Obamacare cost...

[VirginiaCougar]

Do yourself a favor and stop parroting this bullshit. Seriously, just stop it. You're talking about the Tea Party hamstringing the Republicans during the healthcare debate. How many tea party-elected Republicans were in the House and Senate in February 2009 when the stimulus bill was passed without a single GOP vote in the House and only the two GOP women from Maine in the Senate?

Then when the debate was raging by the middle of 2009 regarding Obamacare, how many of the Republicans in the House and Senate were elected by the tea party?

What indication has Obama ever given that he willingly works with Republicans? We have accounts from the likes of Bob Woodward that directly refutes this "truth" that you allude to. We have Obama's comments to Canter. We have Rahm Emanuel saying "f*** 'em, we have the votes." We had a massive stimulus bill that was passed within about a month of inauguration that was a brazen payoff to Democratic constituencies, and it passed with only two GOP votes in either house of Congress -- the GOP wasn't exactly Tea Party-addled at that point.

Your conclusory statement doesn't establish this "truth."

So, no Tea Party inspired (they didn't fund candidates directly as a movement until 2009) members of Congress were present? Those ideas weren't percolating around at that period of time? No Jim DeMint in the Senate, no Michelle Bachmann in the House? There was already a sizeable portion of those types of folks in the party, pushing those views in both houses at that period of time.

As far as evidence of Obama's desire to be the Post-Partisan president early on, I've already described a lot of specific actions, down to the very nature of ACA. I've posted links. I've talked specifically about the timing (later Obama did stonewall). It just doesn't matter to the true believers, I understand that. Everything is spun. That doesn't mean Obama was right, simply that he wanted that legacy. It isn't even the most important part of the debate regarding ACA.

As far as the 2009 stimulus goes, that is a different story with a lot of detail to it. I see you've got the dogmatic talking points down. They are partially right, but they are partially wrong as well. They miss most of the middle, which in good measure supports what I've argued about those early days. In other words, there were reasons Emanuel said what he did (and I am NOT a fan of his).

[All-American]

It is true that ACA really is more about access to insurance than cost reduction.

In other words, it treats some symptoms, but not the causes. I probably agree.

But I do fundamentally believe, as much as you might disparage it, that we would have had a better bill if the GOP had participated in the early days of the process. There were many Republicans who wanted to do this and were stopped, and I am sorry if that truth troubles you as much as it appears to.

So in other words, the law would have been better if somebody other than Democrats would have written it. I probably agree there, too.

Not sure how either point really helps the Democrat cause, though.

[VirginiaCougar]

BTW, I know exactly why you keep on repeating it -- because you're trying to argue that the Republicans are responsible for Obamacare through omission. In other words, you're trying to deflect blame from those that: a) voted for it; and b) and failed miserably at administering it, and instead place the blame on those that warned everyone repeatedly how big of a mess this was going to be.

In your same post you AGAIN parrot a Democratic talking point; namely, your catastrophic insurance is total shit and who cares if Obamacare outlaws it. This latest point was the subject of a column from Sally Kohn on cnn.com. Sally Kohn is described on CNN as a "progressive activist, columnist and television commentator."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/opinio...act/index.html

So again, you're above all the partisan riff raff, but you're repeating talking points from people like Paul Krugman and this self-described "progressive activist."

Yes, Grand Conspiracy # 4978 from the far right. It was our evil plan, Paul and I from the very beginning.

By the way, many Republicans like myself say exactly the same thing. We have been for quite a while. I've seen Bennett say the same think in a number of Op-eds, a diversity of other Republican voices over the last few years. I recommend among many other potential sources, this book co-authored by Normam Ornstein from AEI(far, far removed from that evil strawman leftist conspiracy):

"Its Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism"

[imanihonjin]

I think Romney would do some things different. But I also think most of that was for public consumption, for the right-wingers. The same thing that cost him the election. He doesn't have a problem with most of the elements of ACA, never did. Just look at Romneycare. Would he have repealed ACA? We will never know, but I don't think so. At least not of his own volition. He would have tweeked it, I am certain. Major change would have been much, much less likely.

I get it.....so Mitt was a liar.

[VirginiaCougar]

In other words, it treats some symptoms, but not the causes. I probably agree.

So in other words, the law would have been better if somebody other than Democrats would have written it. I probably agree there, too.

Not sure how either point really helps the Democrat cause, though.

I agree on both points. It doesn't help the Democratic cause - I wasn't trying to do that. Why would I try to help their cause directly? Being critical of elements of your own party, for what I strongly believe are valid reasons, is different than embracing the Democrats. That is a false binary, one very prevalent in our politics today. Particularly with the extremes. "If you don't agree completely with us, you are with them..."

[Uncle Ted]

I think Romney would do some things different. But I also think most of that was for public consumption, for the right-wingers. The same thing that cost him the election. He doesn't have a problem with most of the elements of ACA, never did. Just look at Romneycare. Would he have repealed ACA? We will never know, but I don't think so. At least not of his own volition. He would have tweeked it, I am certain. Major change would have been much, much less likely.

I get it.....so Mitt was a liar.

Obama lies. RMoney lies. I feel better now for wasting my vote on Gary Johnson. Thanks VC.

[All-American]

I agree on both points. It doesn't help the Democratic cause - I wasn't trying to do that. Why would I try to help their cause directly? Being critical of elements of your own party, for what I strongly believe are valid reasons, is different than embracing the Democrats. That is a false binary, one very prevalent in our politics today. Particularly with the extremes. "If you don't agree completely with us, you are with them..."

Clearly you didn't see star wars episode III.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

So, I read something today that Patrick Moynihan told Hillary Clinton back in 1993 that she was going to need a 70-30 vote in the Senate to insure that such a massive piece of legislation would gain traction and be successful in the longrun. The Democrats had 57 Senators in 1993.

We all know the history on how Obamacare was passed. Our resident moderate who likes to ape Paul Krugman and self-described progressive activists has made the repeated argument that Republicans are responsible for Obamacare because they refused to vote for it and because of a memo put out by the Heritage Foundation 25 years ago arguing for the individual mandate.

Anyway, in light of all of this it's interesting to look at the history involving the Healthy Americans Act (otherwise known as the Bennett-Wyden bill), which has been mentioned on here. I repeat again that the moderate argument has been made on here that the Republicans were fighting Obama tooth and nail from the start and poor ol' centrist Obama just couldn't make any headway. I have never seen any support for the argument that poor ol' centrist Obama was ever interested in working with Republicans -- unless you want to count what he said in a couple campaign speeches about working with Republicans in addition to his promises to be the most transparent administration in history and that lobbyists wouldn't be a part of his administration. But judging from Obama's tendency to tell bald-faced lies directly to the voters ("let me be clear, if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. Period") coupled with his conduct, I'm chalking up the one about working with Republicans as just another throw-away promise that Obama never intended to keep.

So again, I return to the facts as they were between November 2008 and the middle of 2009. The Republican party had been beaten badly in 2006 and 2008. They were in no position to treat Obama like they had treated Clinton circa 1998-99. With Arlen Specter switching sides (and before that), the Democrats almost had 60 votes in the Senate pending the outcome of the Minnesota Senate election. If you consider the fact that the Maine GOP Senators voted for the odious stimulus bill, Barack Obama was already working with about 62 Senators by the time the Minnesota matter had been settled. If one could peel off 8 more GOP Senators, then he would have reached that magic 70 number that Patrick Moynihan had previously mentioned to Hillary Clinton -- he would have had 10 GOP Senators in the fold and he could make the argument that whatever bill was passed was bipartisan.

It's then funny to look at the Healthy Americans Act and its sponsors. To wit -- here were the GOP Senate sponsors that were around between November 2008 and mid 2009-- Bob Bennett (obviously), Chuck Grassley, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, Mike Crapo, Lindsay Graham, and Judd Gregg. That's seven GOP Senators. It also needs to be noted there were an equal number of sponsors on the Democratic side.

So, Obama needed one more GOP Senators to get to that magic 70 number if they would have moved forward with the Healthy Americans Act which was spearheaded by a Democrat and Republican and had sponsors from both parties.

I'm going to repeat that -- Obama needed one more GOP Senator to reach a bipartisan bill.

Why didn't Obama go for that? Did the GOP, which had just had its ass handed to it, become recalcitrant immediately after the 2008 election to the extent that they would all abandon a bill that had 11 GOP Senate sponsors when it was initially presented in 2007 (four of those members had either resigned, switched parties or lost reelection)? The moderate opinion on here, which happens to be mingled with plenty of Krugmanism, is arguing exactly that.

Here's what really happened:

1. "I won, and elections have consequences." -- Barack Obama to Eric Cantor within a couple weeks of inauguration.

2. "F*** them, we have the votes." Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

3. Five of the seven original GOP sponsors who were still in the Senate (and still Republicans) signed onto this op-ed in August 2009 (it also should be noted that the Democrats who signed on here should be lauded for their efforts to bring some civility and sanity to the process that had been turned into a circus by Pelosi, Reid and Obama): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080402523.html . I can understand why Grassley and Corker declined to sign onto anything in August 2009 dealing with healthcare reform given how toxic the whole topic became because of what the Democratic leadership had pulled up to the point that year.


4. And finally, OBAMA and the UNIONS didn't like the Healthy Americans Act -- you know the act that would have received 70 votes easily if Obama had gotten behind it: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ct=clnk&gl=us& client=firefox-a -- In fact, Obama never made any effort with this act and never made any effort to get Republicans on board. He didn't make the effort because "elections have consequences," because the he had the votes to do it without them and because he had always functioned in a cocooned environment with zero Republican influence.

This line about how we ended up with Obamacare because the Republicans refused to participate is total and complete bullshit. It was always Obama's way or the highway and he never cared about getting any Republican support for his healthcare bill.

[VirginiaCougar]

Clearly you didn't see star wars episode III.

LOL, Nice!

[Uncle Ted]

The incentive to get divorced (or not marry in the first place) and just live together...

Under the bill, couples would face massive financial penalties if they marry or remain married. Conversely, couples who cohabit without marriage are given highly preferential financial treatment. If the Senate bill becomes law, saying 'I do' would cost some couples over $10,000 per year.

In fact, the "... anti-marriage penalties and heavy 'cohabitation bonuses [were] built into the Senate ObamaCare bill [.]'" Furthermore, "low income couples are not immune from the bill's aggressive wedding taxes. A 60-year old husband and wife, each with an income of $15,000 would pay over $4,000 per year if they remain married. Put in other terms, the government would offer an annual bonus of $4,212 if the couple divorces and then cohabits."


Well, ObamaCare is now law and the effects are being felt nationwide. As a continuing job killer, ObamaCare will now adversely impact clergy, wedding halls, caterers, musicians, singers, floral arrangers, and other party planners.
[...]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2jGR4du5j

[Uncle Ted]

Ouch...

Noonan: ObamaCare Is Taking On Water
It's not just a buggy website, it's a disaster of Titanic proportions.

We should not lose The Headline in the day-to-day headlines. This is big history, not small. The ObamaCare rollout is a disaster for the White House, not a problem or a challenge or an embarrassment, not a gaffe or a bad few weeks. It is a political disaster, and the only question is whether it is partially recoverable, meaning the system can be made to work in a generally satisfactory way in the next few weeks. But—it has to be repeated—they had 3½ years after passage of the Affordable Care Act to make the program into something the American people could register for and feel they were benefiting from. Three and a half years! They had a long-declared start date: It would all go live Oct. 1, 2013, and everyone in the government, every contractor and consultant, knew it.


The president put the meaning of his presidency into the program—it informally carries his name, it is his brand. It was unveiled with great fanfare, and it didn't work. For almost anybody. Crashed systems, frozen screens, phone registration that prompted you back to the site that sent you to the 800 number, like a high-tech Möbius strip.


All this from the world's greatest, most technologically sophisticated nation, the one that invented the computer and the Internet. And from a government that is able to demand and channel a great deal of the people's wealth.


So you'd think it would sort of work. And it didn't. Which is a disaster.
[...]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...56051573619122

[Uncle Ted]

CNN is turning on Obama?!?

Is anyone watching MSNBC? What are they saying?

Krauthammer to MSNBC: If Obamacare Fails, Liberalism ‘Will Be Set Back a Full Generation’

Good hell, who let Kruathammer on MSNBC?!?

[imanihonjin]

The fools who are so worried about corporations and big business should take note.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/politi...ouse-pressure/

Yeah, that is the government that has the ability to not only play dirty, but gets to make all the rules too.

[byu71]

Is anyone watching MSNBC? What are they saying?

Krauthammer to MSNBC: If Obamacare Fails, Liberalism ‘Will Be Set Back a Full Generation’

Good hell, who let Kruathammer on MSNBC?!?

MSNBC is actually having some critical comments about the President. They are saying his messaging was faulty. He didn't actually lie, he just didn't express himself well.

As far as people losing their insurance, it represents less than 5% and they are actually going to get better coverage at a cheaper price. Just be patient for 5 years and people will be praising Obamacare. Lastly, the computer thing is just a glitch and the very popular Medicare D had the same problems when it rolled out. The difference is the dems helped the republicans fix it.

The very fact CNN, MSNBC are being critical to any extent is an indication things might be really bad in Obamacare land.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The fools who are so worried about corporations and big business should take note.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/politi...ouse-pressure/

Yeah, that is the government that has the ability to not only play dirty, but gets to make all the rules too.

What didi i do to you and Ted to have you ignore me? I posted this video yesterday and you guys repost it out of spite towards me, not once buttwice in order to really dig it in.