This will be his legacy win or lose. Republicans can make all the noise they want about repealing it if they win the Presidency and take control of the Senate, but they simply won't have the votes to do it. It will take a super majority of 60 votes to repeal it in the Senate. Good luck with that Republicans.If Obama wins, and/or Democrats hold on to the Senate, this will be Obama's legacy.
I don't think ideology is America's big problem.I've seen this debate over universal health care before. We had it here in the mid-1980s after Medicare was brought in.
I hope Obama wins and gets control of Congress, and I hope he then sets out to try and repair the broken ideology that's plagued America since Reagan. If he wins he has nothing to lose by having a crack. Should have done it already, and bet the second term on it. Though tbf to him, he inherited a massive mess courtesy of those who now seek to blame him for it.
I think the latter is classic Right Wing Projection.
No you don't. Remember you didn't need 60 votes to pass the bill - they used budget reconciliation to pass it with 50+ votes (instead of 60), which is all you'd need to repeal it since that administrative trick is not subject to filibuster.This will be his legacy win or lose. Republicans can make all the noise they want about repealing it if they win the Presidency and take control of the Senate, but they simply won't have the votes to do it. It will take a super majority of 60 votes to repeal it in the Senate. Good luck with that Republicans.
Yup, you're right. They can use that tactic to repeal most of the legislation, though not all. Of course it would be highly hypocritical of them after they claimed it was against the rules to use it in this type of legislation, but hypocrisy is the name of politics. The Republicans will still need to pick up 4 Senate seats to get to the 51 majority threshold though.No you don't. Remember you didn't need 60 votes to pass the bill - they used budget reconciliation to pass it with 50+ votes (instead of 60), which is all you'd need to repeal it since that administrative trick is not subject to filibuster.
The entire law was upheld, including the key provision of the “individual mandate” ( although it was upheld as a “tax”). The only portion that was somewhat scalled down was the law requiring states to provide Medicaid coverage for virtually all poor Americans under the age of sixty-five or risk losing all of the Medicaid funding that they get from the government. The Court ruled that the government can’t withhold that funding from the states as a punishment, but can still attach strings to the new funding. So even if the government can’t take away all of the existing funding for states that don’t comply with the new eligibility requirements, the court ruled it can still withhold the NEW Medicaid funds if they don’t comply. Therefore most states are expected to comply.Has the whole law been upheld or has something been left out? Also, heard it has been declared a tax now. Would that harm or help Obama as he has been maintaining it's not one IIRC?
It is a tax only for those who do not buy the insurance and it is almost impossible to imagine that an individual would never need medical treatment or never walk into an emergency care seeking treatment and then the Hospitals wont be able to refuse them because of the EMTALA act passed by the Republican Government of Reagan.Now back to the individual mandate. The Obama administration would’ve liked the Court to uphold it on the basis of the Commerce clause of the Constitution. As a failsafe, they also argued that it was Constitutional as a “tax” (which Obama still maintained it wasn’t, so obviously double speak on his part). The Court ended up upholding it as a Tax, giving the Republicans a key slogan point – that the health care law is a massive tax hike. Never mind the fact that the “penalty” as Obama would classify it, or “tax” as Republicans and the Court would describe it, ONLY applies to those that don’t buy insurance. The Republicans of course will portray this as a new tax on everyone as a result of the law. Will it hurt Obama? Probably, though those that were against the law were going to vote against him anyway. It didn’t matter to them whether this was a tax or a penalty – they hated it either way.
The whole thing's a cluster****From the you can't make this up file: Texas GOP’s 2012 Platform Accidentally Opposes Teaching Of ‘Critical Thinking Skills’ | TPMMuckraker
And on rationalising their policy toward Israel:We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.
It's 2012, for ****'s sake.Our policy is based on God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise.