Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

You're right. Its a shame Democrats didn't gain control of the House and Senate in the first couple of years so he could get something done. Its also a shame we don't have a previous history of Presidents working with Congress's from the other side to get things done.

Oh wait...nevermind.

It didn't help that in the beginning Obama wanted to be the Great Compromizer and squandered the first two years. But try taking a look at the number of filibusters used in the past two sessions of Congress - over TWICE what was used in any session previous. And then take a look at who used them.

Makes the point pretty thoroughly.

Q1. Who did use them, as in which side and over what type of issue. What is going on?


Q2. A lot of he replies here indicate Obama is finished or could possibly be finished due to this issue. Is his re-election chances that unlikely. I hear other people saying (off this thread) the Republicans have 'no chance' because they don't have a strong candidate choice. While both catalysts could be true, both results can't be, not realistically anyhow. Some clarity is needed.

Clarity will be provided in November -or January if rumors of massive legal teams being hired by a candidate are accurate
If you thought 2000 was bad...

Frazzled wrote:
If you thought 2000 was bad...

The Chads...


THE CHADS!!




CHAAAAADS!!!!!

PREGNANT CHADS! WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHADS!

This may be slightly OT, and I've posted this before on this forum, but where is the evidence that government is too big when the democrats are in power?

I'm ploughing (yes, ploughing, take that american english )
my way through a biography of Ronald Reagan and the rate in which money was spent and federal departments increased makes me think he was on a one man mission to bankrupt America. Still, he gave us some great quotes.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm ploughing (yes, ploughing, take that american english )
my way through a biography of Ronald Reagan and the rate in which money was spent and federal departments increased makes me think he was on a one man mission to bankrupt America. Still, he gave us some great quotes.

Congrats, you figured out Reaganomics faster than pretty much everyone in the 80's.

Platuan4th wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I'm ploughing (yes, ploughing, take that american english )
my way through a biography of Ronald Reagan and the rate in which money was spent and federal departments increased makes me think he was on a one man mission to bankrupt America. Still, he gave us some great quotes.

Congrats, you figured out Reaganomics faster than pretty much everyone in the 80's.

The plan was to bankrupt the Soviet Union slightly faster than the United States. In short, end the cold war with massive spending.

Not sure it was the best possible plan, but it worked.

Less then 2 hours now.

Upheld, we're stuck with it.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:As far as I know from listening to discussions on this subject by much more educated folk than myself, the bill has no severence clause. Which essentially means if one part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the whole bill goes away.

I am of the opinion that the bill is going down, from everything I have heard and read, and just how it feels.

I believe you are being mislead. Parts, even essential parts, of laws are ruled unconstitutional frequently. The effectiveness of the bill may be crippled but what remains is still a law.

There is no way legally in our system that I am aware of to take out just part of it and keep the rest.

There's a pretty clear precedent for removing part of a law that is unconstitutional and leaving the rest, it's pretty much what SCOTUS does.

The fact Roberts was the deciding vote was very surprising, thought Kennedy here was going to be the key vote. Bet a tenner that by the end of the day Republicans will be attacking the court.

Lord Bingo wrote:The fact Roberts was the deciding vote was very surprising, thought Kennedy here was going to be the key vote. Bet a tenner that by the end of the day Republicans will be attacking the court.

Didn't they just tell Obama a couple months ago that attacking the court is unamerican?

d-usa wrote:

Lord Bingo wrote:The fact Roberts was the deciding vote was very surprising, thought Kennedy here was going to be the key vote. Bet a tenner that by the end of the day Republicans will be attacking the court.

Didn't they just tell Obama a couple months ago that attacking the court is unamerican?

Republicans being hypocrites? Perish the thought!

Awesome. I look forward to the absolute cluster that is the implementation of this law.

Medicare patients may now officially drop dead as $500bn is sucked out to pay for this.

Good thing it helps keep costs down...oh wait...

I foresee companies annuncing dropping their insurance presently or an avalanche of waivers.

Lord Bingo wrote:The fact Roberts was the deciding vote was very surprising, thought Kennedy here was going to be the key vote. Bet a tenner that by the end of the day Republicans will be attacking the court.

Meh back when the public argument was going on SCOTUSblog pegged either as a possible swing vote.
The individual mandate was only one thing under consideration have they decided on the rest?

Edit: why bother.

Suprise me its consider a "tax"

Jihadin wrote:Suprise me its consider a "tax"

Good thing the administraiton swore it wasn't a tax and then argued it was in court.

Obama Lied! Your Wallet Died!

What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

If you don't get healthcare you get fined, so it fines the very people it claims to help. It also would pay for things of questionable moral standing(abortions, embryonic stem cell reaserch...)

For the record I don't like the way Health Coverage is carried out now by insurance companies, but I strongly believe this is something the government has no business doing. Stick with the Devil you know.

Mainly for fear of government Death Panels. They will appear after awhile.

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

You don't need your health?

Also, pardon my french, but that is horsegak: I'm guessing that like here in PIG country, car insurance is also mandatory in the States?

I think all Americans are born anti-British. You guys started a revolution against us over a meagre amount of tax levied against you, and yet, this ruling potentially could suck a lot of people dry, and there is barely a word said from most of the population according to some of the polls/articles I read.

Can we expect to see another battle at lexington this year? and not just another re-enactment on the forth

PhantomViper wrote:

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

You don't need your health?

Also, pardon my french, but that is horsegak: I'm guessing that like here in PIG country, car insurance is also mandatory in the States?

Liability insurance is mandatory, yes. This isn't to protect you, though, it's to protect people you might harm while operating your car. You are not, of course, required to own a car, and if you choose not to, you are not required to purchase car insurance.

I did not need health insurance during the years I was working as an independent contractor. I kept a high-deductible, low-cost "emergency" policy, but I had no day-to-day health insurance.

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

I was under the impression there was to be a state sponsored alternative or something? Did that get stripped out before the bill was passed?

Grey Templar wrote:If you don't get healthcare you get fined, so it fines the very people it claims to help. It also would pay for things of questionable moral standing(abortions, embryonic stem cell reaserch...)

For the record I don't like the way Health Coverage is carried out now by insurance companies, but I strongly believe this is something the government has no business doing. Stick with the Devil you know.

Mainly for fear of government Death Panels. They will appear after awhile.

You'll have to elaborate on Death Panels for me...

PhantomViper wrote:

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

You don't need your health?

Also, pardon my french, but that is horsegak: I'm guessing that like here in PIG country, car insurance is also mandatory in the States?

I believe the arguement is that I only am required to get car insurance if I have a license, which is something I can choose to do or not do. Many people in large cities like New York, for instance, do not own cars.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I think all Americans are born anti-British. You guys started a revolution against us over a meagre amount of tax levied against you, and yet, this ruling potentially could suck a lot of people dry, and there is barely a word said from most of the population according to some of the polls/articles I read.

Can we expect to see another battle at lexington this year? and not just another re-enactment on the forth

54% of the public is against Obamacare. Whether they're saying anything about it or not, I don't really know. Nor care. People will vote in November, and that will be that.

Several right-wing blog sites are filled with comments advocating violent revolution or, at the very least, mass civil disobedience at the moment, though.

Seaward wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Seaward wrote:

streamdragon wrote:What, if I might ask, are the main issues with the healthcare law? I'm not trying to set a trap or anything, nor will I really argue points only ask for clarification. Many of the provisions in the bill seem like good ideas to me, and most that I've heard of are there to help consumers. That said, I admit to not having even attempted to fully read the bill.

Many, many, many people are uncomfortable with the government mandating you purchase a product provided by private enterprise whether you need it or not.

You don't need your health?

Also, pardon my french, but that is horsegak: I'm guessing that like here in PIG country, car insurance is also mandatory in the States?

Liability insurance is mandatory, yes. This isn't to protect you, though, it's to protect people you might harm while operating your car. You are not, of course, required to own a car, and if you choose not to, you are not required to purchase car insurance.

I did not need health insurance during the years I was working as an independent contractor. I kept a high-deductible, low-cost "emergency" policy, but I had no day-to-day health insurance.

So not knowing almost anything about the current way in which the US health service works, and out of curiosity sake: what would happen to you if you had developed a debilitating injury or disease that required a prolonged health care during that period (say, you had a massive car accident that required several surgeries and a long period of physical therapy to recover you ability to walk at 100%)?

Seaward wrote:54% of the public is against Obamacare. Whether they're saying anything about it or not, I don't really know. Nor care. People will vote in November, and that will be that.

Several right-wing blog sites are filled with comments advocating violent revolution or, at the very least, mass civil disobedience at the moment, though.

Mind linking me? Last I had heard most people were for it. Curious about the study.

So Obama won 5 to 4. I beat the spread!

PhantomViper wrote:So not knowing almost anything about the current way in which the US health service works, and out of curiosity sake: what would happen to you if you had developed a debilitating injury or disease that required a prolonged health care during that period (say, you had a massive car accident that required several surgeries and a long period of physical therapy to recover you ability to walk at 100%)?

I would have been responsible for paying up to my deductible (I think it was $10,000), and then my insurance would have taken over. If I hadn't had that insurance? I would have swiftly gone bankrupt covering my medical bills, and then my parents would likely have followed suit when they inevitably took over once my cash ran out, because they're my parents and they love me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:

Seaward wrote:54% of the public is against Obamacare. Whether they're saying anything about it or not, I don't really know. Nor care. People will vote in November, and that will be that.

Several right-wing blog sites are filled with comments advocating violent revolution or, at the very least, mass civil disobedience at the moment, though.

Mind linking me? Last I had heard most people were for it. Curious about the study.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2012/health_care_law_has_already_lost_in_court_of_public_opinion

Seaward wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:So not knowing almost anything about the current way in which the US health service works, and out of curiosity sake: what would happen to you if you had developed a debilitating injury or disease that required a prolonged health care during that period (say, you had a massive car accident that required several surgeries and a long period of physical therapy to recover you ability to walk at 100%)?

I would have been responsible for paying up to my deductible (I think it was $10,000), and then my insurance would have taken over. If I hadn't had that insurance? I would have swiftly gone bankrupt covering my medical bills, and then my parents would likely have followed suit when they inevitably took over once my cash ran out, because they're my parents and they love me.

This law is designed to prevent that type of situation, right?

So how can someone be against that?

Feel free to educate me in case I got it all wrong and the law won't actually prevent this, admittedly most of my knowledge of this particular law was gained through the Daily Show so it can be a tinsy bit biased...