House repeals Obamacare

[npgunner]

Haven't seen this features prominently on many news sites, and realize it won't get any traction in the senate, but the house voted to pass (again) the repeal of Obamacare.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/house-votes-to-repeal-obamacare-in-22-125-vote/

[Randall53]

"AFFORDABLE" Care Act?  LOL....that's some crazy chit.....The stupid dorks that voted for Obama will soon see how "AFFORDABLE" it is.....

[Smokin45]

The Unfordable Care Act  My  :2cents:

[Oh Shoot]

Haven't seen this features prominently on many news sites, and realize it won't get any traction in the senate, but the house voted to pass (again) the repeal of Obamacare.

 

"Again" is key word. Ho hum.

 

Why don't they simply end the funding, since as I understand it, they can actually do that? Perhaps because the GOP has no plan to replace it, and know it would backfire on them?

 

- OS

[glock55]

its good to know that all is well in the world that our house members can waste their time and effort with this repeal nonsense. I will sleep better tonight knowing that our budget problems are solved and the boarders have been secured that they can waste their time with this nonsense. no way in hades this goes anywhere in the senate. may be time to do away with the house ,senate  and the presidency and hire a national ceo to run the country. maybe something constructive might get done.  :waiting:

[Guest Lester Weevils]

"Again" is key word. Ho hum.

 

Why don't they simply end the funding, since as I understand it, they can actually do that? Perhaps because the GOP has no plan to replace it, and know it would backfire on them?

 

- OS

 

Hi OS

 

I can't recall the details, and maybe this wasn't true anyway--

 

In the 2010 "teaparty revolution" election season, all the candidates were promising to at least de-fund obamacare and take it apart, death by a million cuts, even if they couldn't realistically get a veto-proof repeal as long as the Asshat in Chief remains in office.

 

So after they won a majority and started looking in the thousands of pages bill, Bachman and a couple of others were complaining on the talk circuits that the bill contained financial poison pills, and can't be defunded at all unless the bill is outright repealed. They made at least real good pretense to being steamed about it, and the "trap" possibly proved that Pelosi was smarter than she looked.

 

The exact mechanism could probably be looked up. Maybe it was "prefunded" for X number of years from the date of signing, or maybe there was some other mechanism. Can't recall the "trick".

 

If the tea party reps really were surprised and shocked, after winning a majority, that the monster could not be cleanly de-funded, one might quibble that the tea party congresscritters might have been a little lax on their homework or maybe they would have known that little detail before making it part of their election promises? On the other hand, even conservatives can lie and dissemble with the best of them.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[vontar]

As soon as they started talking about Obamacare, my insurance doubled the next year.  I had to drop a level to afford it,  The following year it when up again,  Last year it went up so much It was out of reason to buy it.  I got lucky my wife went full time and hers was affordable with reasonable coverage.

 

Obamacare did nothing but scare the insurance companies and give them a reason to raise their rates in my opinion with no benefit at all as far as my family is concerned.

[Oh Shoot]

As soon as they started talking about Obamacare, my insurance doubled the next year.  I had to drop a level to afford it,  The following year it when up again,  Last year it went up so much It was out of reason to buy it.  I got lucky my wife went full time and hers was affordable with reasonable coverage.

 

Obamacare did nothing but scare the insurance companies and give them a reason to raise their rates in my opinion with no benefit at all as far as my family is concerned.

 

You have to already be dependent on the government to benefit from ObamaCare. Just more of the plan.

 

Probably includes a phone upgrade somewhere in there.

 

- OS

[LagerHead]

"Again" is key word. Ho hum.

 

Why don't they simply end the funding, since as I understand it, they can actually do that? Perhaps because the GOP has no plan to replace it, and know it would backfire on them?

 

- OS

 

OhShoot, you seem to be implying that a politician might say one thing and do another. I'm sure I am misunderstanding you.  :rofl:

 

Hi OS

 

I can't recall the details, and maybe this wasn't true anyway--

 

In the 2010 "teaparty revolution" election season, all the candidates were promising to at least de-fund obamacare and take it apart, death by a million cuts, even if they couldn't realistically get a veto-proof repeal as long as the Asshat in Chief remains in office.

 

So after they won a majority and started looking in the thousands of pages bill, Bachman and a couple of others were complaining on the talk circuits that the bill contained financial poison pills, and can't be defunded at all unless the bill is outright repealed. They made at least real good pretense to being steamed about it, and the "trap" possibly proved that Pelosi was smarter than she looked.

 

The exact mechanism could probably be looked up. Maybe it was "prefunded" for X number of years from the date of signing, or maybe there was some other mechanism. Can't recall the "trick".

 

If the tea party reps really were surprised and shocked, after winning a majority, that the monster could not be cleanly de-funded, one might quibble that the tea party congresscritters might have been a little lax on their homework or maybe they would have known that little detail before making it part of their election promises? On the other hand, even conservatives can lie and dissemble with the best of them.

 

Well I look at it this way: I might be broke and it might cost a little bit of money to flush the radiator and swap out the water pump in my car when it's needed, but it's a lot more expensive to swap the engine later on. Assuming that what she says is true, which I seriously doubt, this falls under the same brand of logic. My guess is that there is pork for her district tied to the bill and she's not willing to give it up, nor are many others. 

[mav]

"Again" is key word. Ho hum.

 

Why don't they simply end the funding, since as I understand it, they can actually do that? Perhaps because the GOP has no plan to replace it, and know it would backfire on them?

 

- OS

 

Yep, it has only been the 37th time they have voted to repeal it.

 

Any time they have a chance to do anything of real substance on Obamacare, they fold.  In fact, as pointed out in one of my earlier threads, they actually fast tracked funding to one of Obamacare's provisions.

 

All of this repeal nonsense is political theater for the 2014 elections.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

OhShoot, you seem to be implying that a politician might say one thing and do another. I'm sure I am misunderstanding you.  :rofl:

 

 

Well I look at it this way: I might be broke and it might cost a little bit of money to flush the radiator and swap out the water pump in my car when it's needed, but it's a lot more expensive to swap the engine later on. Assuming that what she says is true, which I seriously doubt, this falls under the same brand of logic. My guess is that there is pork for her district tied to the bill and she's not willing to give it up, nor are many others. 

 

Thanks LagerHead

 

Agreed, the usual way to know when a politician is lying-- Any time his mouth is moving.

 

Not coming to the defense of Bachman, who I like fine, though representative looks closer to her peter principle max capability than president-- Found this video from "back when" of her explaining why they discovered that they can't defund obamacare (any time soon) except by repealing the bill.

 

I  think that if they didn't know this little tidbit BEFORE the 2010 election cycle (which is quite possible)-- That would be prima facie evidence that the dog ate their homework. :) Maybe they could have skipped a couple of tea party rallies to actually read the bill and figger out what they were gonna do if elected. :)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjv1X6LqFkk

Edited May 18, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm curious why all the dumping on the Tea Party whn it was the Republians who won the

majority, not the Tea Party. Would you rather the Demorats retain the House? The only

way for this to end is by the Republians gaining the Senate, also, and that might not be

enough, except for the possibility of de-funding.

 

As it stands, right now, all the House can do is keep up the pressure and publicity on the

bill.

 

Find a better solution. I'll take a start in the right direction, rather than bitch about nothing

happening because of a split Congress. Rome wasn't built in one day.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't consider it dumping on the tea party, but for instance if one intends to make a campaign promise to defund the law of gravity, then it would be good to first determine if that is at all achievable. Rather than finding out afterward and having to explain an error that will disappoint people and make some think they had been scammed by unrealistic campaign promises. Which makes further campaign promises in future elections less credible.

 

On the other hand campaign promises seem to fool people almost as reliably as Lucy can fool Charlie Brown into trying to kick her football. Republicans have promised to "do something" about abortion for at least 30 years and it still seems to fool some people. Democrats have similar captive audiences they've been deceiving for decades with campaign promises that are actually bald-faced lies.