NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Doesn't anyone want to tell me why Krauthammer had exactly the opposite opinion in 2005?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.
Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!
We do have a mess...and this administration has a track record of ignoring the courts. Again by design? Single Payer=GoalI make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.
Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!
That is the current conventional wisdom, espoused by many in approval on the left and in horror on the right. I have my doubts. The Roberts court in NFIB v Sebelius held that the Medicaid expansion was coercive and the States had an opt out. Presumably that would apply to any federal single payer healthcare system. Maybe the original ACA law was written with the intent to force everyone into Medicaid or something else universally federal, but SCOTUS torpedoed that.
I think all we have now is a big giant mess.
We do have a mess...and this administration has a track record of ignoring the courts. Again by design? Single Payer=GoalI make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.
Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!
That is the current conventional wisdom, espoused by many in approval on the left and in horror on the right. I have my doubts. The Roberts court in NFIB v Sebelius held that the Medicaid expansion was coercive and the States had an opt out. Presumably that would apply to any federal single payer healthcare system. Maybe the original ACA law was written with the intent to force everyone into Medicaid or something else universally federal, but SCOTUS torpedoed that.
I think all we have now is a big giant mess.
Agreed.We do have a mess...and this administration has a track record of ignoring the courts. Again by design? Single Payer=GoalThat is the current conventional wisdom, espoused by many in approval on the left and in horror on the right. I have my doubts. The Roberts court in NFIB v Sebelius held that the Medicaid expansion was coercive and the States had an opt out. Presumably that would apply to any federal single payer healthcare system. Maybe the original ACA law was written with the intent to force everyone into Medicaid or something else universally federal, but SCOTUS torpedoed that.
I think all we have now is a big giant mess.
It has always been the goal. Heck, that was Hillarycare in 1993. I just don't see how they get there without both houses of Congress writing a new law that can withstand a Supreme Court challenge.
Obama will leave office with a big pile of excrement for someone else to clean up and move on to other, better disasters.
I make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.
Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!
Only 13 states, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine (theoretically), Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah allow filibusters and only 5 allow completely unlimited debate. The idea of the filibuster was to insure that Senate had the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue and thus promote debate. Today it's used to suppress debate and delay action.Here is an snippet of the article. The only saving grace of what the democrats are doing is that they will have no complaint, legitimate, if the Republicans ever do the same thing.
As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.
Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. Its not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. Its not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass the Dream Act by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.
Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats? outbreak of lawlessness - The Washington Post
Weve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.
Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the laws minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.
The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.
Thats banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.
This is at least the 4th thread on this same stupid column.
Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk.
The president is not breaking any laws. He is administrating. That's what the executive branch does.
The Senate still has rules. It has a 1000 page rule book.
What ridiculous hyperbole.
Conservatives look like 3 year old having a temper tantrum.
[
This is at least the 4th thread on this same stupid column.
Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk.
The president is not breaking any laws. He is administrating. That's what the executive branch does.
The Senate still has rules. It has a 1000 page rule book.
What ridiculous hyperbole.
Conservatives look like 3 year old having a temper tantrum.
Only 13 states, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine (theoretically), Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Utah allow filibusters and only 5 allow completely unlimited debate. The idea of the filibuster was to insure that Senate had the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue and thus promote debate. Today it's used to suppress debate and delay action.Here is an snippet of the article. The only saving grace of what the democrats are doing is that they will have no complaint, legitimate, if the Republicans ever do the same thing.
As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.
Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. Its not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. Its not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass the Dream Act by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.
Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats? outbreak of lawlessness - The Washington Post
Weve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.
Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the laws minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.
The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.
Thats banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.
This is at least the 4th thread on this same stupid column.
Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk.
The president is not breaking any laws. He is administrating. That's what the executive branch does.
The Senate still has rules. It has a 1000 page rule book.
What ridiculous hyperbole.
Conservatives look like 3 year old having a temper tantrum.
You do have representation when you're in the minority. You represent the party that doesn't have enough votes to pass anything on a party line vote.
Both parties had representation in the Senate as minority. Harry Reid changed that. Now only the majority rules in the Senate.
237 years of the minority having a voice, is out the window.
We were a nation that had majority and minority voices, where the majority ruled with the consent of the minority.
Now it's just the majority mob rule.
Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.
Both parties had representation in the Senate as minority. Harry Reid changed that. Now only the majority rules in the Senate.
237 years of the minority having a voice, is out the window.
We were a nation that had majority and minority voices, where the majority ruled with the consent of the minority.
Now it's just the majority mob rule.
Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.
You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.
Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.
You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.
What's the point of voting if winning doesn't get you anything?
How much say does Mitt Romney have in the current administration?
Both parties had representation in the Senate as minority. Harry Reid changed that. Now only the majority rules in the Senate.
237 years of the minority having a voice, is out the window.
We were a nation that had majority and minority voices, where the majority ruled with the consent of the minority.
Now it's just the majority mob rule.
Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.
You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.
[
Does it ever occur to you that winning isn't everything? Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. What's the point of winning if you don't get something productive and meaningful out of it?
I make fun of this administration all the time.
But maybe I'm wrong about these guys.
Could it be they want all this ObamaCare stuff to blow up in their faces so
they could claim that the only way to fix it is to go single payer.
Obama and the democrats destroy the health care industry.
so they can now fix it to their liking!!!
Here is an snippet of the article. The only saving grace of what the democrats are doing is that they will have no complaint, legitimate, if the Republicans ever do the same thing.
As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.
Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. Its not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. Its not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass the Dream Act by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.
Charles Krauthammer: The Democrats? outbreak of lawlessness - The Washington Post
Weve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.
Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the laws minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.
The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.
Thats banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.
This is at least the 4th thread on this same stupid column.
Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk.
The president is not breaking any laws. He is administrating. That's what the executive branch does.
The Senate still has rules. It has a 1000 page rule book.
What ridiculous hyperbole.
Conservatives look like 3 year old having a temper tantrum.
Majority mob rule. lol, that's quaint. Idiotic, but quaint.
You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.
Why doesn't your state Senate allow filibusters and require a 60% margin to pass measures?
You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.
What's the point of voting if winning doesn't get you anything?
How much say does Mitt Romney have in the current administration?
Does it ever occur to you that winning isn't everything? Mitt Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. What's the point of winning if you don't get something productive and meaningful out of it?
You really should read up on how the Senate works. Or I should say how it used to work.
Is the Majority in the Senate Democrats? YES
Can the minority stop them now if they disagree? NO
The minority in the Senate longer has a voice against the majority.
Why doesn't your state Senate allow filibusters and require a 60% margin to pass measures?
Why are you asking these pointless questions?
[quo
Oh sure, it's not like he's changing a law that's already been passed by Congress. Tell me, where in the law is he allowed to delay or amend a law as he so chooses? Perhaps the concept of checks and balances doesn't mean much to you, but it sure as heck means a lot to the rest of us.
"Charles Krauthammer is a stupid jerk" well yeah, he's a paraplegic who could run you and your liberal talking points under a table in 5 seconds flat. What a ridiculous thing to say about someone, given you have little else to debate with.
"The Senate has rules" you say? They HAD rules. As you can very well see, the rights of the minority party no longer mean much to the majority. Just remember, as Joe Biden once said of the Republican party: "You can't be the majority forever."
You look like someone who could use a better argument. It's funny too, you're accusing the republicans on this board of throwing tantrums like 3 year olds when you're the one who resorted to calling someone a 'stupid jerk.' How hypocritical.