Why now is it coming out that this Bill

[SAGambler]

really isn't written as Obama said it was?

1. On the immediate inclusion of children with pre-existing ailments?

2. On Federally Funded abortions?

What I'm hearing now is the child admission won't come into effect for several more years, and the law (as passed) provided for federal funding of abortion?

Now it seems Obama thinks he can solve these problems (and others that arise as someone finally actually READS the damn thing) by Executive Order. The problem is....a LAW cannot be changed by an EO.

Did Obama sell Stupak and others a bill of goods he can't now deliver on?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What's so hard to understand? It's just like before he was elected. Never has to take a stance on anything, lets others be the fall guy and do the dirty work, etc.

Did people expect anything different? When health care blows up it will be the fault of the Dems, the Republicans, big health care/pharma/insurance, but sure as hell not his fault...

[Yonivore]

really isn't written as Obama said it was?

1. On the immediate inclusion of children with pre-existing ailments?

2. On Federally Funded abortions?

What I'm hearing now is the child admission won't come into effect for several more years, and the law (as passed) provided for federal funding of abortion?

Now it seems Obama thinks he can solve these problems (and others that arise as someone finally actually READS the damn thing) by Executive Order. The problem is....a LAW cannot be changed by an EO.

Did Obama sell Stupak and others a bill of goods he can't now deliver on?
Even funnier, he's stalling on signing that EO he promised Stupak. Gibbs says he'll get around to it eventually.

I hope he stiffs Stupak on the deal....not that an EO would have any effect on the law but it would show Congressional Democrats what idiots they are.

[EVAY]

really isn't written as Obama said it was?

1. On the immediate inclusion of children with pre-existing ailments?

2. On Federally Funded abortions?

What I'm hearing now is the child admission won't come into effect for several more years, and the law (as passed) provided for federal funding of abortion?

Now it seems Obama thinks he can solve these problems (and others that arise as someone finally actually READS the damn thing) by Executive Order. The problem is....a LAW cannot be changed by an EO.

Did Obama sell Stupak and others a bill of goods he can't now deliver on?

I thought he signed the EO today on the federally funded abortion thing.
I addressed this in another thread in an answer to Angel Luv. The existing law banning federal funding of abortion was not intended to be changed. However, since federal funds may help people below a certain income level pay for their premiums, and if that private plan happened to cover abortions (I have never heard of one covering such a thing, but maybe some do), then that could be interpeted as a federal funding of abortions. So that is what the EO signed today was to accomplish.

I had not heard that children with preexisting conditions was not to take effect immediately. Is that true?

[Wild Cobra]

really isn't written as Obama said it was?

1. On the immediate inclusion of children with pre-existing ailments?

2. On Federally Funded abortions?

What I'm hearing now is the child admission won't come into effect for several more years, and the law (as passed) provided for federal funding of abortion?

Now it seems Obama thinks he can solve these problems (and others that arise as someone finally actually READS the damn thing) by Executive Order. The problem is....a LAW cannot be changed by an EO.

Did Obama sell Stupak and others a bill of goods he can't now deliver on?
Please don't tell me you believe anything that comes out of a democrat politician...

I'm even more worried about the hidden things in the bill we never heard of.

[Yonivore]

http://www.dailymail.com/mediafiles/thumbs/600/389.14285714286/McKee_C20100322_I100324091530.png

[jacobdrj]

Please don't tell me you believe anything that comes out of a democrat politician...

I'm even more worried about the hidden things in the bill we never heard of.

Do you mean out of a politician that was democratically elected? Because otherwise, trying to make this blunt statement is kind of absurd. All politicians lie, manipulate, cheat, and are otherwise scumbags. To just place it on 1 side of the isle is naive.
The objective of a politician is to stay in office. If that means to do the will of his constituents, or what he THINKS is the will of his/her constituents, than so be it. Occasionally, you find a politician with the best interest of his constituents in mind, despite themselves, and they usually take their stand, and get kicked out of office.

[spursncowboys]

It's pretty ridiculous how many congressmen didn't read the bill.

[Yonivore]

It's pretty ridiculous how many congressmen didn't read the bill.
Why? As the Honorable Speaker of the House pointed out, we can't know what's in it until it's passed. Reading it before a vote would have done no good.

[coyotes_geek]

Even funnier, he's stalling on signing that EO he promised Stupak. Gibbs says he'll get around to it eventually.

I hope he stiffs Stupak on the deal....not that an EO would have any effect on the law but it would show Congressional Democrats what idiots they are.

???

Isn't that what this is?

Obama issues low-key order on abortions
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul)

[spursncowboys]

Why? As the Honorable Speaker of the House pointed out, we can't know what's in it until it's passed. Reading it before a vote would have done no good.
RIght and it bit them in the butt. They thought it would just have hidden pork and never thought it would leave out the biggest sales pitch of the bill -children with pre existing.
However my biggest problem is with the repubs. they should have outlined all the increases that makes this the largest tax increase in american history. They seemed to think the bloggers were going to do their work for them.

[Yonivore]

???

Isn't that what this is?

Obama issues low-key order on abortions
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul)
I guess so. I hadn't heard yet...

Still, as has already been stated, the EO has no effect over law.

[Yonivore]

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/03/24/image6330002.gif (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html)
It'll be interesting to see if Democrats can turn this frown upside down.

[spursncowboys]

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/03/24/image6330002.gif (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html)
It'll be interesting to see if Democrats can turn this frown upside down.

The repubs are already doing their gutless normal routine of backing away.

[Yonivore]

The repubs are already doing their gutless normal routine of backing away.
Meh, those are just the politicians...fuck 'em.

[Nbadan]

"The idea that the minority party represents the "will of the people" (not some of the people, but "the people") is the seedling of a totalitarian mindset. In this mindset -- democracy doesn't matter, ideas are not to be discussed, and opposing views are not to respected. What matters is that they alone have truth, they alone are metaphysically connected to the "mind of the people" can interpret their will, and because they have truth and speak for the people, others represent a threat and must be silenced and stopped."

Huff (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/frightening-gop-behavior_b_508969.html)

[Yonivore]

Huff (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/frightening-gop-behavior_b_508969.html)
Dude, that wasn't the problem.

It was the majority party that wasn't listening to their constituents.

[Yonivore]

And, how 'bout ol' Slow Joe Biden...


xduGxhleWwk

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/media/RAMclr-lg032510.jpg

[spursncowboys]

Meh, those are just the politicians...fuck 'em.
:lobt:

[Yonivore]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff182/darleenclick/blog%20images/liberty.jpg

[Yonivore]

What "Change" Looks Like!


http://www.hookersandbooze.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/What-Change-Looks-Like.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Why? As the Honorable Speaker of the House pointed out, we can't know what's in it until it's passed. Reading it before a vote would have done no good.
Do democrats even know how to read?

[Wild Cobra]

Fixed:


http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/demonrat.jpg

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff182/darleenclick/blog%20images/liberty.jpg

Really? You're gonna post that?

Tell me....how is something as blatantly offensive as a cartoon depicting rape even remotely relevant? Fuck! This has got to be one of the top 5 most idiotic posts ever...and you've actually had to roll past boutonsky to do it.:rolleyes

Go ahead, fan the flames of the extremists....it aint helping.

[boutons_deux]

pussyeater posting a "gangsta nigga raping white woman" dog-whistle cartoon, but pussyeater doesn't like to get called out as a blatant, repeat racist.

[fraga]

I think the Tea Party Fox Publicans are finally being exposed for what they really are...uneducated racists...

[megamanu]

really isn't written as Obama said it was?

1. On the immediate inclusion of children with pre-existing ailments?



The health care law (http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/TIMELINE.pdf) actually does eliminate pre-existing conditions for children this year. Pre-existing conditions for adults will not be eliminated until 2014.



2. On Federally Funded abortions?



The president actually signed the executive order yesterday, which was met with mixed responses (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/health-care-abortion-issue-dominate-midterm-elections/story?id=10193080) from both sides of the debate.

[EmptyMan]

Money can easily be funneled away to eventually reach the baby-killin'. Government pays A, A pays B, B pays C, C pays Suzie.

I don't care about abortion one one or the other, but just sayin'.

[SnakeBoy]

I had not heard that children with preexisting conditions was not to take effect immediately. Is that true?

Yep. When the people who wrote the bill don't even understand it you know it's going to be a fucking mess.

[Yonivore]

Really? You're gonna post that?

Tell me....how is something as blatantly offensive as a cartoon depicting rape even remotely relevant? Fuck! This has got to be one of the top 5 most idiotic posts ever...and you've actually had to roll past boutonsky to do it.:rolleyes

Go ahead, fan the flames of the extremists....it aint helping.
No less offensive than what this administration and Congress are doing to the U. S. Constitution.

It's called metaphor.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No less offensive than what this administration and Congress are doing to the U. S. Constitution.

It's called metaphor.

In other words it doesn't have anything to do with the thread. You just wanted to post an anti obama cartoon...

[Yonivore]

In other words it doesn't have anything to do with the thread. You just wanted to post an anti obama cartoon...
Actually, Obamacare is just the latest and, probably the most blatant, example of how little respect Democrats have for our Constitution and the founding principles of this Republic.

Very germane to the thread.

[TeyshaBlue]

No less offensive than what this administration and Congress are doing to the U. S. Constitution.

It's called metaphor.

It's called tasteless. 10,000 metaphors for the point you want to make and you pick rape.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's called tasteless. 10,000 metaphors for the point you want to make and you pick rape.

Well it was a republican that did mutter that if a rape was inevitable then you might as well enjoy it... :lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Well it was a republican that did mutter that if a rape was inevitable then you might as well enjoy it... :lmao

Clayton Williams? About as relevant as Rin-Tin-Tin.:lol

[Winehole23]

It's called metaphor.The one you picked, yes.

Op-Ed rape fantasy?

Obama is a rapist. And next time he's bringing some friends; oh yeah! Lady Liberty is gonna get passed around.


Trenchant.