Power of the Purse: Does the US House Have Standing to Sue? Judge says "Yes"

[Obiwan]

If the subsidies weren't funded, where else do you think the money will come from???

Or did Obozo just steal it???

you wrote: "repay them"

as in repay the subsidies

As in any appropriations not passed by Congress...

The recent SCOTUS ruling (which I disagree with) dealt with intent...

But how was it funded???

 

[Dante]

If the subsidies weren't funded, where else do you think the money will come from???

Or did Obozo just steal it???

you wrote: "repay them"

as in repay the subsidies

As in any appropriations not passed by Congress...

The recent SCOTUS ruling (which I disagree with) dealt with intent...

But how was it funded???

recent Supreme Court ruling on what?

 

[Dante]

Hysteria and bullcrap aside...
Battles between the branches of government are NOT new.

 

[Care4all]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

 

[Dante]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

Only the Congress can allocate monies.

Does the House have standing to sue when it's powers are being taken over?

The Executive is funding something the Congress explicitly refused to fund. That is the issue. It is huge, and beware siding with the executive branch on this one

 

[Obiwan]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

They won't be paid of Congress doesn't fund them...

Maybe the Democrats should have read it before they passed it, huh???

 

[Obiwan]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

Only the Congress can allocate monies.

Does the House have standing to sue when it's powers are being taken over?

The Executive is funding something the Congress explicitly refused to fund. That is the issue. It is huge, and beware siding with the executive branch on this one

I agree with you on that... That's the crux of the lawsuit.

 

[Dante]

They won't be paid of Congress doesn't fund them...

Maybe the Democrats should have read it before they passed it, huh???

almost every single large bill passed in Congress had issues like this

even the Court's rulings mention that simple fact. Learn to read up on things before you shoot from the lip so to speak.

Congress will eventually change

 

[Dante]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

They won't be paid of Congress doesn't fund them...

Maybe the Democrats should have read it before they passed it, huh???

it's an institutional one, but almost every single argument you make is either a childish attack or a partisan one


go away

 

[Obiwan]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

They won't be paid of Congress doesn't fund them...

Maybe the Democrats should have read it before they passed it, huh???

it's an institutional one, but almost every single argument you make is either a childish attack or a partisan one


go away

Actually, it goes back to the original argument of Executive overreach (the basis of the original lawsuit).

If that was the intent, where was the funding???

Since only Congress can pass the budget, the ACA has a serious problem. Politicians being what they are (and wanting to be re-elected), the Republicans won't fund an unpopular program.

 

[Dante]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

They won't be paid of Congress doesn't fund them...

Maybe the Democrats should have read it before they passed it, huh???

it's an institutional one, but almost every single argument you make is either a childish attack or a partisan one


go away

Actually, it goes back to the original argument of Executive overreach (the basis of the original lawsuit).

If that was the intent, where was the funding???

Since only Congress can pass the budget, the ACA has a serious problem. Politicians being what they are (and wanting to be re-elected), the Republicans won't fund an unpopular program.

that is NOT the argument Turley used to win with this Judge.

Laws have errors within them. It is HOW one deals with it that matters. Funds can be shifted at times, but the Congress specifically rejected funding the subsidies

 

[Dante]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

They won't be paid of Congress doesn't fund them...

Maybe the Democrats should have read it before they passed it, huh???

it's an institutional one, but almost every single argument you make is either a childish attack or a partisan one


go away

Actually, it goes back to the original argument of Executive overreach (the basis of the original lawsuit).

If that was the intent, where was the funding???

Since only Congress can pass the budget, the ACA has a serious problem. Politicians being what they are (and wanting to be re-elected), the Republicans won't fund an unpopular program.

Healthcare is popular. Obamacare is more popular than the alternative.

Throw people under the bus and the GOP will lose for a generation -- at least

 

[Obiwan]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

They won't be paid of Congress doesn't fund them...

Maybe the Democrats should have read it before they passed it, huh???

it's an institutional one, but almost every single argument you make is either a childish attack or a partisan one


go away

Actually, it goes back to the original argument of Executive overreach (the basis of the original lawsuit).

If that was the intent, where was the funding???

Since only Congress can pass the budget, the ACA has a serious problem. Politicians being what they are (and wanting to be re-elected), the Republicans won't fund an unpopular program.

Healthcare is popular. Obamacare is more popular than the alternative.

Throw people under the bus and the GOP will lose for a generation -- at least

Poll data proves you wrong.
Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law | RealClearPolitics

 

[Care4all]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

Only the Congress can allocate monies.

Does the House have standing to sue when it's powers are being taken over?

The Executive is funding something the Congress explicitly refused to fund. That is the issue. It is huge, and beware siding with the executive branch on this one

oh, as i said, for the purpose of regaining their power, i understand the lawsuit....but this was not their purpose, their purpose was to dismantle ocare, and that won't happen with this case...

i expect the house to win....

however, the gvt will still end up reimbursing the insurance companies....the courts will rule in their favor eventually, on being paid for their contract.

This is defunding the poorest Americans among us, along with the previous actions of republicans to not expanding medicaid for the poorest of poorest.

the very people of all the people on Obamacare, that need the government's help....while the rest of obamacare subsidies for the people like mrH who make 90k a year with a family will STILL get their subsidy help but the poor won't get the help they need due to these republicans...

THAT'S REALLY MESSED UP in the head kind of stuff coming from these Republican critters

This makes good negative fodder against the Republicans hurting the poorest the hardest, for the elections though....

 

[Obiwan]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

Only the Congress can allocate monies.

Does the House have standing to sue when it's powers are being taken over?

The Executive is funding something the Congress explicitly refused to fund. That is the issue. It is huge, and beware siding with the executive branch on this one

oh, as i said, for the purpose of regaining their power, i understand the lawsuit....but this was not their purpose, their purpose was to dismantle ocare, and that won't happen with this case...

i expect the house to win....

however, the gvt will still end up reimbursing the insurance companies....the courts will rule in their favor eventually, on being paid for their contract.

This is defunding the poorest Americans among us, along with the previous actions of republicans to not expanding medicaid for the poorest of poorest.

the very people of all the people on Obamacare, that need the government's help....while the rest of obamacare subsidies for the people like mrH who make 90k a year with a family will STILL get their subsidy help but the poor won't get the help they need due to these republicans...

THAT'S REALLY MESSED UP in the head kind of stuff coming from these Republican critters

This makes good negative fodder against the Republicans hurting the poorest the hardest, for the elections though....

It comes down to unconstitutional executive overreach...







Obozo has to work WITH Congress, not play Kenyan dictator...

But the sheep can't see that.

 

[Care4all]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

Only the Congress can allocate monies.

Does the House have standing to sue when it's powers are being taken over?

The Executive is funding something the Congress explicitly refused to fund. That is the issue. It is huge, and beware siding with the executive branch on this one

oh, as i said, for the purpose of regaining their power, i understand the lawsuit....but this was not their purpose, their purpose was to dismantle ocare, and that won't happen with this case...

i expect the house to win....

however, the gvt will still end up reimbursing the insurance companies....the courts will rule in their favor eventually, on being paid for their contract.

This is defunding the poorest Americans among us, along with the previous actions of republicans to not expanding medicaid for the poorest of poorest.

the very people of all the people on Obamacare, that need the government's help....while the rest of obamacare subsidies for the people like mrH who make 90k a year with a family will STILL get their subsidy help but the poor won't get the help they need due to these republicans...

THAT'S REALLY MESSED UP in the head kind of stuff coming from these Republican critters

This makes good negative fodder against the Republicans hurting the poorest the hardest, for the elections though....

It comes down to unconstitutional executive overreach...







Obozo has to work WITH Congress, not play Kenyan dictator...

But the sheep can't see that.

we can see that, but we also know this Congress has no interest in working with the President, on anything he does, even if it was something they previously agreed with on....if Obama is for it, then they will now come out against it....they're the most ''do nothing Congress of the Century'' and most divisive as well....

Based on what I have read so far though, the house should win the court case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“The California Democrat says an appeals court "will not want to be an arbiter" in a dispute between the legislative and executive branches.”

Correct, as was explained to John Boehner a year ago this July:

'We write as law professors who specialize in constitutional law and federal courts to express our view that the members of the House of Representatives lack the ability to sue the President of the United States in federal court for his alleged failure to enforce a federal statute, even if an Act of Congress were to authorize such a suit and especially without such legislative authorization. Never in American history has such a suit been allowed. In fact, in many cases, the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have held that members of Congress lack standing to sue in federal court. An entire House of Congress is in no stronger a position to sue. Moreover, this is exactly the type of political dispute which courts have found to pose a non-justiciable political question and that should be resolved in the political process rather than by judges.

[…T]he House of Representatives as a body, like its members individually, lacks standing to sue. The claim that the President has not fully enforced provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or other laws, does not amount to a “disenfranchisement, a complete nullification, or withdrawal of a voting opportunity.” Congress retains countless mechanisms to ensure enforcement of a law, ranging from use of its spending power to assigning the task to an independent agency.'

http://democrats.judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/LawProfs140730.pdf

 

[Obiwan]

“The California Democrat says an appeals court "will not want to be an arbiter" in a dispute between the legislative and executive branches.”

Correct, as was explained to John Boehner a year ago this July:

'We write as law professors who specialize in constitutional law and federal courts to express our view that the members of the House of Representatives lack the ability to sue the President of the United States in federal court for his alleged failure to enforce a federal statute, even if an Act of Congress were to authorize such a suit and especially without such legislative authorization. Never in American history has such a suit been allowed. In fact, in many cases, the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have held that members of Congress lack standing to sue in federal court. An entire House of Congress is in no stronger a position to sue. Moreover, this is exactly the type of political dispute which courts have found to pose a non-justiciable political question and that should be resolved in the political process rather than by judges.

[…T]he House of Representatives as a body, like its members individually, lacks standing to sue. The claim that the President has not fully enforced provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or other laws, does not amount to a “disenfranchisement, a complete nullification, or withdrawal of a voting opportunity.” Congress retains countless mechanisms to ensure enforcement of a law, ranging from use of its spending power to assigning the task to an independent agency.'

http://democrats.judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/LawProfs140730.pdf

Actually, the House has more power than you think, including bringing impeachment proceedings against SCOTUS Justices...
Frequently Asked Questions - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[Dante]

the ACA law was written and passed by the house and by the senate and signed by the President, including the Cost sharing reduction for the poorest people on the exchange...

The appropriations committee neglected to fund in the appropriation bill for the ACA, the cost sharing reduction for the poorest....

is this correct?

So they are using left over allocated funds from another area of the ACA to fund the CSReduction part to the insurance companies... that BY LAW have to pay for the added reduction in costs for the poorest but are reimbursed by the gvt according to the law?

This is such a waste of tax payers money suing, but I can understand it, for retaining power purposes...

however, they put themselves in this position when they did not appropriate properly the law that PASSED, by a majority.

This won't stop Obamacare or the cost sharing reductions for the poor.... they are law...

and the insurance companies may have to sue for it, but they will get the money for the CSR....it's in the law, that we will pay them, for what they spend in reducing the deductibles, and out of pockets for the poorest with reimbursement, guaranteed by the gvt.


Congress critters waste a lot of our tax dollars on a bunch of useless crap.... with no end results of ridding OCare. Think of how many people could have been helped with their wastefulness and not having to raise taxes a dime.

They won't be paid of Congress doesn't fund them...

Maybe the Democrats should have read it before they passed it, huh???

it's an institutional one, but almost every single argument you make is either a childish attack or a partisan one


go away

Actually, it goes back to the original argument of Executive overreach (the basis of the original lawsuit).

If that was the intent, where was the funding???

Since only Congress can pass the budget, the ACA has a serious problem. Politicians being what they are (and wanting to be re-elected), the Republicans won't fund an unpopular program.

Healthcare is popular. Obamacare is more popular than the alternative.

Throw people under the bus and the GOP will lose for a generation -- at least

Poll data proves you wrong.
Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law | RealClearPolitics

You do know opinion polls change like the weather in New England?

Just make trouble for people already getting healthcare and see what happens

the average is about even right now. IF the GOP has no reasonable alternative that saves people they will get tons oof blame and loose for a generation or two

 

[bodecea]

I agree that the House has standing. Of all the branches of government the house is SUPPOSED to be the strongest.

Whaaaaaaa? Where the hell do you get that?