorance of conservatives, likely willful, on this subject is astonishing.

Then why do they need exemptions from it? Hmmm? Maybe you should brush up on this subject before making a fool out of yourself again.

You and others on the right are such blind, ignorant partisans, you don’t even bother to learn the truth – you just continue to wallow in the lies:

This Congressional exemption to Obamacare talking point is simply another way to attack the federal workforce, and like many talking points it is false.

Congress, the Affordable Care Act, and the Myth of the 'Exemption' | Brookings Institution

 

[S.J.]

Well, so far, none of you libs have taken a position on the bill itself. All you've done is attack me and try to change the subject. You either are too embarrassed to say you agree with Paul, or you like the idea of government being Kings and you being peasants.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is a retarded bill.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is a retarded bill.

It takes after its author.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Rand Paul constitutional amendment on Congress: Does it miss its mark? - CSMonitor.com