Jump to content

Obamacare is "settled law," LOL


Recommended Posts

Obamacare is "settled law," lied liberals.

 

But not when it's Democrats who want to change it.

 

Yet trolls and moonbats aren't attacking them, so the "settled law" BS is dead.

 

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia wants the penalty for not obtaining insurance delayed for a year. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is pushing a bill that would allow people to keep their current health plan. And Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire has introduced legislation that would extend the law's open enrollment period.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303914304579191752435322202?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is "settled law," lied liberals.

 

But not when it's Democrats who want to change it.

 

Yet trolls and moonbats aren't attacking them, so the "settled law" BS is dead.

 

 

 

These Dems in the House & Senate are trying to save their Political necks.... Their problem is no matter what they prosose or introduce, it doesn't negate the fact they Voted for a Bill they didn't even fuucking read....Good luck explaining that to their constituents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich

How many of those red state libs actually survive the election?

 

Too early to say, but I see five likely Repub pickups already, and more possible.

 

There's a whole year for Obamacare to melt down, and I think a lot of pain will be expressed against Democrats. :)

 

These Dems in the House & Senate are trying to save their Political necks.... Their problem is no matter what they prosose or introduce, it doesn't negate the fact they Voted for a Bill they didn't even fuucking read....Good luck explaining that to their constituents

 

Good luck trying to explain that horrific vote away.

 

F*** with what's central to Americans' lives, and I'll bet there's a big repercussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as the law is on the books the President is legally obligated to implement it ... and if that means the President directing the Treasury to issue debt & print money to do that, so be it. That's what he has been authorized and legally obligated to do. The President can't just ignore a duly passed law that requires him to do something just because a few lowly Congresspersons in the current session of the House of Representatives have decided they don't like it because they don't want the other party to get the credit for all of the good it will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as the law is on the books the President is legally obligated to implement it

 

LOL!

 

Funny how selective Obama is about implementing and enforcing laws.

 

And it's funny how Obama has a habit of implementing things that weren't in this law.

 

By the way ... you're an idiot and you hide from any real discussion of topics.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as the law is on the books the President is legally obligated to implement it ... and if that means the President directing the Treasury to issue debt & print money to do that, so be it. That's what he has been authorized and legally obligated to do. The President can't just ignore a duly passed law that requires him to do something just because a few lowly Congresspersons in the current session of the House of Representatives have decided they don't like it because they don't want the other party to get the credit for all of the good it will do.

 

Does this apply to immigration? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as the law is on the books the President is legally obligated to implement it ... and if that means the President directing the Treasury to issue debt & print money to do that, so be it. That's what he has been authorized and legally obligated to do. The President can't just ignore a duly passed law that requires him to do something just because a few lowly Congresspersons in the current session of the House of Representatives have decided they don't like it because they don't want the other party to get the credit for all of the good it will do.

that's some funny material there.

 

 

Do you think it should?

yes, the laws are on the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay then ... so how is it you have a problem with President Obama implementing a law that is on the books? (as he is legally required to do)

Obama has repeatedly ignored provisions of this law, without Congressional approval.

Clearly the President doesn't believe that following the law applies to him.

 

So long as the law is on the books the President is legally obligated to implement it ... and if that means the President directing the Treasury to issue debt & print money to do that, so be it.

I suggest that you read the Constitution. The President cannot direct the Treasury to just issue debt & print money.

That power belongs to Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Okay then ... so how is it you have a problem with President Obama implementing a law that is on the books? (as he is legally required to do)

because he grants exclusions and delays to anyone that he wants(his supporters) and decides not to enforce other laws that are on the books(usually for the good of his supporters. In other words, running a banana republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only extremist, anarchist, far-right bomb throwers want to change the "established law" of Obamacare. :huh:

 

Ask any moonbat. :glare:

 

 

Bill Clinton: Obama "Should Honor The Commitment" To Let People Keep Plans


..... I personally believe,
even if it takes a change to the law,
the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/12/bill_clinton_president_should_honor_the_commitment_to_let_people_keep_plans.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because he grants exclusions and delays to anyone that he wants(his supporters) and decides not to enforce other laws that are on the books(usually for the good of his supporters. In other words, running a banana republic.

 

Why are you still running on about other laws you allege President Obama has not implemented in a manner with which you agree?

 

This thread is about the ACA. You agreed the President has an obligation to implement all duly passed laws/programs. Yet somehow you think he shouldn't when it comes to the ACA. Do you not see how illogical your thinking is on this issue?

 

 

 

I suggest that you read the Constitution. The President cannot direct the Treasury to just issue debt & print money.

That power belongs to Congress.

 

The Congress granted that authority when they passed the ACA. He is obligated to implement it. If they don't want him to they should repeal it (if enough of them want to)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like "settled science", RichClem. Just a figment of leftist imagination.

 

And just as delusionary. :D

 

Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard predicted as a certainty that there would soon (next year) be a "flood" of Democrats demanding the full repeal of Obamacare. :D

 

So much for silly liberal bleating about "settled law." :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why are you still running on about other laws you allege President Obama has not implemented in a manner with which you agree?

 

This thread is about the ACA. You agreed the President has an obligation to implement all duly passed laws/programs. Yet somehow you think he shouldn't when it comes to the ACA. Do you not see how illogical your thinking is on this issue?

No, I don't see. It's not the Presidents choice which laws to enforce or not. He doesn't have the authority to change the law for his liking. It should go thru Congress to make changes.

 

 

 

 

The Congress granted that authority when they passed the ACA. He is obligated to implement it. If they don't want him to they should repeal it (if enough of them want to)

Show me the paragraph and section.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, I don't see. It's not the Presidents choice which laws to enforce or not. He doesn't have the authority to change the law for his liking. It should go thru Congress to make changes.

 

 

 

So why do you have a problem with President Obama doing exactly that with the ACA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is "settled law," lied liberals.

 

But not when it's Democrats who want to change it.

 

Yet trolls and moonbats aren't attacking them, so the "settled law" BS is dead.

 

Where are all the arrogant, gloating liberals shrieking,"We won, so get over it!" :huh:

 

Obamacare is "settled law" so don't even think about changing a single word of it!

 

Dems Take Up Banner of Obamacare Delay - Rep. Kevin McCarthy, RCP

 

...in a reversal from just one month ago -- Democrats are calling for suspending the individual mandate itself or the mandate’s tax penalty. One Democratic senator has even introduced legislation to allow Americans to keep their current plans.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/13/democrats_take_up_banner_of_obamacare_delay.html

 

So when does the trickle become a torrent? :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why are you still running on about other laws you allege President Obama has not implemented in a manner with which you agree?

 

This thread is about the ACA. You agreed the President has an obligation to implement all duly passed laws/programs. Yet somehow you think he shouldn't when it comes to the ACA. Do you not see how illogical your thinking is on this issue?

 

The Congress granted that authority when they passed the ACA. He is obligated to implement it. If they don't want him to they should repeal it (if enough of them want to)

It's difficult to explain the Constitution to you, because you have no concept of how our government works.

Congress passes laws, and the Administration is tasked with the job of implementing and enforcing those laws.

 

The President has unilaterally decided to waive provisions of this and many other laws. This is clearly illegal.

He does not have the Constitutional authority to change laws by Executive fiat. As you said, "he is obligated to implement it", yet you support him NOT implementing the law(s) as written.

 

Congress did NOT grant the President the ability to waive the employer mandate for a year, nor did they grant him the power to, as he is suggesting now, extend subsidies to more people who have seen their premium prices skyrocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...