House Votes to Repeal “Job-Killing” Health Care Law 236-181 and Now This...

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeppers..

Should have went for the Public Option in the first place.

But what can ya do?

Republicans got this..now they don't want it anymore.

It still would have been in the same spot as the current healthcare law.
Yeas 236

No 181

The vote for repeal passed.

 

[Jackson]

Let's face the real facts. This is not the time for us to take on such a plan as Health Care Reform. Wait four years until we have a stable economy. We have waited this long, we can wait this short time. We have to get the country's budget and deficit under control first. Common sense has to prevail here.

In the meantime, we can take our time and do this right. We can see what sushing through this has brought us. No one is happy.

 

[editec]

You think unlimited health insurance will be cheap or free?

i think a non profit single payor system would more cost effective and efficient than what is currently on the book.

I think it would be, too...for a while.

Then market forces will begin to drive up costs because single payer will increase demand without in any way increasing suppply

But I also think that the system we currently have is failing its mission because the costs associated with the system we have now continue to rise much faster than inflation.

We have the most expensive and one of the least efficient HC delivery systems in the industrialized world.

HC insurance companies love it, of course, because they are the ones who make so much money because of its inefficiency.

And the HC provider community is also benefitting from this system, too.

Compare the median HC providers salaries 50 years ago to the aaverage median income and you'll quickly realize how much better off the HC community is doing (by comparison to the rest of society) than it was two generations ago.

 

[jillian]

Yeppers..

Should have went for the Public Option in the first place.

But what can ya do?

Republicans got this..now they don't want it anymore.

It still would have been in the same spot as the current healthcare law.
Yeas 236

No 181

The vote for repeal passed.

pyrrhic victory to feed the rabid 'base'.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeppers..

Should have went for the Public Option in the first place.

But what can ya do?

Republicans got this..now they don't want it anymore.

It still would have been in the same spot as the current healthcare law.
Yeas 236

No 181

The vote for repeal passed.

pyrrhic victory to feed the rabid 'base'.

When a very large portion of Americans said they did not want obamacare how will that harm the victor?

the rabid base would be on the left.

 

[rdean]

Go ahead and keep showing us your ignorance. You're clearly proud of it.

Umm, I would think children reaching adulthood would be at least one indicator.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Can you really compare, say, "the dog peed then the doorbell rang, so everytime the dog pees, the doorbell rings" with "more children growing to adulthood because we invested in health care, so health care helps more children grow to adulthood" as the same?

 

[Old Rocks]

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law?

House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the health care law will have little effect on employment.
January 7, 2011

Summary
When it comes to truth in labeling, House Republicans are getting off to a poor start with their constantly repeated references to the new health care law as "job-killing."

We find:

Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.

The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."

The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.
The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

A ‘Job-Killing’ Law? | FactCheck.org

Republicans aren't serious about repealing Healthcare Reform. Their rhetorical statements are just that.

You really need a dose of reality sister....

We have all had a dose of reality in the Republican opposition to the First Responders Health Care Bill, and the Republican opposition to the health care bill that would protect children here in the US. The Republicans have shown they only care for the well being of the very wealthy. Time and again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And now this...


The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

By Philip Klein on 1.7.11 @ 1:56PM

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

Full email, from Edward "Sandy" Davis, CBO's Associate Director for Legislative Affairs, below.

...

Want to bet all the Liberals citing how great the CBO is will suddenly find fault with it?

It was the Right who proclaimed the CBO to be illegitimate when the 230 billion dollar cost figure came out.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And now this...


The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion

Want to bet all the Liberals citing how great the CBO is will suddenly find fault with it?

It was the Right who proclaimed the CBO to be illegitimate when the 230 billion dollar cost figure came out.

The CBO uses the numbers they are given by Congress to come up with the final number. Seems the democrats have been dishonest to push their agemda.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who is insane enough to believe the biggest government entitlement in the history of the country will save money?

i think medicare part D, the pill bill, passed a few years back was a BIGGER entitlement, in cost, than the healthcare bill.

As of the end of year 2008, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517, making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 (billions). Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion.

Medicare Part D - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Passed the same year Bush and the Republicans CUT the taxes that would have paid for it.

 

[EriktheRed]

Healthcare companies employ no doctors, no nurses, they own no hospitals. Their management gets paid multi million dollar salaries for producing nothing. They "earn" their money by skimming the insurance policies they "sell" to middle class Americans. We should have single payer.

The part I bolded isn't really true - health insurance companies hire doctors and nurses to assess need for services, for one thing - but the rest of it I agree with.

 

[boedicca]

I've posted this quote in another thread recently - but it bears repeating here.

From former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin:

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html