Obama Vetoes Bill to Repeal Signature Health Care Law

[TrueBlue]

Obama Vetoes Bill to Repeal Signature Health Care Law
By Darlene Superville, Associated Press WASHINGTON

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-vetoes-bill-repeal-signature-health-care-law-36166647

"Protecting his signature domestic achievement, President Barack Obama on Friday vetoed legislation to repeal his health care law, saying the measure "would reverse the significant progress we have made in improving health care in America."

"In his veto message to Congress, Obama disagreed. Obama said the Affordable Care Act (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/healthcare/affordable-care-act.htm) includes fairer rules and stronger consumer protections "that have made health care coverage more affordable, more attainable and more patient-centered. And it is working."


---------------------------------------
Thanks to ABC News for this report.

Imho, the Republicans are very much on the wrong track and side to this issue. Americans have benefited from the ACA and need it in order to avoid the pitfalls of the past under regular insurance carriers. The insurance companies could reject a person for having a pre-existing condition. With the ACA they cannot do so. And who in this country is so healthy that they do not have pre-existing conditions? And this is just one of the many benefits of the ACA.

KUDOS to President Obama in his VETO of Republican legislation to try to dismantle it.

[leekohler2]

What is it with the GOP? The knew this would be vetoed, but they wasted time on it again anyway.

What is this now- attempt #51?

[Rebel Son]

Not even news really, everyone knew he would veto it. If they scrapped the entire thing except the pre existing condition part, I'd like it. The rest is another burden on the middle class to pay for everything.

[Rebel Son]

What is it with the GOP? The knew this would be vetoed, but they wasted time on it again anyway.

What is this now- attempt #51?

I think it also defunded planned parenthood.........also. :) Probably some more things in there too.

[TrueBlue]

What is it with the GOP? The knew this would be vetoed, but they wasted time on it again anyway.

What is this now- attempt #51?
More like attempt #5,151! Republicans may not be good at doing the work Americans sent them to Washington to do but they sure are good at trying to dismantle great programs like the ACA that most Americans need and have been helped by. Their alternatives do not offer the protections of the ACA such as to include Pre-Existing Conditions, for one thing. That is why their programs would not work.

[Cigar]

What is it with the GOP? The knew this would be vetoed, but they wasted time on it again anyway.

What is this now- attempt #51?

It fools their supporters into thinking they're actuality getting something to please their emotions .and anger ... :grin:

Look at it this way, they fooled the base 62 times, so obviously it works.

[ThaiBoxer]

The Republicans have nothing to offer the country. This is proof

[TrueBlue]

I think it also defunded planned parenthood.........also. :) Probably some more things in there too.
It would have defunded Planned Parenthood. Most American women and their supporters would not have accepted that or allowed it to happen.

[leekohler2]

I think it also defunded planned parenthood.........also. :) Probably some more things in there too.

Then they were even more foolish to think it would pass.

[Subdermal]

I dunno what you're talking about. I would have said that the Republicans have nothing to offer the country if they passed bills that Obama would sign.

But I have that position because I am a Patriot, and I believe that you are a young imbecile (sorry about that).

[Subdermal]

Then they were even more foolish to think it would pass.

They didn't. This was a political move to get Obama and the Dems on record. They obviously calculate that such moves don't play well with the majority, whose view of PP has dropped sharply of late (http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/20/poll-finds-support-for-planned-parenthood-drops-due-to-videos/) - and whose view of Obamacare has been majority negative for a while now.

[leekohler2]

It would have defunded Planned Parenthood. Most American women and their supporters would not have accepted that or allowed it to happen.


Let them keep this up. When they get their butts handed to them in November, you know what they'll say? "We weren't conservative enough!"

They won't listen even then.

[Subdermal]

Let them keep this up. When they get their butts handed to them in November, you know what they'll say? "We weren't conservative enough!"

They won't listen even then.

You misdiagnose; certainly due to cognitive dissonance. The fact is that those abject supporters of PP "no matter what" were already voting for a Dem. This move is intended to influence conservative Democrats (there still are those out there, and the Dems are ghastly afraid of what they'll do this election cycle), and middle of the road non-political types who have seen enough to know that they're put off by the PP videos - and by Obamacare - and don't react well to another reminder that it is the Dems who are keeping these things afloat.

In short: this is about peeling away more and more Dem support.

Including many SEIU members who the head of SEIU now thinks will not vote Dem this term. Did you hear about that? She's petrified of Trump.

:biglaugh:

[Rebel Son]

In short: this is about peeling away more and more Dem support.

Including many SEIU members who the head of SEIU now thinks will not vote Dem this term. Did you hear about that? She's petrified of Trump.

:biglaugh:

I'm a union worker, have been for years. You'd be surprised at how many of us are fed up with the past 7 years and wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was the only person on the ballet. Nobody I know wants another 4 years of the crap we are getting.

[TrueBlue]

I'm a union worker, have been for years. You'd be surprised at how many of us are fed up with the past 7 years and wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was the only person on the ballet. Nobody I know wants another 4 years of the crap we are getting.
If you think this is "crap" you are getting now, just wait until a Republican would get into the White House and then the sewer lines would surely come crashing down on you and all others full force.

[nathanbforrest45]

The Republicans have nothing to offer the country. This is proof

What they are offering the country is a return to freedom and liberty.

[TrueBlue]

What they are offering the country is a return to freedom and liberty.
For whom? None other than for themselves to have the freedom and liberty to make huge CUTS to important programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps that many Americans need to stay afloat. And they would do away with the Education Department and other important offices that we need. They would also not lift one finger to raise the Minimum Wage, one iota! And that's just for starters. So, of course they want to offer our country the freedom for them to be able to do just that. They Are Very Dangerous People.

[Rebel Son]

If you think this is "crap" you are getting now, just wait until a Republican would get into the White House and then the sewer lines would surely come crashing down on you and all others full force.


I'll take my chances, with Hillary I know what I'm getting. Nothing but the same old thing. Not much choice on the left I'd say. The female Obama who lets people die cause she can't be bothered with the phone, and lies every time her mouth is open, or an admitted socialist in Bernie. Choice is pretty clear to me and it is not voting Democrat.

[hanger4]

For whom? None other than for themselves to have the freedom and liberty to make huge CUTS to important programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps that many Americans need to stay afloat. And they would do away with the Education Department and other important offices that we need. They would also not lift one finger to raise the Minimum Wage, one iota! And that's just for starters. So, of course they want to offer our country the freedom for them to be able to do just that. They Are Very Dangerous People.
"do away with the Education Department" !! OMG what would we do ?? Probably the same thing we did prior to 1980. TrueBlue you do realize history began long before you were born right ??

[TrueBlue]

I'll take my chances, with Hillary I know what I'm getting. Nothing but the same old thing. Not much choice on the left I'd say. The female Obama who lets people die cause she can't be bothered with the phone, and lies every time her mouth is open, or an admitted socialist in Bernie. Choice is pretty clear to me and it is not voting Democrat.
All RepubliCANTs would want to do is to dismantle the great programs that are currently in place that have made America great. But in November it will be a cold day in hell that Americans allow them to do that.

[hanger4]

All RepubliCANTs would want to do is to dismantle the great programs that are currently in place that have made America great. But in November it will be a cold day in hell that Americans allow them to do that.


Just out of curiosity what programs that made America great do Repubs want to dismantle ??

[AeonPax]

What they are offering the country is a return to freedom and liberty.
`
`
I always apply maximum distrust when dealing with a party zealot who wants to define "freedom and liberty" on their terms.

[Rebel Son]

All RepubliCANTs would want to do is to dismantle the great programs that are currently in place that have made America great. But in November it will be a cold day in hell that Americans allow them to do that.



America is bankrupt if you haven't noticed. Hope and change, didn't know he meant "hope for the best", and change the US into a third world country.

[Ravens Fan]

More like attempt #5,151! Republicans may not be good at doing the work Americans sent them to Washington to do but they sure are good at trying to dismantle great programs like the ACA that most Americans need and have been helped by. Their alternatives do not offer the protections of the ACA such as to include Pre-Existing Conditions, for one thing. That is why their programs would not work.


Seems to me that this is one area in which the Republicans are doing exactly what they were sent to Washington to do. The majority does not like the ACA, and I would venture to say that these guys were put into office, in part, to get rid of it any way they can.

[nathanbforrest45]

For whom? None other than for themselves to have the freedom and liberty to make huge CUTS to important programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps that many Americans need to stay afloat. And they would do away with the Education Department and other important offices that we need. They would also not lift one finger to raise the Minimum Wage, one iota! And that's just for starters. So, of course they want to offer our country the freedom for them to be able to do just that. They Are Very Dangerous People.

Paranoid are we? I have never heard any Republican state they wanted to dismantle Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. I have heard them say they should be revamped. As far as the Department of Education is concerned the country did quite well when that was handled by state and local governments and the people had some say in how the education system worked. Why should they raise the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is too low then change jobs to a company that will pay more . Learn a skill that will get you off minimum wage. The entire argument of minimum wage is a strawman. Minimum wage was never designed as a life long career path. Very few people remain on minimum wage for long and most on minimum wage are students and those just entering the work force..

The truly dangerous people are the progressives that would create roadblocks to creativity (like Uber) and the ability of companies to grow without having all their income stolen in taxes.

[nathanbforrest45]

`
`
I always apply maximum distrust when dealing with a party zealot who wants to define "freedom and liberty" on their terms.



Are there different definitions of Freedom and Liberty? I never knew that.

[MisterVeritis]

The Republicans have nothing to offer the country. This is proof
Yeah. Just individual liberty.

[MisterVeritis]

For whom? None other than for themselves to have the freedom and liberty to make huge CUTS to important programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps that many Americans need to stay afloat. And they would do away with the Education Department and other important offices that we need. They would also not lift one finger to raise the Minimum Wage, one iota! And that's just for starters. So, of course they want to offer our country the freedom for them to be able to do just that. They Are Very Dangerous People.
Essentially, what you are saying is that the nation's people depend upon a system of theft and plunder where the government takes massive amounts from productive people, uses most of the money to increase government power, control and jobs for Democrats. Further, you have grown so accustomed to having the government plunder your neighbors that you believe it is now a right.

People like you are the dangerous ones.

[MisterVeritis]

All RepubliCANTs would want to do is to dismantle the great programs that are currently in place that have made America great. But in November it will be a cold day in hell that Americans allow them to do that.


I suppose we will have to wait until November to see if your twisted version of America has become real.

[ThaiBoxer]

What they are offering the country is a return to freedom and liberty.

Like freedom for two people who love each other to get married? Freedom for a woman to make her own decisions about her body?

[ThaiBoxer]

Yeah. Just individual liberty.

Individual liberties of Adam and Steve to marry each other? Individual liberty of a woman to terminate her pregnancy if she's not ready? Individual liberty to smoke a blunt in the privacy of your own home without the po po busting down your door and shooting you?

I'm pretty sure the Republican Party is not a party of people who believe in individual liberty. Your actions are pretty clear on that.

[Green Arrow]

Individual liberties of Adam and Steve to marry each other? Individual liberty of a woman to terminate her pregnancy if she's not ready? Individual liberty to smoke a blunt in the privacy of your own home without the po po busting down your door and shooting you?

I'm pretty sure the Republican Party is not a party of people who believe in individual liberty. Your actions are pretty clear on that.

Why is she taking actions that lead to pregnancy in the first place if she's not ready?

[MisterVeritis]

Individual liberties of Adam and Steve to marry each other? Individual liberty of a woman to terminate her pregnancy if she's not ready? Individual liberty to smoke a blunt in the privacy of your own home without the po po busting down your door and shooting you?
I'm pretty sure the Republican Party is not a party of people who believe in individual liberty. Your actions are pretty clear on that.You may be confusing the responsibilities of one level of government with other levels. The federal government has no authority to regulate marriage. That is a states issue not a federal issue. The place to resolve complicated issues about the rules we will live by are within the state legislatures.

When the rights of two beings are in contest, what method would you recommend to resolve the conflict? At the beginning of a pregnancy, the rights are wholly the woman's. The day of delivery the rights must be balanced.

Drug laws are correctly the purview of the states, not the federal government. When I arrived in this state I was surprised to discover that home brewing was against the law. I lobbied the state house and senate for two years until home brewing became legal.

The Constitution limits the Federal government. State constitutions limit state governments. Individual liberty is best protected when governments are limited.

[nathanbforrest45]

Like freedom for two people who love each other to get married? Freedom for a woman to make her own decisions about her body?

The woman is not making a decision about her body. She is killing a new life. There are many ways she can make a decision about her body, not have sex, take birth control pills, insist the partner wear a condom. No, instead she thinks only of her momentary pleasure and then its ok to murder the result of those few minutes.

As for homosexual marriage, that has been a taboo for thousands of years over a wide spectrum of political and religious beliefs. Prior to about 1990 I doubt if you could find even one Democrat who would support you and your boyfriend getting married. Live with him, suck his winnie every night, but don't debase the institution of marriage .

[Chris]

I dunno what you're talking about. I would have said that the Republicans have nothing to offer the country if they passed bills that Obama would sign.

But I have that position because I am a Patriot, and I believe that you are a young imbecile (sorry about that).

Stop with the insults, stick to discussing topic.

[Peter1469]

What is it with the GOP? The knew this would be vetoed, but they wasted time on it again anyway.

What is this now- attempt #51?

To get the Congress critters on the record with their votes. It will help with reelections / challenges, etc.

[Subdermal]

`
`
I always apply maximum distrust when dealing with a party zealot who wants to define "freedom and liberty" on their terms.


Why would you be afraid of someone like nathanbforrest saying the the proper definition of 'freedom and liberty' is allowing the people of each state to determine for themselves how free they want to be to take liberties regarding issues which are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution - as the Constitution itself demands?

No mistrust needed - unless you simply mistrust a process by which local societies determine for themselves the type of nest they create.

And if you mistrust that, I'd like you to reconcile for us how forcing the type of society everyone across every State should live in is a better definition of "freedom and liberty".
AeonPax

[Subdermal]

Stop with the insults, stick to discussing topic.

Just for the record, I responded to no poster with that post. Any conclusions drawn - and offense taken - must have some internal mechanism which makes them think they're imbeciles themselves.

:D

[ThaiBoxer]

The woman is not making a decision about her body. She is killing a new life. There are many ways she can make a decision about her body, not have sex, take birth control pills, insist the partner wear a condom. No, instead she thinks only of her momentary pleasure and then its ok to murder the result of those few minutes.

A fetus can't live outside the womb and it doesn't have rights.


As for homosexual marriage, that has been a taboo for thousands of years over a wide spectrum of political and religious beliefs. Prior to about 1990 I doubt if you could find even one Democrat who would support you and your boyfriend getting married. Live with him, suck his winnie every night, but don't debase the institution of marriage .

I'm not gay brah. I've been dating the same girl since my senior year of high school.

[Rebel Son]

I'm not gay brah. I've been dating the same girl since my senior year of high school.I saw her the other day, Her name is "butch" right?

[Chris]

A fetus can't live outside the womb and it doesn't have rights.



I'm not gay brah. I've been dating the same girl since my senior year of high school.




A fetus can't live outside the womb and it doesn't have rights.

I assume your "A and B" actually means "A therefore B."

Why does viability determine rights?

Isn't that arbitrary given that the point of viability keeps moving?

IOW, what's the logic between the two?

[Dr. Who]

Just for the record, I responded to no poster with that post. Any conclusions drawn - and offense taken - must have some internal mechanism which makes them think they're imbeciles themselves.

:D

Subdermal has been banned from this thread. Please do not respond to his posts.

[McCool]

Obama Vetoes Bill to Repeal Signature Health Care Law
By Darlene Superville, Associated Press WASHINGTON

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-vetoes-bill-repeal-signature-health-care-law-36166647



---------------------------------------
Thanks to ABC News for this report.

Imho, the Republicans are very much on the wrong track and side to this issue. Americans have benefited from the ACA and need it in order to avoid the pitfalls of the past under regular insurance carriers. The insurance companies could reject a person for having a pre-existing condition. With the ACA they cannot do so. And who in this country is so healthy that they do not have pre-existing conditions? And this is just one of the many benefits of the ACA.

KUDOS to President Obama in his VETO of Republican legislation to try to dismantle it.
And what a complete waste of time that was.

[ThaiBoxer]

I assume your "A and B" actually means "A therefore B."

Why does viability determine rights?

Isn't that arbitrary given that the point of viability keeps moving?

IOW, what's the logic between the two?

Roe v Wade. Look it up

[ThaiBoxer]

Why is she taking actions that lead to pregnancy in the first place if she's not ready?

Not really your business is it

[ThaiBoxer]

You may be confusing the responsibilities of one level of government with other levels. The federal government has no authority to regulate marriage. That is a states issue not a federal issue. The place to resolve complicated issues about the rules we will live by are within the state legislatures.

When the rights of two beings are in contest, what method would you recommend to resolve the conflict? At the beginning of a pregnancy, the rights are wholly the woman's. The day of delivery the rights must be balanced.

Drug laws are correctly the purview of the states, not the federal government. When I arrived in this state I was surprised to discover that home brewing was against the law. I lobbied the state house and senate for two years until home brewing became legal.

The Constitution limits the Federal government. State constitutions limit state governments. Individual liberty is best protected when governments are limited.

Obergefell v. Hodges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges)

Get educated

[Hal Jordan]

Roe v Wade. Look it up

That doesn't answer the questions in the slightest. Try to actually answer the questions.

[ThaiBoxer]

That doesn't answer the questions in the slightest. Try to actually answer the questions.

It's the law of the land and will be for the foreseeable future so yeah it does answer it

[BleedingHeadKen]

Yeah. Just individual liberty.


:biglaugh: Best joke of the century. What individual liberty?

[Hal Jordan]

It's the law of the land and will be for the foreseeable future so yeah it does answer it
13887

[Peter1469]

Obergefell v. Hodges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges)

Get educated

Apply your case to the paragraph that you quoted.

Go.

[Chris]

I assume your "A and B" actually means "A therefore B."

Why does viability determine rights?

Isn't that arbitrary given that the point of viability keeps moving?

IOW, what's the logic between the two?


Roe v Wade. Look it up



I was looking for answers. Moral answers, not legalities.

[Chris]

I assume your "A and B" actually means "A therefore B."

Why does viability determine rights?

Isn't that arbitrary given that the point of viability keeps moving?

IOW, what's the logic between the two?


It's the law of the land and will be for the foreseeable future so yeah it does answer it

Still doesn't answer the questions.

If you don't have answers, that's fine.

[MisterVeritis]

Obergefell v. Hodges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges)

Get educated
I actually am educated. Explain why you believe a wrong court decision invalidates what I wrote. If you can.

[Green Arrow]

Not really your business is it

It is when you're demanding I permit and pay for it.