I do not like executive orders

[postman]

Healthcare was call to fail the moment when government got involved in it. Even if ACA was constitutional, and in my opinion it wasn't, it was set to fail the moment it was passed in Congress. Along with Barry's EOs that followed it became even more overreaching. Trumps EOs eliminates some of the burden, but I'll rather see it gone completely.

For something you say was doomed to fail, it did pretty good for something that didn't receive any fixes for seven years.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It is a somewhat hypocritical position.

Sue me

What name do I put on the summons and complaint? And do I file it in state or federal court?

Grampamurkedme will do.

 

[postman]

Obamas EOs were largely a way around congress. The left loved the IN YOUR FACE route but now hate trump doing it.
.

The difference is Obama did both, big legislation and EO's

Trump has only done one. And seems incapable of the other.

 

[Bonzi]

All sides = the GOP

It's hard to get anything done for the working class when politicians, government, and big business are against you

Trump can't even get repeal of obamacare through congress.
And he has a republican majority in both houses.
And Trump said it would be easy
And the house did it 60+ times under Obama

It would've been easy if Republicans kept the promises they run on.

Time for primary challenges for all that broke the promise.

Well it's like this, promises BUT....

 

[postman]

I find it hard to support ANY EO that abuses power.

well tell congress to do their fking jobs then.

GOP, are in charge of both houses of congress. Tell McConnell and Ryan to get their shit together.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Has anyone in the echo chamber ever heard of the McCarran-Furgusson Act (1945)? It's codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015. From the way the Asshat-in-Chief described his newest STUPID EO piece of Oval-Office legislation, it will violate the the Act 6 ways to Sunday.

By his description at the signing, the EO would directly fly in the face of at least three SCOTUS decisions; U.S. Dept. of Treasury v. Fabe (1993), Union Labor LifeInsurance Co. v. Pireno (1982) and Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities (1969). His ill advised EO assures direct conflicts with Amendment X, so dear when convenient to the far RW puffs when they wish to play at their love of the Constitution by directly interfering with State law prohibited by the Act. Further, it runs head on into the exemptions for insurance companies to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890), the Clayton Act (1914) and the Federal Trade Commission Act (1914) permitting certain monopolistic and "trust" practices outlawed as long as business was conducted INTRASTATE (within one State) rather than INTERSTATE regulated under Article 1, § 8, Clause 3.

I'm sure a number of suit filings will be forthcoming from a number of States once the EO and its impacts are digested. A president should know or at least should have surrounded himself with people knowledgeable enough to keep his dumb ass from making such bloody stupid errors. Or maybe the Narcissist-in-Chief has cowed those around him to the point to let the dumb ass know he has no cloths on his fat ass! Standby for the legal paper to start to fly!

 

[Ame®icano]

Healthcare was call to fail the moment when government got involved in it. Even if ACA was constitutional, and in my opinion it wasn't, it was set to fail the moment it was passed in Congress. Along with Barry's EOs that followed it became even more overreaching. Trumps EOs eliminates some of the burden, but I'll rather see it gone completely.

For something you say was doomed to fail, it did pretty good for something that didn't receive any fixes for seven years.

IMO, it didn't do good. It's easy to claim that you insured 20 million when you force them with penalties to do it. What about people that lost insurance? What about millions that were still uninsured? What about increased premiums that were promised to be lowered? What about the overall cost that was set to be double than projected?

There were fixes, mostly money shortage, necessary to keep it afloat. Without those fixes it would implode and be dead already.

 

[postman]

Time for primary challenges for all that broke the promise.

I bet you don't mean that. Since the biggest offender ever is Trump. Hundreds of campaign promises, and virtually zero results.

 

[forkup]

I find it hard to support ANY EO that abuses power.

This particular order relieves the abuse of the government's overreach into my healthcare.

What overreach? Can I ask how you believe insurance in general works. This EO seems to want to create 2 parallel markets. One cheaper one that includes healthy people and one that will become unfavorable to a significant segment of the population. A segment that will include a lot of grandpa's.

I am not going to relitigate the merits Obamacare again.

But i will say if Obamacare flops quicker as a result of this EO, good. That bill should have never become law.

Even if that's true,calling for health insurance to fail is cynical to say the least, considering the bottom line of that equation is human lives. And I don't ask you to re-litigate ACA, I'm asking you to make your point as to how this EO makes it better. A valid question since you started this OP because you like it. I gave you the basic problem. It is an EO designed to create 2 different markets, one cheap one and one expensive one for the age group you belong too. So make your case please?

Healthcare was call to fail the moment when government got involved in it. Even if ACA was constitutional, and in my opinion it wasn't, it was set to fail the moment it was passed in Congress. Along with Barry's EOs that followed it became even more overreaching. Trumps EOs eliminates some of the burden, but I'll rather see it gone completely.

There are plenty of countries were the government has actual control of large parts of the health care system. They all are cheaper and score better in most health indices.

 

[Ame®icano]

Obamas EOs were largely a way around congress. The left loved the IN YOUR FACE route but now hate trump doing it.
.

The difference is Obama did both, big legislation and EO's

Trump has only done one. And seems incapable of the other.

On this issue, yes, Barry did both. First he shoved it down our throat, than he used EO to make it even harder to swallow.

Trump is capable, it's the Congress that isn't.

 

[postman]

IMO, it didn't do good. It's easy to claim that you insured 20 million when you force them with penalties to do it. What about people that lost insurance? What about millions that were still uninsured? What about increased premiums that were promised to be lowered? What about the overall cost that was set to be double than projected?

There were fixes, mostly money shortage, necessary to keep it afloat. Without those fixes it would implode and be dead already.

Not a single word in the ACA has been modified.

 

[iceberg]

But I like the content of today's order on healthcare.

I love executive orders, and the more trump uses, the better, since all sides seem hell bent on stopping anything he wants to do.. right or wrong...

Obama felt that way too.

Not sure how - he got elected twice. I'm not saying the GOP just wants to be difficult, but....

Obamas EOs were largely a way around congress. The left loved the IN YOUR FACE route but now hate trump doing it.

I hate any president doing that.

I hate congress people who refuse to do the job the people asked them to do.

granted. but it's a bad idea to start working around our government divisions when the exact reason they are there is so no one branch has all the power. if we find loopholes to avoid process, are we really headed in a good direction?

 

[Ame®icano]

Time for primary challenges for all that broke the promise.

I bet you don't mean that. Since the biggest offender ever is Trump. Hundreds of campaign promises, and virtually zero results.

He actually kept every promise that he could keep on his own. The others needs Congress support and the butthurt RINOs don't want to give it. As I said, primary challenges could solve that problem.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I do not like executive orders

Yes, many conservatives don't like them, until, of course, one of them advances a position they favor. One either is a strict constructionist and disapproves of executive orders of all types because they in fact are not specified in the Constitution, or one is a loose constructionist and is thus okay with the notion that they derive their strength and resilience from the ambiguity of the contract.

I don't care much which position any given individual takes, but I have absolutely no respect for individuals of either stripe being unprincipled enough that they don't adhere to their loose or strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. Nobody deserves to "have their cake and eat it too."

 

[postman]

On this issue, yes, Barry did both. First he shoved it down our throat, than he used EO to make it even harder to swallow.
.

Obama did big legislation. That's why you keep bitching about what he accomplished.

Meanwhile, you don't complain about Trumps inability to get anything through a republican controlled congress.

 

[postman]

I bet you don't mean that. Since the biggest offender ever is Trump. Hundreds of campaign promises, and virtually zero results.

He actually kept every promise that he could keep on his own. .

That's like being proud of having all the sex you can, on your own.

 

[Siete]

IMO, it didn't do good. It's easy to claim that you insured 20 million when you force them with penalties to do it. What about people that lost insurance? What about millions that were still uninsured? What about increased premiums that were promised to be lowered? What about the overall cost that was set to be double than projected?

There were fixes, mostly money shortage, necessary to keep it afloat. Without those fixes it would implode and be dead already.

Not a single word in the ACA has been modified.

the aca is a law, its the job of congress to amend laws to bake them better.. apparently 8 years isnt long enough to begin that process.

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ...

 

[iceberg]

But I like the content of today's order on healthcare.

I love executive orders, and the more trump uses, the better, since all sides seem hell bent on stopping anything he wants to do.. right or wrong...

Obama felt that way too.

Not sure how - he got elected twice. I'm not saying the GOP just wants to be difficult, but....

Obamas EOs were largely a way around congress. The left loved the IN YOUR FACE route but now hate trump doing it.

I hate any president doing that.

If it helps the US, I don't care who does it.
If it makes us stronger and more functional. Please EO away

great. so the president can now create law AND enforce it.

you don't see that as a bad idea and counter to the entire "separation of powers"?

 

[iceberg]

Obamas EOs were largely a way around congress. The left loved the IN YOUR FACE route but now hate trump doing it.
.

The difference is Obama did both, big legislation and EO's

Trump has only done one. And seems incapable of the other.

not going to get into the GOOD vs BAD on who did it.

the entire idea is bad. i don't care who is doing it.

learn to work together.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I love executive orders, and the more trump uses, the better, since all sides seem hell bent on stopping anything he wants to do.. right or wrong...

Obama felt that way too.

Not sure how - he got elected twice. I'm not saying the GOP just wants to be difficult, but....

Obamas EOs were largely a way around congress. The left loved the IN YOUR FACE route but now hate trump doing it.

I hate any president doing that.

If it helps the US, I don't care who does it.
If it makes us stronger and more functional. Please EO away

great. so the president can now create law AND enforce it.

you don't see that as a bad idea and counter to the entire "separation of powers"?

I don't think a lot of people understand the risk. We are giving them more control with each administration.