White House Expects John Boehner To Try For Impeachment

[g5000]

In 1997, the Republican Congress passed a balanced budget. They achieved this by means of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Medicare reimbursement rates were to be curtailed in future years.

But every year since then, every Congress has passed a "doc fix" to null and void the SGR.

You don't hear Republicans whining about the 1997 Congress passing a law without knowing what was in it when the doc fix rolls around. You don't see them refusing to pass a bill fixing the SGR every year.

They just do it. They pass a bill voiding the SGR.


This is how we know the employer mandate deadline not being fixed is strictly for political reasons. The House could fix it any time they choose, for the good of the country. But it is more important to them to create a constitutional crisis for political ends.

Theater for the rubes.

Obama signs 'doc-fix' bill | Modern Healthcare

The doc fix has to first be written and passed by Congress, every time.

The same is true for the employer mandate fix. Congress has to initiate it, and the House has chosen not to. For political purposes rather than the good of the country. It is a plainly needed fix, and they are being assholes about it.

If Congress passed a mandate fix, Obama would sign that, too. Constitutional crisis over. The GOP has decided it would rather create a crisis and a lawsuit and impeachment. Fucking assholes.

 

[Siete]

the delay passed the House and Senate, Obama signed it. .... and Boehner is suing Obama ???

like I said, keep the simpletons foaming at the mouth until 2016.

 

[nodoginnafight]

it's hopeful thinking at the WH, imo.

So what does the W.H. gain?

Better poll numbers. Many people, like me, who would never vote to elect Obama don't like impeachment. No one approved of Slick's sexual escapade, but his poll numbers went higher than his erection after impeachment.

LOL - very colorfully put. OK, but I think it's a risky roll of the dice.

 

[g5000]

the delay passed the House and Senate, Obama signed it.

No. There has been no mandate delay passed by the House and Senate. Boehner could get one passed very quickly if he wanted to.

 

[JimH52]

Yes, that worked out so well with Clinton, didn't it? What a bunch of LOONS!

 

[Siete]

In 1997, the Republican Congress passed a balanced budget. They achieved this by means of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Medicare reimbursement rates were to be curtailed in future years.

But every year since then, every Congress has passed a "doc fix" to null and void the SGR.

You don't hear Republicans whining about the 1997 Congress passing a law without knowing what was in it when the doc fix rolls around. You don't see them refusing to pass a bill fixing the SGR every year.

They just do it. They pass a bill voiding the SGR.


This is how we know the employer mandate deadline not being fixed is strictly for political reasons. The House could fix it any time they choose, for the good of the country. But it is more important to them to create a constitutional crisis for political ends.

Theater for the rubes.

Obama signs 'doc-fix' bill | Modern Healthcare

The doc fix has to first be written and passed by Congress, every time.

The same is true for the employer mandate fix. Congress has to initiate it, and the House has chosen not to. For political purposes rather than the good of the country. It is a plainly needed fix, and they are being assholes about it.

If Congress passed a mandate fix, Obama would sign that, too. Constitutional crisis over. The GOP has decided it would rather create a crisis and a lawsuit and impeachment. Fucking assholes.

A 64-35 Senate vote Monday cleared the measure through Congress. The law also delays nationwide implementation of the ICD-10 diagnostic codes until 2015.

The $21 billion bill would stave off a 24% cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors for a year and extend dozens of other expiring health care provisions, such as higher payment rates for rural hospitals. The legislation is paid for by cuts to health care providers, but fully half of the cuts won't kick in for 10 years.

It's the seventeenth temporary "patch" to a broken payment formula that dates to 1997 and comes after lawmakers failed to reach a deal on financing a permanent fix.

The measure passed the House last week.

 

[g5000]

Obama signs 'doc-fix' bill | Modern Healthcare

The doc fix has to first be written and passed by Congress, every time.

The same is true for the employer mandate fix. Congress has to initiate it, and the House has chosen not to. For political purposes rather than the good of the country. It is a plainly needed fix, and they are being assholes about it.

If Congress passed a mandate fix, Obama would sign that, too. Constitutional crisis over. The GOP has decided it would rather create a crisis and a lawsuit and impeachment. Fucking assholes.

A 64-35 Senate vote Monday cleared the measure through Congress. The law also delays nationwide implementation of the ICD-10 diagnostic codes until 2015.

The $21 billion bill would stave off a 24% cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors for a year and extend dozens of other expiring health care provisions, such as higher payment rates for rural hospitals. The legislation is paid for by cuts to health care providers, but fully half of the cuts won't kick in for 10 years.

It's the seventeenth temporary "patch" to a broken payment formula that dates to 1997 and comes after lawmakers failed to reach a deal on financing a permanent fix.

The measure passed the House last week.

That's the doc fix. I used that as a comparison to expose the GOP's antics. They could fix the problem with the employer mandate just as easily.

 

[R.D.]

it's hopeful thinking at the WH, imo.

So what does the W.H. gain?

Better poll numbers. Many people, like me, who would never vote to elect Obama don't like impeachment. No one approved of Slick's sexual escapade, but his poll numbers went higher than his erection after impeachment.

Muddying the waters. Beohners not impeaching, but to confuse the issue for obama fans it creates a hostility that democrats thrive on.

 

[Sallow]

Another lie by Obama and his people.

We all know that Boehner doesn't have the balls to try to impeach Obama regardless of how many laws he breaks.

Pffttt..

President Obama hasn't broken any laws.

And the GOP would and will impeach over a ham sandwich.

They really do hate and want to destroy the government.

Hopefully the American people will realize how much these folks hate the constitution and vote them out.

 

[Siete]

The doc fix has to first be written and passed by Congress, every time.

The same is true for the employer mandate fix. Congress has to initiate it, and the House has chosen not to. For political purposes rather than the good of the country. It is a plainly needed fix, and they are being assholes about it.

If Congress passed a mandate fix, Obama would sign that, too. Constitutional crisis over. The GOP has decided it would rather create a crisis and a lawsuit and impeachment. Fucking assholes.

A 64-35 Senate vote Monday cleared the measure through Congress. The law also delays nationwide implementation of the ICD-10 diagnostic codes until 2015.

The $21 billion bill would stave off a 24% cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors for a year and extend dozens of other expiring health care provisions, such as higher payment rates for rural hospitals. The legislation is paid for by cuts to health care providers, but fully half of the cuts won't kick in for 10 years.

It's the seventeenth temporary "patch" to a broken payment formula that dates to 1997 and comes after lawmakers failed to reach a deal on financing a permanent fix.

The measure passed the House last week.

That's the doc fix. I used that as a comparison to expose the GOP's antics. They could fix the problem with the employer mandate just as easily.

I agree 100%. ... just providing evidence for the simpletons that the delay went through proper protocol, aka LEGAL.

 

[g5000]

President Obama hasn't broken any laws.

That is not a certainty. The ACA set the employer mandate deadline in stone. Obama unilaterally extended the deadline without authorization from Congress. He was forced into this action by a recalcitrant and puerile Republican House.

If the mandate had not been extended, it would have created economic chaos in the marketplace. This is what the GOP wanted to happen rather than fix the problem.

They are upset they didn't get the disaster they were hoping for, and so now they are rolling around on the ground wailing and crying for the cameras.


They have no problem passing a doc fix and avoiding a disaster that would have occurred should the 1997 budget's SGR taken effect.

But they will not pass a fix for the employer mandate.

Theater for the rubes.

 

[R.D.]

42 Changes to ObamaCare…So Far

42 Changes to ObamaCare?So Far | Galen Institute
By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 42 significant changes already have been made to ObamaCare: at least 24 that President Obama has made unilaterally, 16 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court.

 

[g5000]

The House GOP reminds me of that Occupy Wall Street protester who deliberately threw his legs under a police motorcycle and then pretended he was being brutally run over. Police brutality! Police brutality!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHaflugSl4]Occupy Wall Street NYPD runs over protester with motorcycle - YouTube[/ame]

 

[blackhawk]

I will take this serious when I hear the speaker of the House say this instead of an Obama advisor sounds like a weak attempt to deflect from all the international problems and the one on our Southern border.

 

[Siete]

42 Changes to ObamaCare…So Far

42 Changes to ObamaCare?So Far | Galen Institute
By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 42 significant changes already have been made to ObamaCare: at least 24 that President Obama has made unilaterally, 16 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court.

useful information, now put on a bib.

 

[Lakhota]

If Fox Was Trying To Get Voters To Say They Favor Impeaching Obama, It Didn't Work

In the wake of a lawsuit in the works against President Barack Obama, some Republicans like Sarah Palin have been calling for the House of Representatives to go a step further and impeach the president. Two new polls out this week, from CNN and Fox News, both asked the public to weigh in. The way each pollster approached the question, however, was a little different.

CNN asked a pretty simple yes/no question, following the same format they used for polls about Bill Clinton and George W. Bush:

Fox, after characterizing Obama as "bypassing Congress and acting on his own" in a previous question, asked this, which seems to take as a given Republican claims that Obama flouted the Constitution:

Despite Fox's one-sided framing of the question, the results of the two polls were strikingly similar. In this case, people turned out to be against impeaching Obama regardless of how the question was phrased. Just 33 percent of Americans in the CNN survey, and 36 percent of voters in the Fox one, supported impeachment -- about the same percentage who favored impeaching the last two presidents.

More: If Fox Was Trying To Get Voters To Say They Favor Impeaching Obama, It Didn't Work

So, the sane majority is solidly against impeachment of Obama. Not surprised. But I still want Boehner and his House of looney tunes to go for it.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Boehner's latest stunt with this idiotic proposal to file suit against the President is nothing but more political theater to keep their under informed base agitated and energized. Will the plaintiffs be given standing in any Federal Court? Only if the standards of jurisprudence are completely ignored by activist judges!

If the President has violated the law, there is a Constitutional remedy at Article 1 Sec 2 of that contract. If Boehner and his faction actually believe they have a case, impeachment is the proper course for them to honor their oath of office. Anything short of that is shirking their responsibilities for reasons other than representing their constituencies.

Just to be fair and balanced to keep the nattering right leaning zealots from flying off their perches, your opposing faction has been just as idiotic at times. But I can't recall when they have ever wandered this far from the reservation of reason for such a long period.

 

[bendog]

Boehner's latest stunt with this idiotic proposal to file suit against the President is nothing but more political theater to keep their under informed base agitated and energized. Will the plaintiffs be given standing in any Federal Court? Only if the standards of jurisprudence are completely ignored by activist judges!

If the President has violated the law, there is a Constitutional remedy at Article 1 Sec 2 of that contract. If Boehner and his faction actually believe they have a case, impeachment is the proper course for them to honor their oath of office. Anything short of that is shirking their responsibilities for reasons other than representing their constituencies.

Just to be fair and balanced to keep the nattering right leaning zealots from flying off their perches, your opposing faction has been just as idiotic at times. But I can't recall when they have ever wandered this far from the reservation of reason for such a long period.

Actually, that's not correct. Technically, Obama has not broken any laws, because he has executive authority to implement laws as he sees fit, unless a court says he's overstepped. The entire rational to sue him is that congress is at an impasse. It lacks the will to compromise and reform a law to reach a result Obama will accept, and implement.

If congress got a judge to agree, and Obama still refused to implement a law ... then arguably you got an impeachment issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WASHINGTON -- One of President Barack Obama's top advisers said on Friday that he expects House Republicans will ultimately file articles of impeachment against the president.

Dan Pfeiffer, a senior aide who has been with the administration since Obama first took office, told reporters that he anticipated that a lawsuit filed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) over executive actions taken by the president on health care would ultimately not be enough to satisfy some of the more vocal conservatives in Congress.

Pfeiffer added that coming executive actions surrounding immigration reform would only stoke the impeachment flames.

Speaking at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Pfeiffer based his prediction on several factors. The first was former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) calling for articles of impeachment to be drawn over the president's executive action allowing certain young undocumented immigrants to stay in the country. The second was a CNN poll released Friday morning showing that while just 33 percent of the country supported impeachment, a full 57 percent of Republicans were in favor of it.

More: Dan Pfeiffer: White House Expects John Boehner To Try For Impeachment

Impeachment? First Clinton, now Obama. History will not be kind to such rightwing shenanigans.

Obama is a whackaddodle conspiracy nut? That explains a lot that has happened over the last 6 years.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Boehner's latest stunt with this idiotic proposal to file suit against the President is nothing but more political theater to keep their under informed base agitated and energized. Will the plaintiffs be given standing in any Federal Court? Only if the standards of jurisprudence are completely ignored by activist judges!

If the President has violated the law, there is a Constitutional remedy at Article 1 Sec 2 of that contract. If Boehner and his faction actually believe they have a case, impeachment is the proper course for them to honor their oath of office. Anything short of that is shirking their responsibilities for reasons other than representing their constituencies.

Just to be fair and balanced to keep the nattering right leaning zealots from flying off their perches, your opposing faction has been just as idiotic at times. But I can't recall when they have ever wandered this far from the reservation of reason for such a long period.

Actually, that's not correct. Technically, Obama has not broken any laws, because he has executive authority to implement laws as he sees fit, unless a court says he's overstepped. The entire rational to sue him is that congress is at an impasse. It lacks the will to compromise and reform a law to reach a result Obama will accept, and implement.

If congress got a judge to agree, and Obama still refused to implement a law ... then arguably you got an impeachment issue.

I suggest you read my post more closely; first line of the second paragraph.