If Supreme Court over turns Health Care, what will the GOP Replace it with?

[rdean]

Watching the pundits this morning on the talk shows talk about Health Care was hilarious.

Republicans saying, "If it's overturned, then why would Obama try to pass something that was unconstitutional?" and "How could someone pass something if they don't know what's in it"?

Democrats saying, "We know the Supreme Court is radical right. They allowed unlimited corporate money into our elections and declared corporations are people". That even means Hugo Chavez could influence American elections with Citgo money.

Republicans never think about their own questions. They ask "Why vote for it if no one knows what's in it"? The question they should be asked is, after all this time, why be against something you haven't bothered to read?

Some of the provisions:

34 million more Americans insured

Millions of children with pre-existing conditions insured

People able to put their college age children on their policies

Insurance company rebates gone (going over a capped limit the companies get from skimming policies)

And it goes on and on.

So, if the Republicans are going to run on "Let him die", then good. I want to see how well that works out.

 

[Warrior102]

Buy your own health care, fuck up.

The government is not obliged to provide it to you.

 

[rdean]

Buy your own health care, fuck up.

The government is not obliged to provide it to you.

You don't have health care. Going to the emergency room when you OD with alcohol poisoning isn't real health care. Stay away from that "moonshine" bubba.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching the pundits this morning on the talk shows talk about Health Care was hilarious.

Republicans saying, "If it's overturned, then why would Obama try to pass something that was unconstitutional?" and "How could someone pass something if they don't know what's in it"?

Democrats saying, "We know the Supreme Court is radical right. They allowed unlimited corporate money into our elections and declared corporations are people". That even means Hugo Chavez could influence American elections with Citgo money.

Republicans never think about their own questions. They ask "Why vote for it if no one knows what's in it"? The question they should be asked is, after all this time, why be against something you haven't bothered to read?

Some of the provisions:

34 million more Americans insured

Millions of children with pre-existing conditions insured

People able to put their college age children on their policies

Insurance company rebates gone (going over a capped limit the companies get from skimming policies)

And it goes on and on.

So, if the Republicans are going to run on "Let him die", then good. I want to see how well that works out.

So wait, lemme get this straight. . . if you don't know what's in a new law that's going to be enforced on everyone in the country. . . your default setting should be to rubber stamp it, not to vote it down unless you figure out what it does? So when it comes to looking before you leap, if you don't have time to look, your philosophy is to just leap? With that sort of outlook, even with the protection of the amenities of modern society, I'm surprised natural selection hasn't scooped you up out of the gene pool yet.

 

[dblack]

If Supreme Court over turns Health Care, what will the GOP Replace it with?

If they have the opportunity, I suspect they'll replace it with something very similar. They'll reframe the individual mandate as a "tax incentive" and pursue essentially the same goal as the Democrats: herding as many people as possible into the corporate insurance pool.

 

[rdean]

Watching the pundits this morning on the talk shows talk about Health Care was hilarious.

Republicans saying, "If it's overturned, then why would Obama try to pass something that was unconstitutional?" and "How could someone pass something if they don't know what's in it"?

Democrats saying, "We know the Supreme Court is radical right. They allowed unlimited corporate money into our elections and declared corporations are people". That even means Hugo Chavez could influence American elections with Citgo money.

Republicans never think about their own questions. They ask "Why vote for it if no one knows what's in it"? The question they should be asked is, after all this time, why be against something you haven't bothered to read?

Some of the provisions:

34 million more Americans insured

Millions of children with pre-existing conditions insured

People able to put their college age children on their policies

Insurance company rebates gone (going over a capped limit the companies get from skimming policies)

And it goes on and on.

So, if the Republicans are going to run on "Let him die", then good. I want to see how well that works out.

So wait, lemme get this straight. . . if you don't know what's in a new law that's going to be enforced on everyone in the country. . . your default setting should be to rubber stamp it, not to vote it down unless you figure out what it does? So when it comes to looking before you leap, if you don't have time to look, your philosophy is to just leap? With that sort of outlook, even with the protection of the amenities of modern society, I'm surprised natural selection hasn't scooped you up out of the gene pool yet.

We aren't talking about me. We are talking about Republicans. Tell me why, after all this time, they still don't know what's in the bill. It's on line. Don't they know how to read?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching the pundits this morning on the talk shows talk about Health Care was hilarious.

Republicans saying, "If it's overturned, then why would Obama try to pass something that was unconstitutional?" and "How could someone pass something if they don't know what's in it"?

Democrats saying, "We know the Supreme Court is radical right. They allowed unlimited corporate money into our elections and declared corporations are people". That even means Hugo Chavez could influence American elections with Citgo money.

Republicans never think about their own questions. They ask "Why vote for it if no one knows what's in it"? The question they should be asked is, after all this time, why be against something you haven't bothered to read?

Some of the provisions:

34 million more Americans insured

Millions of children with pre-existing conditions insured

People able to put their college age children on their policies

Insurance company rebates gone (going over a capped limit the companies get from skimming policies)

And it goes on and on.

So, if the Republicans are going to run on "Let him die", then good. I want to see how well that works out.

So wait, lemme get this straight. . . if you don't know what's in a new law that's going to be enforced on everyone in the country. . . your default setting should be to rubber stamp it, not to vote it down unless you figure out what it does? So when it comes to looking before you leap, if you don't have time to look, your philosophy is to just leap? With that sort of outlook, even with the protection of the amenities of modern society, I'm surprised natural selection hasn't scooped you up out of the gene pool yet.

We aren't talking about me. We are talking about Republicans. Tell me why, after all this time, they still don't know what's in the bill. It's on line. Don't they know how to read?

In fairness to Republicans, who I often disagree with, most of them have expressed that they don't feel that the mandate itself is constitutional. Without the mandate forcing healthy young people to buy insurance they often don't need to offset the cost of, for instance, forcing these companies to accept people with preexisting conditions (an automatic and guaranteed financial loss for said insurance company), a good number of the effects of the bill that everyone -does- know about would absolutely cripple the entire medical insurance industry, or would drive the cost of insurance for those who do buy it up to what would be required for those companies to sustain a profitable model. Essentially, you've got an entire bill that's paid for on the shoulders of a mandate that most of the opposition thinks is unconstitutional. Why read more details before making a decision, at that point?

Now, as far as not talking about you, that's a moot point. What you did was express that you disagree with republicans saying it's stupid to vote in a bill when you don't know what's in it and asked how they could disagree with something they haven't read. What you implied by saying this is that it's -YOUR- belief that if you don't know what's in a bill, you should vote it IN, not OUT. THAT means that if you don't have time to LOOK, you LEAP. Does that sound like an accurate assessment of your overall philosophy on caution, or did you not think that argument through?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Watching the pundits this morning on the talk shows talk about Health Care was hilarious.

Republicans saying, "If it's overturned, then why would Obama try to pass something that was unconstitutional?" and "How could someone pass something if they don't know what's in it"?

Democrats saying, "We know the Supreme Court is radical right. They allowed unlimited corporate money into our elections and declared corporations are people". That even means Hugo Chavez could influence American elections with Citgo money.

Republicans never think about their own questions. They ask "Why vote for it if no one knows what's in it"? The question they should be asked is, after all this time, why be against something you haven't bothered to read?

Some of the provisions:

34 million more Americans insured

Millions of children with pre-existing conditions insured

People able to put their college age children on their policies

Insurance company rebates gone (going over a capped limit the companies get from skimming policies)

And it goes on and on.

So, if the Republicans are going to run on "Let him die", then good. I want to see how well that works out.

Do you even understand that health care is not being decided by the Supreme Court?

 

[Rozman]

The first thing that comes to mind for me is
which MSNBC host loses it on air?

I gotta go with Schultz...
with Chris Mathews a close second
and Laurence O Donnell bringing up the rear.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Buy your own health care, fuck up.

The government is not obliged to provide it to you.

Plus, if the Gov't is so concerned about our Health and our Health Care then why don't they just make our Health Insurance Premiums Tax Deductable?

Wouldn't that be a lot easier? We could still shop for our own best deals too.

Oh but see, that would take CONTROL away from the Gov't, and that's really all they ever wanted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Id go with the whole foods recommendations

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

watching the pundits this morning on the talk shows talk about health care was hilarious.

Republicans saying, "if it's overturned, then why would obama try to pass something that was unconstitutional?" and "how could someone pass something if they don't know what's in it"?

Democrats saying, "we know the supreme court is radical right. They allowed unlimited corporate money into our elections and declared corporations are people". That even means hugo chavez could influence american elections with citgo money.

Republicans never think about their own questions. They ask "why vote for it if no one knows what's in it"? The question they should be asked is, after all this time, why be against something you haven't bothered to read?

Some of the provisions:

34 million more americans insured

millions of children with pre-existing conditions insured

people able to put their college age children on their policies

insurance company rebates gone (going over a capped limit the companies get from skimming policies)

and it goes on and on.

So, if the republicans are going to run on "let him die", then good. I want to see how well that works out.

answer to subject heading:
A hole in the sand

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The first thing that comes to mind for me is
which MSNBC host loses it on air?

I gotta go with Schultz...
with Chris Mathews a close second
and Laurence O Donnell bringing up the rear.

Its clear to see the right wing has a grip on the important issues facing everyday Americans.

 

[Rozman]

The first thing that comes to mind for me is
which MSNBC host loses it on air?

I gotta go with Schultz...
with Chris Mathews a close second
and Laurence O Donnell bringing up the rear.

Its clear to see the right wing has a grip on the important issues facing everyday Americans.

Just like our President...
What time does he tee off tomorrow...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Supreme Court over turns Health Care, what will the GOP Replace it with?

Nothing, of course.

They don’t believe any ‘reform’ is needed.

Let those without health insurance suffer, say conservatives, it’s a consequence of their failure.

 

[Rozman]

Maybe we can purchase insurance across State lines like car insurance.
Lots of competition there.

 

[Zander]

What will they replace Obamacare with? Hopefully nothing.

It's not the government's job to take care of your health, it's yours. Expecting government to be your "mommy" will only end in heartache.

 

[dblack]

Id go with the whole foods recommendations

you talking about this?

John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

Seems like a pretty good set of reforms to me.

 

[freetek]

It's really too bad that our Founders didn't require English as the official language.

It's obvious that way too many misunderstood the phrase 'PROMOTE the general welfare.'

You know, those few words that fall between 'PROVIDE for the common defence' and 'secure the blessings of Liberty.'
Big difference between 'promote' and 'provide:'

- Provide: furnish with

- Promote: Contribute to the progress or growth of

And 'progress' has been stolen by 'liberals' since they polluted that word earlier.
Otherwise we, who believe in self-ownership and personal responsibility, wouldn't have had to call ourselves 'libertarians.'
The original liberals were supportive of small government and personal responsibility.
Now it is just another word for 'control freaks' and entitlement beneficiaries.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Ben Franklin

"Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly
upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

 

[rightwinger]

If Supreme Court over turns Health Care, what will the GOP Replace it with?

Nothing, of course.

They don’t believe any ‘reform’ is needed.

Let those without health insurance suffer, say conservatives, it’s a consequence of their failure.

Let em die