Oh, the signs at tea party ralies mean that tea partiers are inherently racist?

A few signs among large groups. And we know for a fact, that some of th epeople holding those signs, were planted by liberal groups to fool people exactly like you into concluding exactly what you concluded...that a group that believes in fiscal responsibility, is racist, despite the fact that said groupo has endorsed monority candidates who support their agenda. You've been played for a sucker by those on you rside. If someone did that to me, I'd be upset, but that's just me.

"it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on"

Correct, and the large majority of people who looked at that evidence, arrived at the same conslusion he did. He didn't lie or manufacture evidence...if he did, I'd be the first one calling for his impeachment and arrest. He was wrong. Many, many people were wrong. They were equally wrong.

"I think it went beyond that to some lies "

The "Bush lied, people died" slogan makes for a great bumper sticker. There's no proof of it. You're entitled to your beliefs. Many people think 9/11 was an insoide jobm many people think Obama wasn't born here. All are very weak conslusions, IMHO...

"trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?[/"

Again, it's demonstrably false that only your side wants to insur emore people. My side wants to do it too, we just have a dfferent approach (using exchanges and vouchers, getting more people into good jobs, enacting tort reform, which unlike Obamacare would actually decrease costs and let more people get insurance).

Getting more people access to healthcare, in and of itself, is a good thing. Making free birth control (specifically for use in recreational sex) a part of that, and exempting union employees from taxes on cadillac plans becaiuse they happen to vote for democrats, and forcing Christians to abandon their religious beliefs in the process, is not a good thing.

It is either this or work.

What he said...

So what legislation has "your side" (since I guess it is either your side or my side) proposed? They have voted what - 55?? times to canc. the ACA but I haven't seen any alternatives.

What chance would GOP-led legislation have of passing, when Harry Reid controls the Senate committees? Come on...

Now that the GOP has both houses, as you say, it's on them to put forth some common sense legislation, make Obama veto it all, then see how he likes being called an obstructionist...if the GOP doesn't make good use of this majority, they deserve to get the boot...

Hmmm. Comparing war to health insurance. Yeah . . . I can see some similarities. Winning a war would probably insure better health for the victors than the losers. On the other hand, abandoning the victory and letting enemies gain strength would probably threaten one's health.

But there is also another type of health that is affected by the innocent sounding "trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it". The nature and method of the attempt was not just getting some uninsured folks insurance, but transforming the whole health care process for everybody, and creating a whole new power for government, enabling it for the first time to tax the people for not buying something. In other words, fundamentally changing the relationship of the individual to the government. And in such a way that it would have absolute power over the people rather being limited to power consented by the people. Now here, indeed, there might be a closer comparison to war. Rather than some admirable little attempt to get some folks insured, it turned out to be a war against liberty in the name of good.

I suppose there might also be a comparison with the nature of the "intelligence" gathered to justify a particular war or a particular health insurance. You believe that the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war was bad. And even manipulated to make it even more justifiable. So, then, how about the validity or truth of the "intelligence" justifying this insurance? Does the name Jonathan Gruber ring a bell. Were the lies told about what the ACA really was and how it worked and what its impact would be comparable to the lies that you imply the Bush administration told?

And how about a comparison of the results of the war and the insurance.

Yup. Thousands died and were maimed in Iraq. That is the nature of war. And justifying an offensive war to a free people, certainly to the people of this country, has always required some manipulation. Starting with the American revolution and with every offensive war we entered after, there was always needed some "twisting" or creating of facts and necessities. I'm not going to judge that here, though you probably do. It is hard to tell what was achieved with victory in Iraq, since we've tossed the victory out. Briefly, there was a retrenchment of the bad guys and the possibility of the growth of a more Western type of secular government, if we had stayed.

The ACA was supposedly for the purpose, as you say, of getting some people who had none, insured. That is, apparently happening. But the need for that was, supposedly, to take the burden off of the rest of us who were paying for the health care those same people were getting without insurance. And the rest of us would still, then, be able to keep the insurance we had, but with the lowered costs due to not having to pay for the other uninsureds. As it turns out, we indeed will still be paying for the previously uninsured, at an even higher rate than before. And in the process, we have become vulnerable, in a way never before imagined, to some further government demand that we must buy what it considers a necessity, or be taxed if we don't. It all may not seem to be much of a price to pay to get a few folks who could not afford insurance great health care, but it is huge in the annals of American individual freedom.

It is, of course, a huge step into socialism. Added to the other steps we've been taking. The problem of insurance for the few who didn't have it but deserved assistance could have been provided in a far less intrusive and liberty destroying way.

If the case that the USSC will rule in the next few weeks about the Fed run exchanges turns out like the Repubs. want, they will have to come up with some alternative for everyone whose insur. is canc.

Where is that "someone is wrong on the internet" JPEG.

"providing" ????

Providing? or forcing Obama care upon us after many false promises
another example of abuse of power

yes it can be
some people care about their country and hate to see it struggle

Sorry Jim BUT Repubs do not have enough votes in senate to oust Obamacare....would pass in the house but no further.

if he were not in this country, the victims would not be dead because of him. This is not a movie about butterfly effect, it's real life.


Constitution you ask??? Well the President is the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UKqXmzY7g


truth
sad truth


keep your heads in the sand, I'll be with Andy gathering whatever means needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT9K2shh3qk

this guy is wicked smaht

So why isn't any legislation that passes forcing something on us and wouldn't that then be an abuse of power? I thought the SC took up this question?

Well - I guess you can compare Benghazi and ACA - there was intelligence on both predicting significant failures that were ignored by the administration.

D'oh!

How does the executive action have any bearing on him being in this country illegally. Heck, if anything it will free up resources to prioritize criminals.

If the House de-funds the DHS as threatened how effective do you think our border enforcement will be?

And then you should read this...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...e-amicus-brief

So crony capitalism is GOOD. Especially for giant corporations.

Probably as effective as it is now. In fact, if the federal government would let the states patrol their own borders, the enforcement might be even more effective.

Please explain how the action makes it any easier for criminals to come here, stay...or how they have any access to health care under the ACA.

My main point was not the criminals, but the other immigrants. The criminal bit was just a bit of sarc. But with some, though negligible, truth.

It is physically easy to cross the border. Psychologically it is not as easy. "Hiding in the shadows" is the more difficult part. Removing the fear of deportation makes it psychologically easier to stay. And though the action may only supposedly apply to the millions already here, the notion that we keep reneging on strict immigration enforcement is certainly not a deterrent to more coming. There is not only, among them, the perception that the next immigration "crisis" will result in the same forgiveness, but there is now a large and influential latino immigration lobby which will influence further immigration. Probably, the only thing, other than strict enforcement and border security, that can stop the flow, is lack of opportunity to find gainful employment. Though, from my personal observation in Southwest Detroit, which is heavily latino, many of them "undocumented," the immigrants don't depend just on jobs they can find, but on jobs they create. They can easily outbid indiginous Americans on all manner of construction, landscaping, repair work, and in creating restaurants and various service and retail outlets in the community. They do it cheaper, and live much more simply than the rest of us. My neighborhood, as well as most of Southwest Detroit, has been transformed into a Latino stronghold. They are far more prolific than others in making babies, and, demographically, their influence will grow.

It seems logical that if the reason for the ACA is supposedly to reduce the use of the ER, then millions of illegals who don't have insurance, and don't earn enough, will have to be subsidized.

BTW, executive action has been overused by Presidents, and it has been greatly misused. Executive action, constitutionally, would be appropriate only if it were action within the bounds of the President's enumerated powers. When it is used to create law, especially outside the scope of constitutional executive limitations, such as immigration law, rather than enforcing congressional law, it is unconstitutional. But that has just become a portion of the great flood of constitutional destruction which is washing away our legal foundation.

Spence, do you really support corporate welfare . . . crony capitalism . . . ?? And I thought you feared too much centralization of business. That you didn't like corporations getting too big. Too powerful.

Geeze, whoda thunk that the biggest healthcare corporation would actually like everybody to be forced to buy their stuff. And if they couldn't afford it, the government would subsidize or pay for it. And that the big corps. wouldn't mind at all if a bunch of their previous clients had to pay more and/or have higher deductibles, so long as they were forced to do so. No skin off the corporation's back, and more money, guaranteed, in their pockets.

It seems to me that the concept of insurance is changing. It used to be an advantage for the client to have insurance over those who didn't. Which made it worth buying. Just seems that when insurance is universal, mandated, there is no advantage to having it since everybody does. And it seems that for those who don't get subsidies, the insurance has now become a disadvantage.

Just an afterthought to the above. The biggest change in the concept of insurance, it seems to me, is government's increasing intrusion in and control of, various types of insurance. The overall effect is the continuing growth of government power over our lives. It is that growth which is being insured, or, assured.

I think the idea our "policy" creates a large draw is overstated. The US economy has improved but the job market is flat. The birth rate in Mexico is declining while their economy is improving. It's just not as an attractive proposition as it once was.

The surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America has shown to be due to regional violence, not a pull towards the US.

I'm not sure if they're more prolific, it's likely about demographics. The white population is aging and the birth rate is slowing. The rise of minority growth is a mega trend, policy isn't going to stop it.

I'd say "a reason" versus "the reason" and according to that article the health industry reports that the ACA is indeed reducing demand on the ER. This doesn't mean you have to subsidize illegals, they'd just be likely behave in a consistent manner.

This may be a bigger issue if the illegal population was growing dramatically, but I believe the net number of illegals is stable and predicted to remain flat.

I think we'd all like to see bi-partisan reform but until the tea partay phenomenon fades I doubt there's much chance...

What . . . you mean like the previous bi-partisan reform that did nothing to "fix" the problem? Bi-partisan=good? Bi-partisan can be, and usually is, more chitty than gridlock. Gridlock is good. When the parties get together, they just seem to conspire to keep taking us down the road to some cliff or other. Gridlock, as the Founders meant, prevents a lot of crap.

On the other hand, if it were a bi-partisan reform agreed to by truly opposing parties, such as the Democrats and the Tea Party, there might actually be some reform that got to some actual "middle" ground. There might actually be a halt to the constant drift to total government control. Maybe even a reversal if the Tea Party gained the political power that the Democrats and the Democrat lite Republicans have.