From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
WASHINGTON, DC: Congressman Andy Harris (MD-01) released the following statement regarding President Obama’s remarks to Congressional Democrats on Obamacare:
“Today, President Obama met with Congressional Democrats and urged them to obstruct Republican efforts to reform Obamacare. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the President would again seek to dictate his policy to Congress and the American public – when his refusal to work six years ago with even a single Republican has helped lead to the failure of Obamacare.
“The American people spoke quite clearly in the recent election. They want Congress to work in a bipartisan fashion to solve problems. Obamacare is failing, with skyrocketing insurance costs and much fewer options for coverage.
“In Maryland, the cost of Obamacare insurance premiums increased by 25% in the last year, and now there is only a single HMO plan available on the Eastern Shore. As a result, Obamacare is punishing hard working Americans by claiming more of their paycheck while denying them healthcare options.
“Congress will work to repeal and replace Obamacare this year, keeping popular provisions such as allowing older children to be carried on their parents insurance and coverage of pre-existing conditions. And if you liked your insurance plan or your doctor before Obamacare, you should be able to keep them – which is what the President promised but failed to deliver.
“The outgoing President appears to be plotting ways to obstruct Congress so that he can protect a failing law which was passed without any bipartisan input. That is not how we are going to make American great again.”
Ugh – If you’re going to be a Troll, Andy, learn from the master and get it down to 140 characters before you hit the send button. Too much blubbering nonsense here.
Hey Andy HarASS, yes, the American people DID speak quite clearly in the election, they voted for Hillary Clinton by a margin of approximately 3 MILLION votes.
In case your partisan ass can’t fathom that, it wasn’t a landslide for the PEOTUS!
Andy, please shut the “frick” up!
In 2010 the Republicans swore to sabotage President Obama and for eight years they keep their pledge by obstructing him in every way they could. Here’s John Boehner… offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: ‘The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.’” Now all one hears from Republicans is that we should put this ugly, divisive and race based election “behind us” and work together “for the good of the country.” I feel we should return the favor of the Republican’s plan against Trump.
So by that Logic since the Democrats rammed their agenda through congress without any republican votes… therefore the republicans should do the same? Or possibly pass laws via executive orders?
“In 2010 the Republicans swore to sabotage President Obama and for eight years they keep their pledge by obstructing him in every way they could. ”
Must be some sort of time warp and this post flew back in time from 2018.
You might take some of your own advise,,and “shut the freak up”. Electorial College won the vote for Trump,, yes the very same one you cry baby loosers said voted to Hillary..BOOOHOO,,,Sending a “warm puppy and hot cocoa” your way 🙂
Hey angry Republicans,
I disagree with some of my fellow Daggerites because I don’t want you and others to shut the F*#% up. In fact, please keep on posting. Your posts are great examples of moronic and foolish commentary. Please take full advantage of your 1st Amendment rights. You and the other angry old farts are a great gift to all of us who reject the ravings of your very colorful leader and his misguided followers. You provide much humor, solid entertainment and of course, help us recruit many to our cause.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/
Boy that 3 million vote lead sure does seem to shrink when you take the illegal voters into account. There is a link to the actual paper in the article that clarifies how the study was done. Hillary won California by 4 million votes. I really don’t want California deciding how the rest of the country is run. If you have the most profitable port and the most profitable business in your state, you should not be going bankrupt.
I’d rather have California decide the outcome of an election than a bunch of southern states that thought it was okay to lynch black people and burn crosses.
In addition, no state Board of election has found any evidence of illegal voting going on.
Districts in Detroit could not be recounted because there were more votes than voters.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/
I personally had someone sign a petition in my name for an independent candidate, Rob Sobhani back in 2012, changing my voter registration to Baltimore. When I reported it they changed it back and that was it. So my confidence in their investigative abilities is pretty thin. Someone had to sign off of that petition and I was told that no investigation ever happened.
To the lynching reference, me either that’s why lynching is illegal and criminals can’t vote, unless your from Virginia… Oh wait that was a democrat who made that rule by executive order.
Please provide proof of lynchings and cross burnings during this election cycle, then cross reference that with the story today of the hate crime against a disabled white man in Chicago accused of being a Trump voter.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-trump-cursed-man-attacked-facebook-video-20170104-story.html
The US Presidential election rules are the Electoral College. You can’t change the rules after the game is over. If you don’t like it, the Constitution has a method for change. Read it and hop to it.
Those electoral college members also ,must reside in the congressional district they are voting for. So far at last 50 do not. But hey lets not follow all the rules…..
Frank,
I’m not sure where you got that idea. The US Code reads that each state has the number of electors set by the number of legislators. it says nothing about where electors live. Since each state has two Senators, even if your statement was correct, two electors, or 102 total (including Washington DC) could be at-large and live anywhere in the state. If you can find in the Constitution or the US Code something to discredit me, please provide it. I’ve never heard your statement before so I may have not looked up in the right place.
However, my previous statement stands. Both candidates campaigned to win electoral votes, not popular votes. You cannot change the rules after the fact.
The Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen
Odd I would have thought you would know that
I do believe each State determines how its electors are selected. I don’t think there are any requirements other than they could never have been part of a rebellion or something. If I remember right, even if they were part of a rebellion Congress could clear them with a vote anyway. I’m not sure what Maryland’s rules are…..
I agree frank, but you said they have to live in a certain legislative district and I asked you to prove that, not that each state sets their own rules.
North Carolina requires the electors to reside in the district they are voting for. At least 3 who voted do not. I have no intentions of going thru each states rules but at least 50 violated the laws set by their state. I tried to copy a link here but the Dagger moderates it. Google it and educate yourself, or just keep posting here like you know what you are talking about. Your choice.
There is no credible evidence of illegal votes except in Iowa where Trump voters voted twice!
Guess what……… Election is “OVER”… send me a link to prove your “Fact”…either which way… as the POTUS once stated…..”Elections have consequences”.. And your puppy is on back order though Amazon…sorry 🙁
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/
http://www.fairus.org/issue/noncitizens-voting-violations-and-u-s-elections
There is plenty of smoke and where there is smoke you usually find fire. If only 5% of illegal immigrants voted that is over 1 million votes. How many of those do you think went Trumps way?
Do you have proof they voted.
Here is the link that was requested
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.d753fe4947c0
BTW I am not whining just stating facts
Glad they caught her, voter fraud is a problem. No I do not personally have proof that they voted but the Old Dominion study used self reported illegal immigrants to base their numbers on, I have read the Washington Post articles attacking the study, on the ground that in might not have been a representative sample. My point is and always will be fair elections, you should have to prove your identity and citizenship to vote.
Lets be clear what this means. First Andy, you personally have done nothing to create a new plan in the last 6 years, your only agenda was to block anything the President or Democrats tried. That’s not working for your voters it’s working for your party and they didn’t elect you.
Now the real issue, Andy, health care costs have not gone up health care insurance has, so where is that money going? The CEO of United Healthcare made a salary of $105 million dollars in 2015. Insurance companies are buying others and trying mergers not because they are broke and going out of business but because they have become money making giants. Yet you will parrot their cry’s when they are losing money on a small pool of people that cost them money. Anyone who thinks the cost of their insurance is going down is a fool it will never happen. What will happen is people will be losing their coverage, their will be no more subsidies so the cost to individuals will skyrocket Some poor Trump voter who now pays $200 of a $1400/month policy now gets to pay the full amount. Good job Andy making your voters either go broke or go without. Another fall out will be employers who had to provide insurance now can drop it. The up side of this will be those employers who refused to hire over 50 people can now cut the overtime and hire more people.
You must think your voters are a bunch of rubes about the pre existing condition element. The insurance company may offer a policy but you be damn sure it isn’t going to be affordable.
The Republican politicians are experts at raping their base while their supporters ask for more.
So do us all a favor Andy give up your free government supplied healthcare and get insurance like your supporters do.
So the CEO getting subsidized by the american taxpayer got paid 105 million under the ACA and you say that is the republicans fault. Can you name one republican that voted for the ACA?
Government is rarely the answer to a problem, but it sure sounds good.
https://unaffiliatedparty.org/2013/09/28/thomas-sowell-basic-economics-includes-health-care/
Enjoy some Thomas Sowell on the subject.
The CEO is not subsidized by the government!
Any money received from Government run health care, would be subsidized by the government, in my view, but you are right he was not directly subsidized by the government. My broader point holds, if a law was passed exclusively by people of one political view, why should the other point of view be responsible for fixing it?
The government is not running healthcare! Except Medicare and Medicaid and VA
The CEO is selling a product!
https://www.uhc.com/individual-and-family/health-insurance-plans/medicare-medicaid/what-is-medicaid
United Healthcare gets money from the government.
You do know that again that is not a subsidy that is getting paid to do a job!
Yes it is getting paid to do a job. It is also a subsidy to those who are considered too poor to get health insurance, and the insurance providers get paid that money. The money from the subsidy never goes to the poor it is paid to the company who manages the care. So no it is not a subsidy to the company, but it is money from a subsidy. Does that make sense? Do you agree?
“Government is rarely the answer to a problem, but it sure sounds good.”
Because a profit based health care system just makes so much sense. Getting rich off of sick people is the Republican mantra….
Sorry but you are brainwashed to the point you believe without asking the right questions. Typical republican.
The problem is once incentives are removed then people become complacent. This is true in every facet of human endeavor. People do not work hard for the common good, medicine will not continue to get better if the single payer system is implemented. That is the problem. I am in no way advocating for the crappy state driven system we currently have, but the ACA is even worse. I am all for national insurance exchanges, but not for forcing anyone to pay up. The problem with Democrats is they hate guns, but love the idea of taxing people with the threat of jail if they don’t comply. Funny without guns they couldn’t force people to pay taxes.
America’s socialist experiment.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/06/americas_socialist_past.html
Your claim is just not true. The “incentive” you speak of is to keep people sick. Socialized medicine’s incentive is to cure the disease not treat the illness. But that isn’t the issue here, the issue is health insurance and it’s cost. The health insurance industry employees millions of people from CEO”S down to people denying claims. all get paid via healthcare premiums.and not a one of them has anything to do with your healthcare.
And WTF on the guns stuff the discussion is healthcare insurance.
I believe people choose the lifestyle that they want. If they want to eat bad food and take pills to make them feel better, then why should my work go to subsidize that? The health insurance industry also employs doctors. Socialization is not all it’s cracked up to be
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-uk-now-has-one-of-the-worst-healthcare-systems-in-the-developed-world-according-to-oecd-report-a6721401.html
I think that health saving accounts are a better way to go, making people more involved in both their healthcare choices and creating incentives for good living. My gun point was that you seem to enjoy calling me the typical republican, well I can only assume you are the typical democrat who hates guns. My point is that whenever the government makes a law, in the end they will use a gun to enforce it. If you don’t comply eventually the government will show up at you house with a gun to take you to jail. That’s the main reason why I want less laws, I want less reasons for people to say they can take my liberty away. If my actions don’t hurt any one, the government should stay out of my life.
“I believe people choose the lifestyle that they want. If they want to eat bad food and take pills to make them feel better, then why should my work go to subsidize that?”
Apparently you have no idea how insurance works.
We are done here..
I know exactly how insurance works, and I want people in my risk pool to make better life choices, hence lowering my insurance premium. That’s why I don’t have the same car insurance payment as someone who has a DUI. Be done then… no one is forcing you.
Than find insurance that includes those people in your risk pool.
I want Congress to pass laws that allow that, but if they do then people who benefit from including me in their risk pool will cry foul. It’s a bad situation. I don’t want to subsidize bad decisions, but I also don’t want to exclude people who are sick through no fault of their own. And I sure as hell don’t want to borrow money to do it.
” I don’t want to subsidize bad decisions,”
I thought OBama cares took care of this when my Republican neighbor told me about the death panels….
This is what Republicans have voted for. For every $50,000 earned, you pay: $247.75 for defense; $3.98 FEMA; $22.88 for unemployment insurance; $36.82 for SNAP; $6.96 for welfare; $43.78 for military and government retirement; $235.81 for Medicare and $4000.00 a year for CORPORATE SUBSIDIES.
Why haven’t the Republicans worked over the last few years in a bi-partisan manner to improve Obamacare instead of just yelling “repeal” all the time? Everyone agrees there are parts of the program that everyone likes (insuring those with pre-existing conditions, keeping children on for longer…). As the ACA is the law of the land, wouldn’t it save time and money to do it that way? If the Republicans haven’t been able to come up with a suitable replacement for five years, how can I trust them that they will be able to put something together in the next few months?
It seems awful hypocritical of Rep. Harris to suddenly be lecturing everyone on working together when 8 years ago the Repulicans decided to obstruct everything and then blame Obama for dividing the country when they were the ones doing the dividing.
And I am still eagerly waiting for Rep. Harris to let us know how he cited on that Goodlatte proposal that was held by Republicans behind closed doors on Monday night. No public statement on that one?
Guess you forgot the “I won” comment in January 2009.
The ACA was steamrolled through based on lies (as evidenced by the actual words of a primary architect) and has ultimately been very unpopular for a majority whose rates have increased or whose hours have decreased in order for the program to benefit a minority. The numbers could never possibly add up and the plan relied on an uninformed disconnected populace. Yet after that you lament the failures of Republicans to fix the Democrat’s half baked program? I do believe a number of proposals were made and rejected. There have been precious few times over the past 8 years where any compromise has occurred and instead of attempting to build a consensus that would result in permanent solutions that benefit everyone – after all, that takes time away from lecturing us, golf and television appearances with fawning hosts; he resorted to executive orders which can be undone as easily as he initiated them. That seems remarkably short sighted to me.
There is an interesting twist of history that never happened that way.
What a bunch of political rubbish. If congress had just passed laws to disallow insurance discrimination the Affordable Health Care Act would have never have happened. Everyone is blaming the usual other side for the ACA. However, both Republicans and Democrats took part in the insurance discrimination as they were all paid off by the insurance companies and lobbyists for decades to NOT pass the laws that eventually led to the ACA. Pre-Existing Conditions are the root of the ACA. Those who had pre-existing conditions were stuck with either no insurance or high cost insurance and were often told you have to stick with your current provider as no other carrier would take them. The passing of simple legislation, banning these practices, would have left no need for the ACA to exist in the first place. Congress and the Insurance Companies brought us to the ACA. When I say Congress, I mean both political gangs are responsible. Reality is hard to comprehend when everything being said is meant to demonize the other sides political gang. The ACA exists because of incompetence in Congress and the special interests of the Insurance Companies and their profit margins. End of discussion.
I agree with just about everything you said except end of discussion. What should we do with conditions that are caused by diet and life choices? Should everyone have to bear the costs of a 40 year old type 2 diabetic, who continues to dine at McDonald’s everyday while drinking nothing but soda? I don’t pretend to have the answer, but that is an issue that needs to be discussed. It is a kind of like a tragedy of the commons.
Well, I understand your concerns, yet you claiming to be the Constitutionalist, you should realize that there is a price for freedom. Do you really think government should control the aspects of what you eat and drink? I don’t. I also believe that any government regulation that tries to assume control of that what you eat and drink, would be unconstitutional. Don’t you agree? I don’t recall the Constitution ever saying “We the people are creating a government to regulate what you consume in your diet”. People are responsible for their own temple and no one should force upon them what is consumed by their own temple. You should take solace in the fact that the 40 year old type 2 diabetic who continues to dine at McDonalds while drinking nothing but soda will probably NOT live as long as yourself, therefore ending his burden on societies social medicine. Sometimes you have to take our forefathers statement of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” in the context it was meant to be. On the other hand, our forefathers didn’t have health insurance and life expectancy in 1776 was 35 years of age with the age of 50 being considered very old. There is no good answer for your concerns. However, as I said before, “freedom comes with a price” and every time a freedom becomes undermined, we as a society lose as a whole. Yes, it is a tragedy of the commons. But, it is necessary to preserve the very basic freedoms that we take as a given in our society….
Yes I agree that would be unconstitutional, isn’t it also unconstitutional to tell people that they have to include those people in their insurance risk pools therefore raising their premiums? Again I don’t have a good answer, but my favorite part of the constitution is “and our Posterity.” I just want to pass as much freedom as possible to the next generation and paying our own bills whether it be for social or military spending is a crucial part of that for me. I feel I have been fortunate and worked hard for my 38 years. I want to pass that fortune on to my kids. Maybe the pre-existing condition clause is the best answer, but it does transfer responsibility from one person to another. Maybe having to keep the insurance that you had when you got sick is the answer, since that can already be baked into the premium. Again no good answers, but it is a good discussion to get people thinking. That is the only reason I post here, hopefully someone will read it and just sit down to think about it. Maybe the person with the answer will help us figure it out.
My insurance plan has an end run around this. Upfront charges are the same, but they have a healthy incentives plan where if you meet certain health parameters (annual check up, maintain healthy weight, don’t smoke….) they give you a rebate via a prepaid credit card that you can use to apply yo your deductibles. I don’t know how common this practice is as I only know about my company sponsored plan.
Yes, the entire Affordable Heath Care Act is unconstitutional. It was challenged in the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court ended up saying it was constitutional due to the power of taxation. I candidly disagree with the Supreme Court on this issue. The Supreme Court at times does things that scare the hell out of me. I do believe the Supreme Court does make good decisions most of the time. However, telling the American public that they MUST subscribe to a service like insurance or face a financial penalty on their taxes is not my idea of being constitutionally sound. The Constitution never made any references to insurance, but it does make reference to the power of taxation. Yet we were all told that the ACA was not a tax. Certainly sounds like a tax to me….
I often wonder if there was any outside influence placed on Roberts for that ruling… wonder if he had a girl friend or something that the political establishment used to coerce him. Of course he could have just really believed that bull crap about it being a tax.
CV
That is interesting, I am going to look into that.