New Poll: Trump’s Approval Hits 50 Percent, Most Americans Say He’s Keeping His Promises

The Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") is the direct offspring of Romneycare and The Heritage Foundation.

The Gang of Six (3 Republcians and 3 Democrats) worked on a "compromise" which is what passed.

The worst parts of ACA are rehashed Republican ideas from the last 30 years.

The Democrats, in desperation, passed it to their lasting chagrin.

The Dems were "snookered" by the Republicans ... precisely because the President wanted to reach across the aisle.

We all know what that got him.

a reply to: Gryphon66.

He won't read your post Gryph... it goes against the narrative.

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: Gryphon66.

He won't read your post Gryph... it goes against the narrative.

I know. I'm just a libral prog.

/sigh

Oh! Good grief! Another "poll". Here's a poll. How many people get polled? 50% of 20%? 50% of 10%,.. 5%? Polled from where? San Francisco? You people and your "polls". Trump obviously won the only "poll" that matters.

Again, per the 10th Amendment, the individual states -- like Massachusetts, are completely within their rights to establish any kind of healthcare system their citizens desire.

There is no constitutional authority granted the Federal government to establish a health system nor are there is there any "right" to government healthcare granted to the individual. Any powers and rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution, are left up to the states (10th Amendment).

Even the most liberal president and Congress in US history knew that they were not constitutionally-empowered to force socialized medicine on our republic and had to come up with a now-collapsing tax scheme. Congress is 100% empowered by the Constitution to levy taxes. That is why the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare.

That's why there can never be a single-payer healthcare system in this country unless the Constitution is amended.

Article 1, Section 8 says otherwise.

/shrug

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") is the direct offspring of Romneycare and The Heritage Foundation.

The Gang of Six (3 Republcians and 3 Democrats) worked on a "compromise" which is what passed.

The worst parts of ACA are rehashed Republican ideas from the last 30 years.

The Democrats, in desperation, passed it to their lasting chagrin.

The Dems were "snookered" by the Republicans ... precisely because the President wanted to reach across the aisle.

We all know what that got him.

You are such a pathetic liar.

Not one word of the disastrous Obamacare law came from Republicans because not one Republican supported it.

Only a true idiot would think the Democrats were "desperate" to pass Obamacare when all along they had the votes to do whatever they wanted. There was no clock ticking and there was nothing the Republicans could do to stop them.

Not one Republican wrote one word of Obamacare.

The Democrats, having all the power, were DUMB ENOUGH to get "snookered" by the Republicans? How? That's a truly stupid and unprovable statement.

Failed dirtbag Obama NEVER reached across the aisle -- HE DIDN'T HAVE TO. He notoriously told Republicans that "elections have consequences" and that they were to "sit in the back".

Like every other liberal disaster this nation has had to fix, the Obamacare mess was 100% caused by stupid liberals doing what they do best -- being stupid liberals.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Article 1, Section 8 says otherwise.

/shrug

That's another laughably-dumb statement.

Why has that provision never been cited by activist groups to force the Federal government to provide healthcare?

Why didn't "constitutional attorney" Obama invoke that clause to pass the single-payer system he wanted?

Please provide one legal ruling where the Federal courts based a decision to force the Federal government to provide healthcare to an individual on Article I, Sec. 8.

a reply to: SBMcG

The vapid ignorance of your post is no evidence that I'm "lying."

Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans - The Heritage Foundation

A reformed system should encourage gre ater innovation in the delivery of health care. The Heritage plan has several key components: 1) Change the tax treatment of health care. The plan would treat all health care benefits provided by employers as taxable income to the employee. Tbus it would e nd the personal income tax exclusion for company-based health plans. But the plan would then provide above-the-line tax credits directly to households to protect them from the unreasonable financial impact of health insurance or out-of-pocket health costs .

... and the individual mandate ....

2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This man d ate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is t h e family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection.

... the State exchanges ....

In these cases, the Heritage plan envisions an expansion of subsidized risk pools operated through the states. Many states have these plans, i n which high-risk individuals are pooled together, and then insurers are invited to compete to cover the pool with rates subsidized by the government.

The Real Story of Obamacare's Birth - The Atlantic

But with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

So ... again, you're desperately mistaken in virtually everything you claimed I was "lying" about. Does that make your post a lie, or just ignorant?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SBMcG

The vapid ignorance of your post is no evidence that I'm "lying."

Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans - The Heritage Foundation

But with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

The Real Story of Obamacare's Birth - The Atlantic

So ... again, you're desperately mistaken in virtually everything you claimed I was "lying" about.

You are a liar. I doubt even one liberal here would blame the massive failure of Obamacare on the Republicans.

Unlike you, I read through much of the 2,100 pages of the ACA. The authors of the law are clearly stated throughout and there's not ONE Republican.

Obamacare has failed because dumb liberals were being dumb liberals and wrote a law that was ALWAYS going to implode.

The Republicans had nothing to do with that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Only because it has been misinterpreted. The C.O.T.US. is very clear. The Fed. Government has "enumerated" (numbered) Powers/authority... "Healthcare" is not one of them. Congress, Presidents or Supreme Courts can not give authority where no authority was granted. That's a "Constitutional Republic"! All three branches should abide by the "law". It is a State issue. The Feds have no "legal jurisdiction". What we are dealing with now, is a "color of law". It ain't right and it isn't Constitutionally "legal".... But they have the big sticks....so it is "law". ... What a f'n mess!

a reply to: SBMcG

More false accusations, more blatant lies, more red herring.

Get some new tactics. You're boring.

a reply to: murphy22

Right. So 228 years of interpretation of the Constitution by the Congress and by the Supreme Court is just wrong, and your spouting off on pseudo-libertarian ideals that you don't really understand is right.

Whatever.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Gryphon66

Only because it has been misinterpreted. The C.O.T.US. is very clear. The Fed. Government has "enumerated" (numbered) Powers/authority... "Healthcare" is not one of them. Congress, Presidents or Supreme Courts can not give authority where no authority was granted. That's a "Constitutional Republic"! All three branches should abide by the "law". It is a State issue. The Feds have no "legal jurisdiction". What we are dealing with now, is a "color of law". It ain't right and it isn't Constitutionally "legal".... But they have the big sticks....so it is "law". ... What a f'n mess!

She's trying to make the long-debunked argument that the "General Welfare" clause in Article I, Sec. 8 somehow applies to healthcare.

It does not. If it did, it would have been used 100 years ago by liberals to steal more money from the productive class.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SBMcG

More false accusations, more blatant lies, more red herring.

Get some new tactics. You're boring.

I gave you the opportunity of providing case law backing up your claim that the "General Welfare" clause applies to healthcare.

Where's your proof?

Or are you just the typical low-information liberal liar?

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SBMcG

More false accusations, more blatant lies, more red herring.

Get some new tactics. You're boring.

I gave you the opportunity of providing case law backing up your claim that the "General Welfare" clause applies to healthcare.

Where's your proof?

Or are you just the typical low-information liberal liar?

/yawn

I've probably said it 1,000 times in my 53 years, and I think I knew it instinctively at a very young age without even knowing there was such a thing, but liberals are nothing more than goddamn thieves.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Gryphon66

Only because it has been misinterpreted. The C.O.T.US. is very clear. The Fed. Government has "enumerated" (numbered) Powers/authority... "Healthcare" is not one of them. Congress, Presidents or Supreme Courts can not give authority where no authority was granted. That's a "Constitutional Republic"! All three branches should abide by the "law". It is a State issue. The Feds have no "legal jurisdiction". What we are dealing with now, is a "color of law". It ain't right and it isn't Constitutionally "legal".... But they have the big sticks....so it is "law". ... What a f'n mess!

She's trying to make the long-debunked argument that the "General Welfare" clause in Article I, Sec. 8 somehow applies to healthcare.

It does not. If it did, it would have been used 100 years ago by liberals to steal more money from the productive class.

Not that facts seem to bother your blathering, but for future reference, I'm a man.

Now, on with the half-assed bleating ...(I won't be reading because, Iike I said, reading your stuff is like watching paint dry.)

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SBMcG

More false accusations, more blatant lies, more red herring.

Get some new tactics. You're boring.

I gave you the opportunity of providing case law backing up your claim that the "General Welfare" clause applies to healthcare.

Where's your proof?

Or are you just the typical low-information liberal liar?

/yawn

Yep. You lost. You got caught in several lies (Republicans responsible for the failure of Obamacare, the "General Welfare" Clause applies to healthcare, etc...), couldn't prove your point, and now you're taking your little ball and going home.

Typical liberal.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Gryphon66

Only because it has been misinterpreted. The C.O.T.US. is very clear. The Fed. Government has "enumerated" (numbered) Powers/authority... "Healthcare" is not one of them. Congress, Presidents or Supreme Courts can not give authority where no authority was granted. That's a "Constitutional Republic"! All three branches should abide by the "law". It is a State issue. The Feds have no "legal jurisdiction". What we are dealing with now, is a "color of law". It ain't right and it isn't Constitutionally "legal".... But they have the big sticks....so it is "law". ... What a f'n mess!

She's trying to make the long-debunked argument that the "General Welfare" clause in Article I, Sec. 8 somehow applies to healthcare.

It does not. If it did, it would have been used 100 years ago by liberals to steal more money from the productive class.

Not that facts seem to bother your blathering, but for future reference, I'm a man.

Now, on with the half-assed bleating ...(I won't be reading because, Iike I said, reading your stuff is like watching paint dry.)

OK. Sorry. I saw someone else refer to you as "she" awhile back... Just assumed.

I'm sorry my facts harsh your unicorn ride, brah...