Ina LANDSLIDE, House repeals Obamacare

[Charles_Main]

It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare.

The logic is a bit lacking.

1. The GOP seems to have been rejuvenated by a faction within its ranks stressing old GOP standbys about the Tenth amendment, states' rights, even nullification in some instances.
2. The GOP disagrees with existing state laws.
3. The GOP did very well in state-level elections in 2010 and has complete control of the state governments of about 40% of the states with significant policymaking muscle in many others.

Put them together and you get the obvious answer:

4. Use federal law to overturn existing state law.

Frankly any incarnation of meaningful health care reform is going to bend the constitution a bit I am afraid.

I think by now most people have admitted that The way Obamacare was going about things, was not going to lower our costs.

That should be the only goal as it is the outrageous high prices that are the cause of our crisis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is the result of a strong split in the party, Greenbeard, that will become very evidence in Congress this year. The corporationists vs. the statists vs. near libertarian.

Get ready for a wild ride as the Dems add and pull votes necessary for any passage or rejection of bills.

 

[Cuyo]

We'll hear about it right after inauguration day in January 2013. Until then, the GOP House can starve the beast and the lawsuit challenges can proceed.

Not a bad situation for ObamaCare opponents in the least.

'Obamacare' opponents are waning in numbers, and that will continue as benefits roll out and lies continue to be debunked.

It will never be repealed in this manner. Changed, sure, as it should be. I'm all for making it better, hell, who isn't - But wholesale repeal without concurrent replacement will never happen, and your 'opponent' lawmakers are very aware of this.

Don't seek refuge in delusion.

well I look forward to that, now the death panel diatribe is problematic, I don't have an issue with it, really, BUT, they, the dems do, they have a dilemma;

people don't trust it, now that may be because they don't understand it (and I am not going to argue that here), or they just have a suspicion of gov. when it comes to this kind of thing, who knows, BUT the dems have done an atrocious job of explaining it, they put in, then pulled it before the vote, then tried to back door it, then pulled it again. With all of the media tools at their disposal there's something more here than just simply saying its fox and beck.......or palin.


Now maybe, just maybe Americans don't believe the "big lie", and thats a change let me tell you, the big lie being that this will not cost more than the 900 some odd billion they said it would AND most importantly and something I think the populace understands viscerally- there is NO way in the world you add a huge chunk of new consumers for access and product AND promise lower prices AND better care, it just aint happening and if thats not enough the closer is- the government will manage it for us and deliver according to those stipulations that THEY advertised.

That's an odd statement, because it doesn't provide the product "Free," rather requires the consumers who used to get their services ultimately for free to pay for it. It's an economy of scale, and adding young, healthy people who have previously opted to take their chances (until they land in the E.R. on paying consumers' doles) to the market should bend the cost curve down.
It's not that complex, really. When you broadcast risk over a larger pool of consumers, the cost per consumer is generally reduced.

 

[Intense]

Hopefully this is the first step in creating something that is closer to the original Idea of health care reform: making health care more affordable.

Do you think that has even crossed their minds. I would love to see a well thought out bill that even addresses Tort Reform, and I would live to see it debated openly. If Anyone from either Party again signs a Bill without even knowing what's in it, I would love to see their Resignation.

 

[Modbert]

well landslide is not quite the metaphor I would use, sorry but at the end of the day, the 245 is 3 above what the reps have in the chamber, so its still along party lines, plus 3 dems.

But the margin was bigger than the passing vote.

It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare. I think those ideas both hold merit.

The magical Tort reform will solve all of our problems! Is that the Holy Grail of why the GOP should repeal the Health Care Bill with absolutely nothing?

Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

Okay, how about the GOP plan from last year?

The GOP Solution To Health Coverage For Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

Their answer is to create government supported high-risk insurance pools, operated by the states and funded with federal financial assistance for those with pre-existing medical conditions.

The concept is not a new one. High-risk pools already exist in some 34 states, each reliant on federal government cash to keep the doors open. So far, the government contributions have not been anywhere near sufficient to make these programs operate with any degree of real success, leaving those who can get into the programs responsible to pay premium costs priced at 125-200 percent of standard premiums.

In the alternate health care legislation introduced last year by soon to be House Speaker John Boehner, $4 billion was budgeted for contributions to high-risk insurance pools once the program was fully phased in –despite the fact that Douglas Holz-Eakin, while serving as chief economic advisor to the McCain presidential effort, estimated it would take between $7 and $10 billion per year to cover all the medically uninsurable in high-risk pools when proposed by candidate McCain.

Still, Republican policymakers argue that moving people with pre-existing medical conditions from the private insurance pools to government operated high-risk programs will dramatically lower the premium costs for everyone because there will be less sick people spending the money of the healthy pool participants.

This would be a darn good result – if it were at all true.

There are no people with pre-existing medical conditions currently admitted into the private market insurance pools. If applicants with a pre-existing condition were able to buy health coverage and join these insurance pools, we would not be having this discussion!

 

[Greenbeard]

Get ready for a wild ride as the Dems add and pull votes necessary for any passage or rejection of bills.

I'm actually looking forward to the introduction of their alternative bills. I assume it'll be the same things they introduced last time around but now it might be awkward:

• They've spent the past few weeks and months gleefully pointing out that one of their favorite suggestions for covering the uninsurable, high-risk pools, are a woefully ineffective way of expanding coverage.
• They've spent months demonizing things as benign as state-run health insurance exchanges as terrifying new bureaucracies--what happens if Paul Ryan or Tom Coburn reintroduces his legislation creating exactly that?
• They've spent months harping on the idea that employers are going to suddenly start dropping coverage--will they introduce legislation eliminating tax-favored status for employer-sponsored coverage?
• They've harped on the waivers issued for the elimination of annual plan limits--will they retain the elimination of lifetime and annual limits that they offered in their alternative legislation last year?

And so on. Not that I expect any sense of shame or intellectual consistency but it'll still be fascinating to watch.

 

[Intense]

well landslide is not quite the metaphor I would use, sorry but at the end of the day, the 245 is 3 above what the reps have in the chamber, so its still along party lines, plus 3 dems.

But the margin was bigger than the passing vote.

It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare. I think those ideas both hold merit.

The magical Tort reform will solve all of our problems! Is that the Holy Grail of why the GOP should repeal the Health Care Bill with absolutely nothing?

Tort Reform Unlikely to Cut Health Care Costs | The Washington Independent

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

Okay, how about the GOP plan from last year?

The GOP Solution To Health Coverage For Pre-Existing Medical Conditions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

In the alternate health care legislation introduced last year by soon to be House Speaker John Boehner, $4 billion was budgeted for contributions to high-risk insurance pools once the program was fully phased in –despite the fact that Douglas Holz-Eakin, while serving as chief economic advisor to the McCain presidential effort, estimated it would take between $7 and $10 billion per year to cover all the medically uninsurable in high-risk pools when proposed by candidate McCain.

Still, Republican policymakers argue that moving people with pre-existing medical conditions from the private insurance pools to government operated high-risk programs will dramatically lower the premium costs for everyone because there will be less sick people spending the money of the healthy pool participants.

This would be a darn good result – if it were at all true.

There are no people with pre-existing medical conditions currently admitted into the private market insurance pools. If applicants with a pre-existing condition were able to buy health coverage and join these insurance pools, we would not be having this discussion!

Actually no, but it is a part of the equation. It is remarkable that the Lawyer Lobby kept it out of the current Bill. Money talks I guess.

 

[Trajan]

It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare.

The logic is a bit lacking.

1. The GOP seems to have been rejuvenated by a faction within its ranks stressing old GOP standbys about the Tenth amendment, states' rights, even nullification in some instances.
2. The GOP disagrees with existing state laws.
3. The GOP did very well in state-level elections in 2010 and has complete control of the state governments of about 40% of the states with significant policymaking muscle in many others.

Put them together and you get the obvious answer:

4. Use federal law to overturn existing state law.

whats good for the goose....I am willing to wager that a clear majority would sppt. this as opposed to say the mandate. The call for dropping state restrictions has been a platform that has been made known and whose efficacy has been discussed, its not coming out of no where.

Some ins. co's would probably fight this move, which in and of itself would be interesting, and I do appreciate your concern re; the apparent quandary vis a vis states rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well we know it won't pass the Senate but it is a start.
Obamacare Repeal Vote Tests Democrats? Strength

 

[Modbert]

I'm actually looking forward to the introduction of their alternative bills. I assume it'll be the same things they introduced last time around but now it might be awkward:

• They've spent the past few weeks and months gleefully pointing out that one of their favorite suggestions for covering the uninsurable, high-risk pools, are a woefully ineffective way of expanding coverage.
• They've spent months demonizing things as benign as state-run health insurance exchanges as terrifying new bureaucracies--what happens if Paul Ryan or Tom Coburn reintroduces his legislation creating exactly that?
• They've spent months harping on the idea that employers are going to suddenly start dropping coverage--will they introduce legislation eliminating tax-favored status for employer-sponsored coverage?
• They've harped on the waivers issued for the elimination of annual plan limits--will they retain the elimination of lifetime and annual limits that they offered in their alternative legislation last year?

And so on. Not that I expect any sense of shame or intellectual consistency but it'll still be fascinating to watch.

You have to examine the handy dandy notebook.

Federal Run "Death Panels" = Not Okay.

State Run "Death Panels" = GOP Congress approved!

Also, that third thing you mentioned:

More Small Businesses Offering Health Care To Employees Thanks To Obamacare - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes

United Health Group, Inc., the nation’s largest health insurer, added 75,000 new customers working in businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

Coventry Health Care, Inc., a large provider of health insurance to small businesses, added 115,000 new workers in 2010 representing an 8% jump.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City, the largest health insurer in the Kansas City, Mo. area, reports an astounding 58% increase in the number of small businesses purchasing coverage in their area since April, 2010-one month after the health care reform legislation became law.

“One of the biggest problems in the small-group market is affordability,” said Ron Rowe, who oversees small-group sales for the Kansas City operation for Blue Cross Blue Shied. “We looked at the tax credit and said, ‘this is perfect.”

Rowe went on to say that 38% of the businesses it is signing up had not offered health benefits before.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Doesn't matter what is proposed, Watch the left demonize it on the board here and the Dem senate will stop it. You remember the party of no? Watch and see.

 

[Modbert]

Actually no, but it is a part of the equation. It is remarkable that the Lawyer Lobby kept it out of the current Bill. Money talks I guess.

That does nothing to address the failure of the correct funding on the part of the GOP when it comes to the state run exchanges they want to correct (funded by federal dollars).

As for Tort Reform, I'm sure we'll see something like it in the near future. Tort Reform is something that goes far beyond just health costs however.

 

[Greenbeard]

The call for dropping state restrictions has been a platform that has been made known and whose efficacy has been discussed, its not coming out of no where.

And I look forward to seeing individual states try it. Let's keep a tally!

 

[xotoxi]

OH GREAT!!!

Now we are going to have all these old people still alive!

 

[Trajan]

well landslide is not quite the metaphor I would use, sorry but at the end of the day, the 245 is 3 above what the reps have in the chamber, so its still along party lines, plus 3 dems.

But the margin was bigger than the passing vote.

It appears that tomorrow and next week the reps will floor bills calling for tort reform and inter-state plan purchase, both of which were missing from Obamacare. I think those ideas both hold merit.

The magical Tort reform will solve all of our problems! Is that the Holy Grail of why the GOP should repeal the Health Care Bill with absolutely nothing?

I never said that, or that is I never injected the hyperbole you are inferring I did.

 

[Paulie]

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"?

How about FREEDOM?

 

[Modbert]

Doesn't matter what is proposed, Watch the left demonize it on the board here and the Dem senate will stop it. You remember the party of no? Watch and see.

Do tell us how underfunded government supported high-risk insurance pools, operated by the states are the solution.

 

[WillowTree]

Actually no, but it is a part of the equation. It is remarkable that the Lawyer Lobby kept it out of the current Bill. Money talks I guess.

That does nothing to address the failure of the correct funding on the part of the GOP when it comes to the state run exchanges they want to correct (funded of course by federal dollars).

As for Tort Reform, I'm sure we'll see something like it in the near future. Tort Reform is something that goes far beyond just health costs however.

Yes? And where pray tell do those "Federal Dollars" come from?

 

[Greenbeard]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmJTcyqiZ44]Freedom[/ame]

 

[Intense]

For the record, I don't think we need to be subsidizing sex enhancement drugs either. Buy your Viagra on your own dime. How about Sex change Procedures and the drugs and hormones that go with it? Who pays for that?