Here are the R's that will sell us out on Obamacare

[gunderwood]

I'd recommend contacting them. I already did mine (#8) and will try again today. We must let them know that a shutdown is bad, but Obamacare is worse!

Three is way too many Virginia representatives on this list of shame.

From GOA
They are:

1) Scott Rigell (R-VA)

2) Pat Meehan (R-PA)

3) Charlie Dent (R-PA)

4) Peter King (R-NY)

5) Devin Nunes (R-CA)

6) Jon Runyan (R-NJ)

7) Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA)

8) Frank Wolf (R-VA)

9) Michael Grimm (R-NY)

10) Rob Wittman (R-VA)

11) Erik Paulsen (R-MN)

12) Lou Barletta (R-PA)

Plus, there are four more who, according to the Post, are on the fence and might be soon voting with the 12 above. They are:

13) Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)

14) Steve Womack (R-AR)

15) Dennis Ross (R-FL)

16) Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)

[Swampman]

Wolf used to be my Rep, but when they redrew the lines I got Goodlatte. Much better, in my view. Wolf is a sissy-boy, too afraid to challenge the opposition on anything. He's another reason we need term limits for congress.

[SpanishInquisition]

Watch Goodlatte on immigration issues. He's kinda shady on them.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

President Stompy-Foot is going to force Republicans to cave by escalating the effects of the shutdown.

What's next?

How about withholding Social Security checks? That'll do it. Remember, he's already gone after 90 year old vets in wheelchairs.

[Kreutz]

How can you be "sold out" on Obamacare when it's already a done deal?

It is the law of the land.

[wolfhfac]

Rep. Wolf is a good guy. And what the hell is some crap azz organization like GOA getting into the mix about Obamacare.

[gunderwood]

Rep. Wolf is a good guy.

We obviously have different definitions as to what good means. Rep. Wolf is attempting to undercut an Constitutional budget process in order to fund a un-Constitutional law which does great harm the American people. At this point I'm ashamed I voted for him last election and won't be fooled again.

And what the hell is some crap azz organization like GOA getting into the mix about Obamacare.

Because Obamacare impacts firearm rights through intrusive reporting of ownership as well as mandatory "treatment" the doctor must participate in, which is really the politicization of the doctor-patient relationship.

[wolfhfac]

Rep. Wolf is a good guy.

We obviously have different definitions as to what good means. Rep. Wolf is attempting to undercut an Constitutional budget process in order to fund a un-Constitutional law which does great harm the American people. At this point I'm ashamed I voted for him last election and won't be fooled again.

The law was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. It's pretty hard to argue with that when good ole Justice Roberts voted for in favor of the law. It's water under the bridge, unless you want to waste time blaming Bush for nominating him to the bench. Time to move on. Maybe if Romney didn't have to pander to the wingnut Tea Party, more people would had voted for him and he would be in the White House now and have the ability to gut this law.

And what the hell is some crap azz organization like GOA getting into the mix about Obamacare.

Because Obamacare impacts firearm rights through intrusive reporting of ownership as well as mandatory "treatment" the doctor must participate in, which is really the politicization of the doctor-patient relationship.[/quote]

As a patient, you don't have to divulge anything to your doctor that you don't want divulged. I don't know about you, but if my doctor asks me a question that I don't want to answer, well gee golly, I just don't answer it, regardless if the doctor is required to ask me under some silly law. It's none of their business. Where are people's backbone these days?

[gunderwood]

The law was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. It's pretty hard to argue with that when good ole Justice Roberts voted for in favor of the law. It's water under the bridge, unless you want to waste time blaming Bush for nominating him to the bench. Time to move on. Maybe if Romney didn't have to pander to the wingnut Tea Party, more people would had voted for him and he would be in the White House now and have the ability to gut this law.

Perhaps you should read about SCOTUS and the Dred Scott decision, eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott I could list many others, but clearly the courts are always right, as well as ethical and moral. If you really want to spout that line of non-sense, be ready to swallow it hook, line, and sinker. SCOTUS isn't the final word, they are merely another branch of the Federal government; co-equal to Congress and subservient to their creators. The People and the States hold the ultimate power as they created the Constitution which authorized the Federal governments existence. Right now the people are leaning on our representatives to defund this law, the fight is hardly over.

Obamacare is immoral and unethical and by working to fund it Rep. Wolf, Justice Roberts, and anyone else you want to drag into it will end up on the wrong side of history, just like Dred Scott. They are failing to uphold their oath to the Supreme Law, the US Constitution, for short term political points. That, in my book, is not a good man.

As a patient, you don't have to divulge anything to your doctor that you don't want divulged. I don't know about you, but if my doctor asks me a question that I don't want to answer, well gee golly, I just don't answer it, regardless if the doctor is required to ask me under some silly law. It's none of their business. Where are people's backbone these days?

Practically, refusing to answer might as well be a yes*. People without firearms probably don't care. Interesting you try to offend me by saying I have no backbone, but are ok with Rep. Wolf not only being putty, but actively working against those with a backbone!

Which brings me to my next question...given your screen name and comments in various thread about his political opponents, I have to ask. Are you associated with Rep. Wolf in any way? HFAC is an interesting acronym because that stands for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but Rep. Wolf doesn't serve on that (he's on the HAC, House Appropriations Committee). Just curious.


Edit: * I generally consider it unethical for an entity put to a figurative gun to your head and ask questions they have no lawful authority to ask. Putting your citizens in a situation where they either tell the truth and may suffer great harm because of it or must lie, is highly unethical.

[Palladin]

hmmm... another one that eats stinky stuff and barks at the moon.

[mamabearCali]

Thank you gunderwood. I was about to pull out half a dozen cases that were "the law of the land" and how that did not make it right or legal. You did it for me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Thank you gunderwood. I was about to pull out half a dozen cases that were "the law of the land" and how that did not make it right or legal. You did it for me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

"Right" or "legal" doesn't matter when there's no consequences. The system will do as it pleases because it can do as it pleases.

As for "voting them out" unless the Republican party ever has control of all three branches (and realistically speaking the GOP will be limited to just control of the House from now on) the ACA will stand.

[mamabearCali]

Slavery stood for almost 100 years. Mostly because of gutless politicians that could not find the moral fiber to stop an obvious evil. Just because something might stand for a while does not mean that it was a good policy.

This POS enslaves us all. It makes us property of the govt. When I can be forced to buy things I don't want or need just because I am alive.....not ok. It may be good business for you, but it so far has done nothing but serious damage to me and mine.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

It may be good business for you, but it so far has done nothing but serious damage to me and mine.

Doesn't directly impact me, only indirectly by reducing the number of uninsured which theoretically will result in more fiscally sound overall hospitals.

My only real concern is how it affects my own insurance premiums; dunno the answer to that yet. Won't really know until November when I can compare the ACA personal, the ACA small business, and my current policy premiums.

[mamabearCali]

Ha! It is not going to reduce the number of uninsurined it is going to explode that number. From everything I see it is designed to do that.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[JC77]

The "dirty dozen" posted in the first post was first reported several days ago by The Blaze. Upon reading that my Representative (Wittman) was part of this crap I sent him a letter the same day demanding he answer why he would do this, and what his view was. I told him I was surprised he would consider this and that if this was true I would likely not vote for him again. We have a perfectly good state level candidate that replace him in the next election if she would simply run against him. She has remained a team player and not run against him, but perhaps she would re-consider.

[Swampman]

Rep. Wolf is a good guy.

We obviously have different definitions as to what good means. Rep. Wolf is attempting to undercut an Constitutional budget process in order to fund a un-Constitutional law which does great harm the American people. At this point I'm ashamed I voted for him last election and won't be fooled again.

The law was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. It's pretty hard to argue with that when good ole Justice Roberts voted for in favor of the law. It's water under the bridge, unless you want to waste time blaming Bush for nominating him to the bench. Time to move on. Maybe if Romney didn't have to pander to the wingnut Tea Party, more people would had voted for him and he would be in the White House now and have the ability to gut this law.

And what the hell is some crap azz organization like GOA getting into the mix about Obamacare.

Because Obamacare impacts firearm rights through intrusive reporting of ownership as well as mandatory "treatment" the doctor must participate in, which is really the politicization of the doctor-patient relationship.

As a patient, you don't have to divulge anything to your doctor that you don't want divulged. I don't know about you, but if my doctor asks me a question that I don't want to answer, well gee golly, I just don't answer it, regardless if the doctor is required to ask me under some silly law. It's none of their business. Where are people's backbone these days?

Okay wingnut, you want to criticize something why don't you try getting your facts in order before you get your trolling-ass on here and stir up trouble.

There were three arguments used in the government's argument for the ACA, two of which are discussed here.

1. That the commerce clause of the constitution gave the government the power to cause individuals to purchase something - WRONG! The court rightly struck down this argument as unconstitutional.

“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” Roberts wrote for the majority.

2. That the law could be considered a tax. This is the argument the court bought. Specifically, the court held that the individual mandate is not a “penalty,” as the health-care law identified it, but a tax, and therefore a constitutional application of Congress’s taxation power. The court further held that the penalty (not the mandate) looks like a tax in many respects and upheld it based on prior case law. Acknowledging the tax consequences of the law, the court held that the law is "plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage." Taxes on cigarettes are designed to influence behavior, same thing. Finally, the court recognized that failure to buy health insurance does not have any legal consequences attached to it.

You should take some time to THINK about what you say and maybe you'd realize that what you have said so far is bullshit and should be dismissed out of hand. Go get a life somewhere else and leave us the hell alone moron.

[wolfhfac]

Swampman: you need to clean the brown smelly biotoxins from your eyes, after having your head shoved up some Tea Partier's arse for so long. Your argument is almost akin to this:


http://charlestonteaparty.org/another-t ... obamacare/

Because of Justice Roberts, the law was "validated" and gave Romney one less (major) talking point to ding Obama on (but then again Romney passed Romneycare when he was governor of MA so I guess it doesn't matter ). If he had sided with the more conservative justices, that would had cut off the legs of this law. Don't make it complicated, you were in the Navy right? KISS - Keep it Simple Stupid. If Roberts had sided with the other conservatives, Obamacare would had died on the vine. I know, that's too much for you to comprehend on that little brain of yours.

[MarcSpaz]

wolfhfac... a lie is a lie, even when a judge says its the truth. Failure to acknowledge the truth doesn't nullify it.

Forget about all the legal mambo jumbo and lets talk basic math.

The worst part about the law is that people will be forced to pay a ridiculous price for what is now the privilege of not doing business with an insurance company at the rate of 2.5% annually. If not, they will need to spend thousands more on insurance they don't need or want.

A family of 4 making about $130,000 a year will be taxed a minimum of $2080 dollars per year starting 2015 for literally not spending money. The reality is, if this dos not get repealed and stays in place indefinitely, the father of a healthy family of 4 who makes about $130,000 a year could spend as much as $200,000 in his lifetime to not have insurance. That's right... $200,000 for absolutely no product or service. Literally nothing to show for it whatsoever. That seems ludicrous to me.

Another issue I have... the act specifies that after 2015 the tax must grow with inflation annually. This is a bunch of crap given that I haven't met anyone who gets an annual raise that matches inflation... ever. And that is if they get a raise at all. This means that every year, it will get more and more expensive for people to not have insurance.

If you are upper middle-class, how long would it take you to put aside $200,000 at your current debt to income ratio? I don't know about you... but I would rather buy a brand new house in a nice retirement area than give that money to the federal government to piss away.

I'm only 40 years old and I already paid the federal government enough money to buy 2 new houses. At this rate, with the existing taxes plus my new tax liability to the federal government due to the PPACA, if I am lucky to see 65, I will have given them enough money by buy 3 more new houses... That will be enough money to buy 5 new homes in 45 years of earning income. When do I get to keep one of the houses for myself? The tax abuse over a lifetime is insane!

And IMHO...using tax penalties to punish citizens and impact their behavior (prohibitive taxation) is plain ole' un-American. The concept completely defies the ideas of freedom and free will.

[Swampman]

Romney has nothing to do with this discussion. You obviously have a bur under your saddle about Romney. Okay, I don't really give a rip.

Never let the facts stand in the way of your rhetoric. What I discussed is fact. it was written by Roberts in the majority opinion. It isn't some made up stuff me or anyone else dreamed up, Roberts made those points based on prior case-law. Believe what you want, but don't try and tell me or anyone else that what Roberts wrote isn't what he meant. Try reading the opinion.

And the point MarcSpaz made is very valid, and in a round-about way it still means that we are being forced to purchase something by the government. In this case it would be someone else's health insurance.

If you have a coherent argument you want to make, go ahead. Otherwise just sit on the sidelines like you have been doing, and STFU. Seriously, 63 posts in two years? Troll.