US House, led by "The Party of No", once again vote to repeal all of the Affordable Care Act

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57470521-503544/house-passes-health-care-repeal-again/

CBS News) The Republican-led effort to repeal President Obama's health care law passed the House of Representatives Wednesday, successfully setting up campaign talking points for the coming months, but accomplishing little else.

The vote was the 33rd time the House has voted to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act, but Wednesday's vote was the first House action to repeal since the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law nearly two weeks ago.

With the reality that it will also be the 33rd time that the measure will fail to be passed by the Democratic-led Senate, Wednesday's action ultimately winds up being only political in nature, giving Republicans material for their political races to tell voters that they are committed to sinking the health care overhaul.

We are voting "so we may all be on record in order to show that the house rejects 'Obamacare,' and we are committed to taking this flawed law off the books," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., sad on the House floor.

---------------------------------


Hoping a majority of the voters will support the opponents of these flawed representatives! They are disgraceful.


http://www.zazzle.com/the_party_of_no_has_to_go_gop_republicans_obstruct_bumper_sticker-128224072221438203?rf=238107662556833486

finally get the picture. The Republicans in Congress have wasted money and time with this stupid repeal of Obamacare. They are trying really hard to get rid of it before it becomes a reality and people start liking it because when that happens they are going to look like the complete idiots that they are.

That's what Harry Reid said, when I saw him on C-SPAN....

Ever notice how the Republicans suddenly fight the Supremes, when a decision isn't to THEIR liking?

Get it now, or one of a million other designs! http://www.zazzle.com/the_party_of_no_has_to_go_gop_republicans_obstruct_bumper_sticker-128224072221438203?rf=238107662556833486

decision; and, IMO, George told the truth for once.

I think Ryan knows it too, because Republicans are already running on how Obama enacted the biggest tax increase in history.

Dem support, and made many people angry about having the changes they have been enjoying, taken away. Also, as you say, it gives the other side the political argument that Obama raised taxes more than ever in history, and it adds fire to their voters to be interested.

either way, it comes down to the swing states and how many tens of thousands of votes are going to be blocked with these BS state repub administrations screwing with the process, and then of course the potential for electronic fudging of the cast votes.



Get it here now, or one of a million other designs! http://www.zazzle.com/re_elect_barack_obama_joe_biden_o12_magnet-147238681698545650?rf=238107662556833486

Many people think the decision was about the entire affordable care act. it was not.

It was about the Constitutionality of only two provisions of the very long act, namely the individual mandate and the ability of Congress to "encourage" states to expand Medicaid by denying all Medicaid funds to states that failed to expand Medicaid.

In its decision, the Court upheld the first as a tax and struck down the second. (I would have done the exact opposite.)

However, there are almost 100 pages of opinions, with Roberts having written BOTH the majority opinion and a great deal of the major dissenting opinion, which would have said both provisions were unconstitutional.

Moreover, a SCOTUS decision is never limited to just one case, even if, as in Bush v. Gore, the SCOTUS expressly says it is. A SCOTUS decision will be cited again and again, for all kinds of legislation.

Forget broccoli, on which the Justices seemed to fixate in this case. What if some future Congress thinks that it promotes national security and the general welfare for every adult to have, say, a gun, instead of relying solely on taxpayers to provide state militias, local and state police and federal armed forces? Could it cite the Roberts opinion when it imposed a tax on every adult who failed or refused to own a gun? I don't see why not.



But, back to why the Roberts decision went the way of conservatives:
1. It is anti-individual rights and pro-private business. It says state governments may require citizens to buy from private companies, and the federal government may do so indirectly, by taxing the failure to buy.

2. It limits the power of the federal goverment under the Commerce Clause.


3. The decision strongly supports states' rights, elevating them above both federal power and individual rights.


If the above does not spell 'conservative view of the Constitution' I don't know what does.

In addition, by characterizing the amount that must be paid by those who do not buy health insurance as a "tax," Roberts gave Republicans plenty of political ammunition when they run against the so-called "tax and spend Democrats."

And they started using it immediately, saying "obamacare' is biggest middle class tax increase enacted in the history of the U.S. maybe the history of the world.

And that kind of statement is, I am sure, exactly what the Obama administration tried so hard to avoid when they insisted the fee was a "penalty" and not a tax.

:sarcasm: