House votes to repeal Obamacare - again.

[Boxlicker101]

Once again, the House has voted to repeal Obamacare. It is something of a waste of time, but it enables voters to see whether their representatives are voting a party line or what their constituents want.


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/He.../2013/05/16/id/504945?s=al&promo_code=13856-1

Whatever you think of the source, this is fact, not opinion, and it can be easily verified.

 

[CHNOPS]

Not by clicking that link it can't.

 

[Wrong Element]

If only we could have a total national referendum on this issue. Say, between a candidate who wants to repeal Obamacare and another who supports it. Maybe we could make the choice even more stark by having one of the candidates actually be named Obama.

Man, why can't we do that?

 

[Boxlicker101]

If only we could have a total national referendum on this issue. Say, between a candidate who wants to repeal Obamacare and another who supports it. Maybe we could make the choice even more stark by having one of the candidates actually be named Obama.

Man, why can't we do that?

We can't do that because people would be voting for one candidate or against the other, rather than the issue at hand. What would work better would be to divide the country into areas, each one having close to the same population, but making sure every state included at least one of those areas. Maybe we could call them "Congressional Districts" or some similar name.

Each of the areas would hold an election, with at least candidate in favor of Obamacare and one opposed. Since the candidates would represent the voters in that area, we could call them "Representatives." This is a form of representative democracy, and it would work better than the method you suggest, because the personal charm and charisma of either of the two candidates you suggest would tend to be evened out over the four or five hundred candidates running for a chance to vote for or against Obamacare.

Once all the "representatives" had been elected, they could come to Washington and vote the way they had sworn to do.

 

[mercury14]

We can't do that because people would be voting for one candidate or against the other, rather than the issue at hand. What would work better would be to divide the country into areas, each one having close to the same population, but making sure every state included at least one of those areas. Maybe we could call them "Congressional Districts" or some similar name.

Each of the areas would hold an election, with at least candidate in favor of Obamacare and one opposed. Since the candidates would represent the voters in that area, we could call them "Representatives." This is a form of representative democracy, and it would work better than the method you suggest, because the personal charm and charisma of either of the two candidates you suggest would tend to be evened out over the four or five hundred candidates running for a chance to vote for or against Obamacare.

Once all the "representatives" had been elected, they could come to Washington and vote the way they had sworn to do.

Because in House elections people aren't voting for a candidate, just the one issue at hand?

But for argument's sake let's say this is Bizarro world and somehow you're right. Democrats won the House popular vote by 1.44 million votes. Therefore by your own whack logic you must conclude that Americans do now want Obamacare to be repealed.

It is something of a waste of time, but it enables voters to see whether their representatives are voting a party line or what their constituents want.

90% of America supported the provisions of Toomey-Manchin so it's safe to say that every Republican senator who voted to filibuster it was going tremendously against their constituency, far beyond opinion on any Obamacare related issues. What does this tell you about Republicans?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It might be self-repealing...

 

[richard_daily]

It might be self-repealing...

That's what we said about you, and yet you're still here.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Because in House elections people aren't voting for a candidate, just the one issue at hand?

In the situation I postulated, that would be the case - just the one issue. This would not be practical, of course, so let's say the elections to the House happened in the normal way. The majority of the representatives elected voted against Obamacare.

But for argument's sake let's say this is Bizarro world and somehow you're right. Democrats won the House popular vote by 1.44 million votes. Therefore by your own whack logic you must conclude that Americans do now want Obamacare to be repealed.

Either that's a Freudian slip in your last sentence or you have changed your mind on the issue.

In any event, that table makes for interesting reading. I notice how the Dems run up huge margins in the inner city districts, because those are the main places where people want to get on the public tit and stay there, and they see voting Dem. as being the way to do that. In some of the districts, the GOP didn't even run candidates, because they knew it would be a waste of time and money. For the most part, this does not represent gerrymandering because, if the districts were drawn differently, they would no longer be contiguous. Besides that, both major parties gerrymander when they can, so that tends to balance out.

Apparently, arithmetic is not your strong suit, because the difference between Dem and GOP votes is less than you said. That's not counting independent votes, because there is no way of knowing which party they favor.

90% of America supported the provisions of Toomey-Manchin so it's safe to say that every Republican senator who voted to filibuster it was going tremendously against their constituency, far beyond opinion on any Obamacare related issues. What does this tell you about Republicans?

First, I don't believe 90% of Americans support any issue. What was your source for that figure. Second, for a high percentage of Americans to support any of Obama's schemes, it means they were lied to about it, which is standard for the current administration. The senators in question, probably seeing the unconstitutionality of Toomey-Martin or other problems, knew enough to prevent it from passing. It never would have made it through the House anyhow.

 

[CHNOPS]

Did you choose the name "Boxlicker101," or was that some kind of court-ordered punishment for something?

 

[phrodeau]

I hope that they didn't waste too many minutes on it.

 

[mercury14]

In any event, that table makes for interesting reading. I notice how the Dems run up huge margins in the inner city districts, because those are the main places where people want to get on the public tit and stay there, and they see voting Dem. as being the way to do that.

Rural white conservatives will benefit tremendously from Obamacare.

Besides that, both major parties gerrymander when they can, so that tends to balance out.

It's not balanced right now and it's never been anywhere near this unbalanced before so you're wrong.

 

[BotanyBoy]

it's safe to say that every Republican senator who voted to filibuster it was going tremendously against their constituency, far beyond opinion on any Obamacare related issues. What does this tell you about Republicans?

What you and everyone else SHOULD be asking is what does that, and the fact that big insurance with their billions on the line who also went all cheery bout it, tell you about Obamacare....

BUT WE WONT ASK THAT!!! Just get the mother fuckin' funding rolling! We have 200 dollar aspirins to sell to the government and insurance is paying out 350 a pop for them. WEEEEEEE!!!!

But hey.....don't worry!!! It's a step in the right direction right!! LMFAO

 

[Boxlicker101]

Did you choose the name "Boxlicker101," or was that some kind of court-ordered punishment for something?

I chose "Boxlicker" myself and, when I had to add a number, I picked 101 to represent Highway 101.

 

[KRCummings]

I chose "Boxlicker" myself and, when I had to add a number, I picked 101 to represent Highway 101.

Yeah, you probably should have lied and said a friend made it for you or something.

 

[Adre]

Clearly they have nothing useful to contribute, so they will just keep holding this moronic vote until long past full implementation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Clearly they have nothing useful to contribute, so they will just keep holding this moronic vote until long past full implementation.

Even if 90% of the place voted it down it's going....there are a lot of powerful people getting paid way to many billions for them to let anything happen to it. IDK why anyone even bothers with fighting it.

 

[mercury14]

What you and everyone else SHOULD be asking is what does that, and the fact that big insurance with their billions on the line who also went all cheery bout it, tell you about Obamacare....

BUT WE WONT ASK THAT!!! Just get the mother fuckin' funding rolling! We have 200 dollar aspirins to sell to the government and insurance is paying out 350 a pop for them. WEEEEEEE!!!!

But hey.....don't worry!!! It's a step in the right direction right!! LMFAO

Not for a moment am I doubting that the private sector has its hands in Obamacare in several different ways. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

It well come in handy if we take the Senate away from the Dems next year.

No it wont.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not for a moment am I doubting that the private sector has its hands in Obamacare in several different ways. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Dude...no matter how much you try and polish this turd it will never be a diamond.

And the more you try and justify paying 5 star prime rib in NYC's FINEST steakhouse price for a can of Alpo dog food, the dumber you look.

We are getting ripped the mother fuck off in some of the most greedy corrupted fuckhead ways, every bit and in some cases even more so than the military industrial complex welfare system....... that makes it a bad idea.

There is absolutely NO reason we should pay a fucking PENNY over MSRP, in fact we should be getting bulk/group discounts. If it was just MSRP, UCH would have been paid for.......but nope!! Why do that when you can just cock tease them into giving you more, and more, AND MORE.

But being the money grabbing socialist eager and willing to feed the richest people on the planet even more money....keep on supporting Obamacare!! PFIZER LOVES YOU MERC!!

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Dude...no matter how much you try and polish this turd it will never be a diamond.

And the more you try and justify paying 5 star prime rib in NYC's FINEST steakhouse price for a can of Alpo dog food, the dumber you look.

We are getting ripped the mother fuck off in some of the most greedy corrupted fuckhead ways, every bit and in some cases even more so than the military industrial complex welfare system....... that makes it a bad idea.

There is absolutely NO reason we should pay a fucking PENNY over MSRP, in fact we should be getting bulk/group discounts. If it was just MSRP, UCH would have been paid for.......but nope!! Why do that when you can just cock tease them into giving you more, and more, AND MORE.

But being the money grabbing socialist eager and willing to feed the richest people on the planet even more money....keep on supporting Obamacare!! PFIZER LOVES YOU MERC!!

It's not a diamond, it's a chunk of granite. What we had before was a turd.

 

[mercury14]

Yeah it will.

If the Repubs pick up the Senate next year and hold onto the House they still can't repeal Obamacare. And their Senate majority if they have one will certainly be extremely narrow when they have to defend more than twice the seats as Democrats do in 2016.

And then even if there's some massive shift where everyone and their Hispanic brother votes Republican and the GOP takes everything in 2016 there are still huge parts of Obamacare that can't be done away with through budget reconciliation such as:

- The individual mandate to purchase insurance
- Mandates on insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions or those who become ill
- Regulating what minimum coverage is under the mandate


All those things will require 60 Senate votes to repeal and that's just not gonna happen. And if everything else is repealed through budget reconciliation then the Republicans will cause a situation where Americans are forced to buy insurance and will lose the subsidy they've been enjoying for a few years. Working families will be looking at a 250% increase in their health care costs and Republicans will the the target of their extraordinary wrath.

So even if all the electoral chips fall your way this thing isn't getting repealed.

 

[RobDownSouth]

In some of the districts, the GOP didn't even run candidates, because they knew it would be a waste of time and money. For the most part, this does not represent gerrymandering because, if the districts were drawn differently, they would no longer be contiguous.

You cannot possibly be this stupid.