Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    21 Dec '13 19:35
    So let me see if I get this straight.

    Obama shut down the government because Republicans in Congress wanted to delay the individual mandate.

    Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius issued a letter stating that she would delay the individual mandate for those people who had their insurance cancelled and had not yet enrolled in Obamacare. (And oh yeah - he also unilaterally rewrote this law, his own law. I don't know which spectacle is more perverse - his shredding of the Constitution, or Obama repealing Obamacare.). He has for all intents and purposes assumed dictatorial powers.

    So, to sum up: Obama refused Republican requests to delay the individual mandate. Then, he delayed the individual mandate.

    You libs will pay dearly for this next year. All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth - and a veto-proof majority.
  2. 22 Dec '13 04:10
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    So let me see if I get this straight.

    Obama shut down the government because Republicans in Congress wanted to delay the individual mandate.

    Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius issued a letter stating that she would delay the individual mandate for those people who had their insurance cancelled and had not yet enrolled in Obamacare. (And oh yeah - he ...[text shortened]... for this next year. All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth - and a veto-proof majority.
    The entire thing has become quite a joke now... I think some of saw this coming ..... :-)
  3. 25 Dec '13 12:00
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    So let me see if I get this straight.

    Obama shut down the government because Republicans in Congress wanted to delay the individual mandate.

    Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius issued a letter stating that she would delay the individual mandate for those people who had their insurance cancelled and had not yet enrolled in Obamacare. (And oh yeah - he ...[text shortened]... for this next year. All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth - and a veto-proof majority.
    There's certainly grounds for demanding an explanation over why it is that the individual mandate was delayed for some people, but I'd appreciate if future discussions on this point could please be phrased to clarify and acknowledge the fact that what Obama and Sebelius have delayed (i.e. the individual mandate for some persons) differs substantively from what the Republicans wanted (the individual mandate delayed for everyone). FWIW I personally agree that the individual mandate should have been delayed for everyone, as Republicans wanted. Why? Because it would ease the burden on implementing the ACA, which has proven to be an awkward process due to the high number of people signing up (although this is partly the fault of Republican governors refusing to implement the ACA in their states, thus increasing the pressure on the federal government's ACA website). I have mixed feelings about whether the individual mandate should exist at all; Romney implemented it in Massachusetts, ostensibly to deal with the freerider problem, but yet it's something that insurance companies stand to profit from a great deal (i.e. it's a corporate handout).
  4. 27 Dec '13 16:21
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    So let me see if I get this straight.

    Obama shut down the government because Republicans in Congress wanted to delay the individual mandate.

    Yesterday, Kathleen Sebelius issued a letter stating that she would delay the individual mandate for those people who had their insurance cancelled and had not yet enrolled in Obamacare. (And oh yeah - he ...[text shortened]... for this next year. All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth - and a veto-proof majority.
    I'm pretty sure I'll vote Democratic in the 2016 presidential election. I want Democrats appointing Supreme Court judges, over Roe v Wade and campaign finance, among other things. In 2014, though, I'm leaning towards voting Republican. If Republicans take both houses of Congress, a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal immigrants will be blocked, the assault weapons ban will be blocked, and Democrats may be able to run against the "Do-Nothing Republican Congress" in 2016. As far as I'm concerned, all three of these outcomes are positive.

    By 2016, swing voters won't care that much about the awkward rollout of the ACA. They'll be more interested in how healthcare in the U.S. is going by that point, and whether it's "Morning in America" for the economy more generally.