Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[Mini 14]

245-189

And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?

That's gonna make the People happy, huh?

Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.

 

[rdean]

Helping the American people - bad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ObamaCare aka Squeal Like a Pig

 

[Madeline]

*Yawn*

Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.

What are you proposing to replace it?

 

[WillowTree]

*Yawn*

Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.

What are you proposing to replace it?

How many times to you have to be told?

 

[boedicca]

Good news.

And now 26 states have joined the suit against ObamaCare as well.

26 States Join Suit Against Obama Health Law - FoxNews.com

 

[Madeline]

WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.

'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com

As long as we are clear. Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.

That's no longer acceptable to me. If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.

 

[boedicca]

WASHINGTON -- As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or paying more for coverage.

'Pre-existing conditions' exist in up to half of Americans under 65 | cleveland.com

As long as we are clear. Repeal Obamacare and put nothing in place to address the problems, and what you have chosen to do is use a for-profit system that will prevent many of your neighbors from receiving care.

That's no longer acceptable to me. If it is acceptable to you, I pity you.

Oh this is such complete and utter nonsense.

A hangnail is not a pre-existing condition.

 

[Liability]

245-189

And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?

That's gonna make the People happy, huh?

Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.

If determined enough, Reid's intransigence can become a daily object of conservative and Republican disapprobation.

Attach the bill as an Amendment to EVERY bit of legislation that comes up to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

Keep doing it.

Time after time after time.

Keep Reid and his disgusting behavior the FOCUS.

Yes yes. Even if the Senate did get to vote on it, the measure would likely get defeated in the Senate. And even if it did somehow squeak through, the President would veto it and there is clearly no prospect of overriding that veto.

That's fine.

No reason not to do it anyway.

Make an issue of it every day between now and Election Day 2012.

 

[Jeremy]

Sweet. Now what?

 

[Avatar4321]

Helping the American people - bad.

Might be to you. But people who actually do want to help Americans are very glad that they voted to repeal the single most destructive bill to pass in the past 40 years.

But then, I guess I understand why you don't like that. You care more about controlling peoples lives then helping them. Otherwise, you'd be opposed to this piece of crap legislation too.

 

[Avatar4321]

*Yawn*

Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.

What are you proposing to replace it?

And it needs to be replaced because....?

 

[Liability]

245-189

And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?

That's gonna make the People happy, huh?

Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.

If determined enough, Reid's intransigence can become a daily object of conservative and Republican disapprobation.

Attach the bill as an Amendment to EVERY bit of legislation that comes up to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

Keep doing it.

Time after time after time.

Keep Reid and his disgusting behavior the FOCUS.

Yes yes. Even if the Senate did get to vote on it, the measure would likely get defeated in the Senate. And even if it did somehow squeak through, the President would veto it and there is clearly no prospect of overriding that veto.

That's fine.

No reason not to do it anyway.

Make an issue of it every day between now and Election Day 2012.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Helping the American people - bad.

Might be to you. But people who actually do want to help Americans are very glad that they voted to repeal the single most destructive bill to pass in the past 40 years.

But then, I guess I understand why you don't like that. You care more about controlling peoples lives then helping them. Otherwise, you'd be opposed to this piece of crap legislation too.

What's so destructive about "ObamaCare"?

What does it "destroy"?

 

[Publius1787]

245-189

And Reid is saying he won't even allow it onto the Senate floor?

That's gonna make the People happy, huh?

Regardless of Reid or the Senate, kiss the mandate, and almost all of Obamacare goodbye.

The repeal passed with far more represenatives than origionally voted for it and this time its bipartisan. Of course, not fully bipartisan but much more than the origional vote with no Republican support.

 

[rdean]

*Yawn*

Fine, fine...repeal Obamacare.

What are you proposing to replace it?

How many times to you have to be told?

How about a "FIRST" time?

 

[Liability]

The logical case against Obamacare Don Surber

 

[Liability]

In order to effectively cure our ailing healthcare system, it is critical that its specific ailment is accurately diagnosed. In reality, the American health insurance is not sold on a free market, and the places it deviates from a free market are the sources of the problems it sees today. Examples of this deviation abound. One is the third-party-payer system used by 85% of insured Americans. Ones employer providing ones health insurance makes no more sense than providing ones house, car, or any other expensive and individualized purchase. Another hindrance to the free market in healthcare is government intervention. Government actions like Medicare, Medicaid, a ban on out-of-state insurance purchases, HIPPA, SCHIP, COBRA, and supply-restrictive licensure laws are largely responsible for rising health insurance costs. These are the real problems in the health insurance industry, yet those pushing through the healthcare bills give the industry give a false diagnosis; they instead blame the industries ills on corporate greed and “profiteering”. Not only does their legislation ignore the true causes of soaring insurance prices, it exacerbates them. Instead of removing middle-man interference with market dynamics, the plans expand this senseless system by forcing employers to provide insurance for their employees under penalty of fine or tax. And instead of removing government meddling with the industry, the legislation creates over 1900 pages of new mandates, regulations, fees, and bureaucracy. Any prescription written to cure a system ailing from government intervention with more government intervention is surely doomed to failure.


Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of this bill is its blatant encroachments on individual liberties. The bill forces insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions at no extra charge, the equivalent of selling life insurance to a dead man, insuring a car that has already crashed, or insuring a home that has already burned down. Why should any company in any field be forced by the government to do something sure to lose it money? In order to pay for this costly policy, the legislation forces nearly all Americans to buy/obtain health insurance whether they want it or not, a law called the “individual mandate.” Fees or even jail time await those who fail to comply. Obama’s argued in September that those who fail to obtain insurance practice “irresponsible behavior” which “costs all the rest of us money” because “it means we pay for these people’s expensive emergency room visits.” What the president calls “irresponsible behavior” might also be called “choice”, and when he says such emergency room visits are “expensive”, he means is that they account for less than 3% of our healthcare budget. The true motivation behind the individual mandate is making the young and healthy subsidize the old and sick. The bills also dictate that all insurance plans meet the government’s specific qualifications. Consumers may not pay for merely what they want insured, they must instead fill whatever insurance parameters the government deems appropriate. This removes the incentive to check ones healthcare consumption, as it’s already paid for. If people are covered for more products and services than they are now, they will naturally use more products and services than they do now, and this increased usage will force up the costs of care. All of these measures have been tried before in several states, where they have repeatedly increased costs. The present legislation will merely repeat this failure on a grander scale.

Such mandates eradicate any semblance of free market principles the current system has left. The sale of any product is based on the premise that both consumer and producer agree to the transaction. If the producer is forced to sell, and the consumer is forced to buy, the principles of choice and market freedom through which so many industries have flourished cannot exist. Under no circumstances should the government have any power to force any citizen to purchase any product at any time. As Forbes columnist Shikha Dalmia writes, the proposed legislation “will tell patients when, what and how much coverage they must buy; it will tell sellers when, what and how much coverage they must sell.” If that isn’t a government takeover of healthcare, what is? And it’s a costly takeover at that. The most uncertain issue of the healthcare debate has been the budget hit of the proposed changes. Estimates of total cost run anywhere from $800 billion to over $2 trillion. For a nation already $12 trillion debt, with a soaring national deficit, such a price tag is an irresponsible expenditure even if the bills were effective. The bill is partially funded through diverting $475 billion of so-called “inefficiencies” from Medicare; a half trillion dollars of inefficiencies in a prior government healthcare reform hardly argues for further government intervention! Current projections are vastly underestimated; the healthcare plans are tremendously costly endeavors America simply cannot afford.

The legislation aims to a) open access to health insurance to the 45 million uninsured Americans, and b) lower soaring healthcare costs. But it is economically impossible that both of these things take place without rationing. Healthcare products and services do not grow on trees; they are of a set, limited quantity and require much human research and funds to create. Only entrepreneur initiative can increase the set supply of healthcare in the country, not a government bill. In fact, government liscensure laws and the AMA keep this supply low. But by bringing in 31 million more insured Americans elligible to receive these things, the demand for this set supply skyrockets! Simple economics tells us that when there is greater demand for the same set supply of products, the price of those products inevitably increases.

The proposed healthcare legislation fails to reform the health insurance industry by misdiagnosing the causes of the healthcare crisis, finalizing an illogical third party system, further infringing on individual liberties, and unfairly expanding government powers at an unacceptable cost. For these reasons Congress must vote against the proposed healthcare bills and instead pass a reform bill that will more fairly, cheaply, and effectively fix the industry. Ronald Reagan once accurately stated that “the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it.” Here’s hoping the American congressmen will do the same.

The Case Against Obamacare | Newsflavor

Normally, this ^ lengthy piece would be subject to some editing for length and due to the rule requiring that whole articles not be quoted. But the piece quoted here IS already an excerpted version.

It's pretty good, too.

 

[rdean]

The logical case against Obamacare Don Surber

6. The 111 agencies will be staffed with Maoists appointed by President Obama. Abortion will be covered. So will sex-change operations for teenagers. They do this in England.

Ha ha ha Ahhhh ha ha ha.

 

[Cuyo]

Sweet. Now what?

Now it goes to the Senate, gets referred to committee, and you never hear of it again.