January 19, 2011
The House votes to repeal Obamacare.
With all 242 Republicans voting yes, and all but 4 Democrats voting no. 3 Democrats voted yes. (Gabrielle Giffords was the only member of the House who did not vote.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
Interesting how Red that map looks
But note if Obama weren't elected there probably wouldn't be an Obamacare to repeal. And because Obama is in the white house and not Mccain, note that even if the Senate votes to repeal this, it still has to get past Obama's veto.
In other words, thanks for getting Obama in office.
3 Democrats voted yes.
Look at that. Bipartisanship.
And because Obama is in the white house and not Mccain, note that even if the Senate votes to repeal this, it still has to get past Obama's veto.
Well the repeal vote is symbolic; a way for the GOP to say that they did what the voters asked.
Kind of like Obama promising to close Gitmo then mumbling something about how it really can't be done because Bush/Cheney, Haliburton something or other.
There are 3 Demos who probably saved their necks with that vote.
Dingy Harry, who got it right for once when he called Hu Jintao a dictator, will try to avoid a vote. The ones who don't want that vote will, of course, be noted for next November.
As jr notes, if no Zero, no ZeroCare; so all of this is due to him. As I said, there would have been no JuniorCare.
PS The New Civility is dead - in just a week. Steve Cohen and Sheila Jackson Lee, a woman who proves an Ivy League degree is no guarantee of intelligence, killed it.
Looks like Mike Ross learned his lesson from Blanche Lincoln.
I argued with my neighbor at Christmas that the House was going to make a mistake withy this vote.
Far better to hold early hearings and call the GAO, CBO, DHHS Sec, the CMS Boss and the Actuary in and force them to answer embarassing questions about costs and the new implementing Regs.
set the stage as it were
Well the repeal vote is symbolic; a way for the GOP to say that they did what the voters asked.
They had better be more than just symbolic in their actions. It is a good start, but we expect.....no we DEMAND that they do the job that we elected them to do. And that isn't to play bi partisan patty cake with the libs while letting us slip slide away into socialism.
If they don't walk the walk, they can expect to be removed from their positons at the next available opportunity. And ....just in case there are some wackjob liberals listening at the door....I mean by election, not fiat.
Th Senate will be interesting now. Reid will try to avoid a vote because he knows that several of his Democrats are nervous enough about 2012 to vote with the repeal. That would send the bill to Obama who would have to veto it. If Reid blocks a vote, that will be almost as good a symbol.
Hoosier said...Well the repeal vote is symbolic; a way for the GOP to say that they did what the voters asked.
Maybe so, but it also says something about POTUS's other big agenda plans which still need passage: Cap and Trade energy amnesty & Comprehensive Immigration reform.
On the other hand, Hu knows what the Chinese will be telling us to do next.
"Well the repeal vote is symbolic; a way for the GOP to say that they did what the voters asked."
It's more than mere symbolism. This forces the Democratic Senate to make a move by either killing the bill or voting against it. If the Senate kills it, then the Republicans can fairly say that the Democrats are using procedure to block the will of the people. If Democratic Senators vote against it, then those who face reelection in 2012 become highly vulnerable. (The Senate isn't gerrymandered, after all.)
In the unlikely event that the bill reaches a vote in the Senate and wins, then that forces Obama's hand. If he vetoes both the House and the Senate, then it's officially his baby, and he will suffer for it when he goes up for reelection.
Now on to the Senate and getting all those Dem Senators up for reelection in 2012, a whole slew of 'em, on record voting against repeal.
We don't want this healthcare
Grants for Single Mothers
They had better be more than just symbolic in their actions.
Well Obama holds the veto pen so unless there is a 2/3 consensus in both House and Senate, its a symbolic vote.
The flip side is that if it isn't repealed then Congress can simply chose not to fund it since they control the purse strings.
If he vetoes both the House and the Senate, then it's officially his baby, and he will suffer for it when he goes up for reelection.
Health care reform was officially his baby when he signed it into law. His veto will just affirm that he is not willing to abort it.
They had better be more than just symbolic in their actions. It is a good start, but we expect.....no we DEMAND that they do the job that we elected them to do. And that isn't to play bi partisan patty cake with the libs while letting us slip slide away into socialism.
If they don't walk the walk, they can expect to be removed from their positons at the next available opportunity. And ....just in case there are some wackjob liberals listening at the door....I mean by election, not fiat.
This.
If the GOP can't hold Obamacare up for 2 years, what good are they?
This is not their 2nd chance, its the last one.
"This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with
scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in
which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among
them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two
occasions, caused their deaths."
(PDF)
http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf
and btw
Speaker John Boehner, nicely done. Its a good start.
"Well the repeal vote is symbolic ..."
How in the fuck is a vote of the United States House of Representatives "symbolic?"
The repeal passed - in bipartisan fashion - as it should, since this law has been ruled unconstitutional. It now goes to the Senate.
If Barack Obama chooses to veto it once the Senate votes on it, that's his prerogative. And then the Congress will have the opportunity to override his veto.
Civics 101.
Now, the only thing that would make it "symbolic" is if Harry Reid delusionally believes he's not going to let the Senate vote on this bill.
And I ask you: What would give Harry Reid the idea that one fucking man has that much power in this country that he's single- handedly going to defy the will of the people of the United States as expressed through their representatives in the United States House of Representatives?
What makes Harry Reid that fucking stupid?
I'd suggest to Harry Reid that he reflect a moment on current events both here and abroad.
People worldwide are rejecting corrupt leaders in acts of resistance and defiance that have proven to be very effective.
He should think on that awhile.
How in the fuck is a vote of the United States House of Representatives "symbolic?"
Because without a 2/3 majority vote in the House and Senate, the vote cannot override a Presidential veto. The GOP knows this therefore proceeding with the repeal vote is symbolic.
Anyone who took high school civics would know that.
When will they vote to repeal Medicare Part D?
You now have 26 states who have joined together in a lawsuit to question the constitutionality of the law. This is not merely symbolic, this is the legislative opening salvo in what will be a long fight that will take place between now and 2012 and likely beyond, on both the legislative and judicial fronts.
"Because without a 2/3 majority vote in the House and Senate, the vote cannot override a Presidential veto."
There hasn't been a Presidential veto.
And there wouldn't be one. Despite what Barack Obama might say BEFORE a vote to sway Senators.
When this bill passes the Senate, it will be signed by Barack Obama Or maybe he'll veto it (I don't think so ... but we don't have to worry about that right now since he hasn't done that yet.
Far better to hold early hearings and call the GAO, CBO, DHHS Sec, the CMS Boss and the Actuary in and force them to answer embarassing questions about costs and the new implementing Regs.
That comes next. Once the investigations and hearings are completed, there will be another vote to repeal. Obviously, a whole bunch of negative stuff is going to come out of those investigations and hearings. They'll have the leverage at that point to say, "Did you really mean to vote for something this bloated and corrupt?"
Should be fun to watch the squirming.
" ... but we don't have to worry about that right now since he hasn't done that yet."
My point, sir, is that if Barack Obama wants to veto the repeal he's entitled to do that, and then we can hold another vote to see what happens next and whether or not some Senators change their mind when faced with a President defying the very nation that elected him.
Barack Obama is going to have to veto the repeal, because it's coming to his desk. I personally don't think he has the balls to do it ... but we're going to find out.
As a previous commenter noted, 26 lawyers representing more than half the states have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
That's more states than fought in the last Civil War over other similarly incendiary issues. Wouldn't it be a shame if Barack Obama started the next Civil War by being stubborn and pig-headed and failing to just admit he made a mistake?
Conservative states aren't going to let the DNC bankrupt their citizens with this corrupt unconstitutional law.
Republicans have no intention of funding this corrupt law any more than they're going to fund the release of terrorists from Gitmo just because Hussein wants to let them out.
ObamaCare is dead.
All that's left is the writing of its obituary and the mopping up of its bloody carcass.
It is more than symbolic for the reasons noted above, and the effect it will have on the courts, combined with the 26 states (and more to come?) joined in the Florida suit plus a couple of states, I think, with their own suits going. Also note the map at the link, there is very little solid blue.
It is much nicer, even for judges and justices, to go with a rising tide than to stay anchored to the bottom with a short hawser.
When and if a budget is passed the job killing repeal can be passed by recounciliation once CBO does an accurate review of the bill cost. So only 4 Dem senators are needed of the 23 some up for re-election. Since the people want a repeal and SCOTUS follows election return vote served a purpose.
Did folks see that there were nine folks who voted against health care reform who voted against the repeal today?
Also, did folks see that Frist was opposed to repeal? He said that the reform "has many strong elements."
Also, can all of the cons who complain about needing more time to read the health care reform bill say that they know everything contained in this nine minute cartoon? The honest answer is NO! Uninformed dopes.
Mesquite wrote:
This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with
scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in
which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among
them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two
occasions, caused their deaths."
Andrew LLoyd weber should write a macabre musical about this guy, akin to Swweeny Todd.
So and the abortion doctor of Fleet - Street! (insert name of Doctor and street in place of Sweeny and the street on which he killed).
In the place of Sweeny's razor the doctor could have a pair of extra sharp scissors with which to kill the fetuses who done him wrong.
Florida said "Conservative states aren't going to let the DNC bankrupt their citizens..."
HA! There's almost a perfect correlation between a state's level of conservatism and its "mooch" factor -- how much it sends to D.C. in taxes vs. how much it receives in federal funding -- and spending on health care will only accentuate the fact. If only the new laws would cover abortion, red states would REALLY rake it in, as there's also a nice tidy fit between conservativism and abortion rates.
Mr. Buford said...
You now have 26 states who have joined together in a lawsuit to question the constitutionality of the law.
actually 28. 26 in that suite, Virginia and (I think) Florida are challenging independently.
Don't you need 60 votes to bring something to a vote in the Senate? I don't see that happening.
The repeal vote is not symbolic.
This is the way Government works. Now the senate dems can explain to the American majority that want this monstrosity repealed why it is that they won't even allow a vote.
This is pawn to K4 (or e4, if you prefer the modern notation). Just the opening move in a lengthy and complex game.
There's actually a chance the people of the United States may get some useful health care reforms out of the end game, but it's a ways off. The present bill is a mess, and even some of the less myopic Democrats will concede that.
This is the first step in addressing health care the correct democratic way; by arguing it, presenting competing ideas, letting the public express itself, and giving it the time and exposure it deserves.
Where did they get the idea that the former despicable method was all we deserved. "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." Sheese!
If my leftie friends are any indicator obamacare is pretty much doomed. The fact they bristle when you tie it to an unpopular president with the moniker "obamacare" is all you need to know. He's a loser. This law is a loser. It will be democrats that repeal it because they hate having their asses handed to them every election cycle.
No you all would rather have to sell your houses than be able to get treatment for cancer! Well done USA!
Corsi bad. Cartoons good.
pavlova8, I'd rather give up my house than give up my freedom and country.
Motor vehicle style health care indeed, God, the way some people think.
"No you all would rather have to sell your houses than be able to get treatment for cancer!"
No, I'd rather not have to sell my house in order to pay my soon exorbitant taxes so that someone else will be able to get government-paid Viagra. (see Milwaukee school district)
Or, no, I'd rather not sell my house to pay for the end-of-life care I desire when a government bureaucrat decides I've had enough time on this earth.
With all 242 Republicans voting yes
Good ol boys know how to follow orders --from their puppetmasters in insurance , pharma, and hospital contractors across the USA.
It'll go down in the Senate
(Gabrielle Giffords was the only member of the House who did not vote.)
Slacker!
Post a Comment