Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: (Idiocy of the Day) How Do You Like the Supposed GOP Plan for the SCOTUS Ruling on Obamacare?
Source:
RL.com
URL Source: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2 ... the_scotus_ruling_on_obamacare
Published: May 19, 2012
Author: Rush
Post Date: 2012-05-19 08:21:28 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 1428
Comments: 2
How Do You Like the Supposed GOP Plan for the SCOTUS Ruling on Obamacare? May 17, 2012 RUSH: "House Republican leaders are quietly hatching a plan of attack as they await a historic Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law. If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines." Okay, so far, so good, if the health care bill is left intact, the Republicans say they're gonna take to the floor and try to take out the individual mandate and the requirement that employers provide insurance or face fines. Now, they're not gonna have the votes to get that done, but they're gonna put on the show. But now listen. "If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place -- like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say. "The post-Supreme Court plan -- a ruling should come in June -- has long been whispered about inside House leadership circles and among the House’s elected physicians but is now being discussed with a larger groups of lawmakers, showing that Republicans are aggressively preparing for a big-time health care debate in the heat of an election-year summer. On Tuesday, the major options were discussed during a small closed meeting of House Republican leaders, according to several sources present. Then on Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) gave the entire House Republican Conference a preview of where the party is heading. His message: 'When the court rules, we’ll be ready.' But Boehner warned that they’ll relegislate the issue in smaller, bite sizes, rather than putting together an unwieldy new health care bill." I don't know if they're floating a trial balloon here to gauge your reaction to this, which is entirely possible. By the way, it's not new. I've heard it said before that the Republicans think holding on to the kids on your policy 'til they're 26 and the preexisting conditions, we don't want to get rid of that, no, no, no, people like that. We've gotta find a way to keep that. You know, that's been whispered about ever since Obamacare was signed into law, and it has been a point of contention with conservative Republican voters who want this whole thing thrown out. If the court throws it out, don't put some of it back. This goes to the whole point, they set the premise, and then we end up reacting to it. So the premise is, we gotta have a major health care bill. All right, so we have to have a major health care bill. Okay, so Republicans, we'll do one, but it'll be smarter and it'll be better and it'll be smaller. And that's the way these things go. So I'm just gonna put it to you. Supreme Court overturns all of health care, just a hypothetical, do you want the Republicans writing a new piece of legislation that would contain provisions for letting your kids stay on your policy 'til he or she's 26 and forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions? I must tell you, when you force insurance companies to cover X, you don't have insurance anymore. Well, the 26-year thing, before Obamacare, kids were on their parents' policies as long as they were in college. That's another argument for not going to college. So as long as the kid was in college, yeah, theoretically they weren't working, well, they're not gonna be working when they get out of college, either. 'Cause the theory was the kid could stay on the parents' policy until he's 26, while in college. That was supposedly a proviso even before Obamacare. The Republicans, they're floating it, they want to keep that. Even if the court overturns all of Obamacare, and they want to keep the proviso that forces insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. Look, I live in Realville. I'm the mayor. You force insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions we're not talking insurance anymore. We're talking welfare. It's not insurance. People don't want to hear this I know. (interruption) What are the Republicans afraid of? I think the Republicans are afraid of what the Democrats are going to say if the whole thing's overturned. And it's very predictable. Obama and the Democrats -- and I'll bet you the ads are already done. "Five white people on the Supreme Court took your health insurance away from you. Well, four white guys and a traitor that's black took your health coverage away from you, took your health care away from you. They still have theirs. They still have theirs but they just took yours. You know that's what the campaign's gonna be. In fact, there's a part of me that believes Obama actually wouldn't mind that, since he's totally focused on getting reelected right now. I mean without that all the rest of what he wants to do is academic. Some of the ridiculous stuff that he's doing now oriented toward getting reelected, it's not a stretch to believe that he wouldn't have a problem with this thing being found unconstitutional, 'cause, boy, what an opportunity they would think that is. "The Republican judges on the court," is what they would say. "The Republican judges on the court just took away your health care that we worked for a hundred years to get you. Over Republican objections, every congressional term, Republicans have always opposed you having health care, free health care, affordable health care," all those words will be thrown in. And five Republican judges just took it away from you. That's what the Republicans are afraid of. So if it's overturned and that campaign starts, what the Republicans in Congress want to do, "No, no, no, we like some provisions of this." That's why they're floating this. I guarantee you. Well, I can't guarantee you. I think they're floating this to gauge reaction to it. So I thought I'd put it out there and let you react however which way you will.
Poster Comment: If they do that it will get a whole lot more of them thrown out on their asses by the voters.....
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
THIS is what they're planning. Not because the individual mandate violates the constitution, just because not opposing it is 'politically risky'. They're NOT planning to oppose the NDAA, the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act of 2006, ALL which CLEARLY violates the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. Your emails can be, and are, stored and read by government. You home can be searched without a warrant, without your consent, without even your knowledge. You can be arrested and held indefinitely without charges being filed, without a trial and without legal representation. 4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 5th Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 6th Amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. But what the Republicans are planning is to replace Obamacare with their own version, and they believe if they do it piece by piece, the rubes won't object to it so much. I've really come to hate the Republican Party.
The ol' Bush "No Child Left Behind" goes all the way to 26 years old, under BoehnerCare.
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
#2. To: CZ82, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#0)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]