New Obamacare numbers, and they ain't good...

First off, 30 million won't be covered. 30 million? I thought this piece of shit was put in place to cover 30 million? Secondly, 6 MILLION people will get hit with a new tax, the same tax that the Democrats promised wasn't there, even though we all knew it really was all along. Next up, this lump of crap is estimated to cost private business as much as 1.8 TRILLION a year. but, meh, who cares. (In Jan Brady voice) "Did you HEAR what Romney SAID!!?!?!?!"

It's sad. We're probably going to re-elect the worst president since Herbert Hoover because he was very good at the magic trick of getting a little over ha;f the people in this Country to IGNORE what a failure he is....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ealth-care-ta/

CBO raises estimate of those hit by Obama health care tax


http://washingtonexaminer.com/1.8-tr...6#.UFsf6FGseNq

$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate

Bu-bu-bu-this is gonna SAVE money! :rolleyes:

If this clown is re-elected (and I'm almost sure he's going to be) this country will deserve what it gets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fansince'76

Bu-bu-bu-this is gonna SAVE money! :rolleyes:

If this clown is re-elected (and I'm almost sure he's going to be) this country will deserve what it gets.

---

I'm with you. Up until this week, I thought Romney would win, but he's taking a thrashing. Between all the money Hopey is spending, to having about 80% of the media on his side, to the obvious bias they possess (when Hopey said "You didn't build that", the media fell all over themselves trying to explain it away and downplay it. Romney's taped statement is actually being exaggerated and made out to be far, far worse than it actually is by that same media), to the false meme that he's Bush II or a moderate (remember, just 4 years ago he was deemed too conservative to win the nomination), to the fact that people love Obama even though he's a complete failure, I just don't see much hope.

Quote:

---

cost private business as much as 1.8 TRILLION a year

---

But, bu, bu it's going to create jobs and boost the economy.

I have a friend that owns a business that has about 120 employees and he's seriously considering cutting back production and getting to the magical number of 49 employees. He offers insurance but it's employee paid with group discount, not sure how that works with hopeycare where the employer has to provide the insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mach1

But, bu, bu it's going to create jobs and boost the economy.

I have a friend that owns a business that has about 120 employees and he's seriously considering cutting back production and getting to the magical number of 49 employees. He offers insurance but it's employee paid with group discount, not sure how that works with hopeycare where the employer has to provide the insurance.

---

Once Obama is re-elected, we will NEVER be able to get this horrible lump of pig shit legislation off the books. This one reason ALONE is enough to elect Romney.

What makes you guys think Romney is going to be a Crusader against socialized medicine? He's campaigning against it because it's convenient. When he had his portrait done as Massachusetts governor, he chose to include two items: a photo of his wife, and a piece of legislation he must have been particularly proud of...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_portrait.jpg

His presidency will focus on foreign policy and deregulation of the private sector. He's a business man. He has no ideological aversion to forcing you to buy health care. If anything, he'll modify the bill negligibly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Patriot

What makes you guys think Romney is going to be a Crusader against socialized medicine? He's campaigning against it because it's convenient. When he had his portrait done as Massachusetts governor, he chose to include two items: a photo of his wife, and a piece of legislation he must have been particularly proud of...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...y_portrait.jpg

His presidency will focus on foreign policy and deregulation of the private sector. He's a business man. He has no ideological aversion to forcing you to buy health care. If anything, he'll modify the bill negligibly.

---

It's going to be VERY tough sledding for the dude if he goes on TV a thousand times and says "I'm gonna repeal Obamacare" then gets elected and doesn't do it. In fact, it will be political suicide. It will crush the whole GOP if makes a promise literally a thousand times and doesn't keep it.

Obamacare can't be taken apart plank-by-plank, it has to be taken down as a whole. There is no key log at play here, the bill is WAY to entangling and detailed to be taken apart piece-by-piece. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that he would issue an executive order on day one (probably not a legal one, either, but when has that ever stopped Hopey?) to repeal it, and then set Congress on a replacement bill that includes some of the things everyone likes, AND with a way included to actually pay for it.

What's more, he SHOULD be proud of that piece of STATE legislature. It's what the people of his state wanted, it's what the Democrats on the other side of the aisle wanted, it fits for a state so heavily invested in the healthcare industry that's used to paying high taxes for government services, it's popular to this day, and all of the above is what you'd ideally like in a piece of legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Patriot

His (Romney's) presidency will focus on foreign policy and deregulation of the private sector. He's a business man.

---

You are right, Romney is a brilliant businessman and a genius in finance. He has proven time and time again that he can take things that are "broke" and put them back in the black.

So do you approve of Romney's pro business focus....or do you prefer Obama's approach which is heavy regulation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suitanim

It's going to be VERY tough sledding for the dude if he goes on TV a thousand times and says "I'm gonna repeal Obamacare" then gets elected and doesn't do it. In fact, it will be political suicide. It will crush the whole GOP if makes a promise literally a thousand times and doesn't keep it.

---

Obama made a bunch of promises too and didn't keep them. He's doing pretty strong right now, judging by the tone of this thread. Nobody cares. These two parties stay in business by pointing out how bad the other is. They tell you anything you want to hear, and then once they get in office it's just, "F**k it. We've got our own agenda to take care of." And people buy into the partisanship so strongly that they're willing to ignore all the problems with their side of the aisle.

The fact that you're willing to defend Romney's healthcare mandate in MA tells me that you care more about the implications for business than the constitutionality of the bill. That's the story of the Republican party - conservative where convenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GBMelBlount

You are right, Romney is a brilliant businessman and a genius in finance. He has proven time and time again that he can take things that are "broke" and put them back in the black.

So do you approve of Romney's pro business focus....or do you prefer Obama's approach which is heavy regulation?

---

I approve of pro business in general, particularly small business. So I realize the consequences of this health care bill. I approve of what Romney did to balance the budget in MA. I do not, however, approve of the military industrial complex and the government using our military as an economic tool abroad for the convenience of multinational corporations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Patriot

Obama made a bunch of promises too and didn't keep them. He's doing pretty strong right now, judging by the tone of this thread. Nobody cares. These two parties stay in business by pointing out how bad the other is. They tell you anything you want to hear, and then once they get in office it's just, "F**k it. We've got our own agenda to take care of." And people buy into the partisanship so strongly that they're willing to ignore all the problems with their side of the aisle.

The fact that you're willing to defend Romney's healthcare mandate in MA tells me that you care more about the implications for business than the constitutionality of the bill. That's the story of the Republican party - conservative where convenient.

---

I don't care for Romney's bill. But he governed well for people who clearly did care for it. I find it convenient that you've pivoted to attack me, now. There is just simply no way in a thousand years that the key attribute of a whole campaign is even up for negotiation. You should perhaps read my other thread on exactly all the myriad differences, and exactly how Romney plans on repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fansince'76

Bu-bu-bu-this is gonna SAVE money! :rolleyes:

If this clown is re-elected (and I'm almost sure he's going to be) this country will deserve what it gets.

---

Word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suitanim

I don't care for Romney's bill. But he governed well for people who clearly did care for it. I find it convenient that you've pivoted to attack me, now. There is just simply no way in a thousand years that the key attribute of a whole campaign is even up for negotiation. You should perhaps read my other thread on exactly all the myriad differences, and exactly how Romney plans on repealing and replacing Obamacare.

---

Not a personal attack. Just a criticism of argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Patriot

These two parties stay in business by pointing out how bad the other is. They tell you anything you want to hear, and then once they get in office it's just, "F**k it. We've got our own agenda to take care of." And people buy into the partisanship so strongly that they're willing to ignore all the problems with their side of the aisle.

---

The sooner more people understand this, the sooner we can start fixing things.

If Obama gets re-elected I may need to choose to move to South America to retire, or dig a hole and lay down in it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Patriot

Not a personal attack. Just a criticism of argument.

---

That can't be, because what Romney did in Mass. was EXACTLY what the framers envisioned. It is states rights incarnate. So throwing out a constitutionality argument is completely off-base, and if the core of the argument is off-base, all that's left of the statement was an attack on me saying I'm cherry-picking out of convenience, which could not be farther from the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suitanim

That can't be, because what Romney did in Mass. was EXACTLY what the framers envisioned. It is states rights incarnate. So throwing out a constitutionality argument is completely off-base, and if the core of the argument is off-base, all that's left of the statement was an attack on me saying I'm cherry-picking out of convenience, which could not be farther from the truth.

---

I think the argument for the unconstitutionality of the bill was that the government doesn't have the right to force citizens to buy insurance from private businesses (period). It was not an issue of the Federal government encroaching on States rights.

You could make the very agreeable argument that the Federal government is overstepping its bounds by forcing health care/gun laws/drug laws/etc. on everyone, and that the Federal government's role should be drastically reduced, but that's more of a question of ethics than constitutionality. And entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security would also fall into the same category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Patriot

I think the argument for the unconstitutionality of the bill was that the government doesn't have the right to force citizens to buy insurance from private businesses (period). It was not an issue of the Federal government encroaching on States rights.

You could make the very agreeable argument that the Federal government is overstepping its bounds by forcing health care/gun laws/drug laws/etc. on everyone, and that the Federal government's role should be drastically reduced, but that's more of a question of ethics than constitutionality. And entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security would also fall into the same category.

---

Not necessarily. One constitutional argument is that forcing citizens to buy a good or service from a private company falls outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, so Obamacare is unconstitutional. Romneycare is constitutional because it was done by a state government, and the Constitution does not forbid a state government from doing it.

You could also theoretically argue that Medicare and Social Security fall under the taxation power granted by the Sixteenth Amendment.

http://cdn2.hark.com/images/000/000/...4/original.jpg
"Boy, do I hate being right all the time!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Godfather

Not necessarily. One constitutional argument is that forcing citizens to buy a good or service from a private company falls outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, so Obamacare is unconstitutional. Romneycare is constitutional because it was done by a state government, and the Constitution does not forbid a state government from doing it.

You could also theoretically argue that Medicare and Social Security fall under the taxation power granted by the Sixteenth Amendment.

---

I bolded the salient point. In my mind, Romneycare meets every litmus test for Constitutionality, and will a thousand times out of a thousand times, and Obamacare fails that same test every time.

Regardless, there is a zero percent chance that Romney, or the GOP in general, will fail to repeal Obamacare. Literally no chance of it...well, I guess there is a chance if Romney is elected and the Dems win back the House and keep the Senate. But I still think his waiver allowing states to opt out would trigger all the GOP controlled states to leave it, and then the whole house of cards would start to fall.

I'm not even sure why anyone would SUSPECT that the central and core argument of the entire party is in question.