Making good on the promise: House GOP to Vote on Obamacare Repeal Within Weeks

[Talismen]

Guy Benson over at Townhall has written a piece regarding the House-led GOP's intentions to bring a vote to repeal 'obamacare' within weeks.

Hopefully this will be just before obama's SOTU address. Why? It will make for some excellent 'fireworks', and many of us who have refused to watch even one of the man's SOTU speeches, may actually tune in

As Guy quotes:

(snips)

Soon after the 112th Congress convenes Wednesday, Republicans in the House plan to make good on a campaign promise that helped vault many new members to victory: voting to repeal President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The vote, which Republican leaders pledged would occur before the president’s State of the Union address later this month, is intended both to appeal to the Tea Party-influenced factions of the House Republican base and to emphasize the muscle of the new party in power. But it could also produce an unintended consequence: a chance for Democrats once again to try their case in support of the health care overhaul before the American public.

Read the whole thing, with access to embedded source links, at the link above....


How many dems will 'jump ship' in the vote?
Any predictions?

Stay tuned....

 

[Zander]

A good first step. I will not be happy until we repeal it. The last thing we need is another entitlement program.

 

[Old Rocks]

Guess you will die unhappy.

 

[jgarden]

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States are often made by government, public health and public policy analysts. The two countries had similar health care systems before Canada reformed its system in the 1960s and 1970s.

The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%. In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States.

Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private) though these statistics don't take in to account population differences.

The repeal of "Obamacare" is a clear admission by the conservatives that they consider healthcare to be the same as any other private commodity - effectively abandoning those elements of society who can't afford access.

The "irony" is that its the political representatives of the "red" states (South, Midwest) which have the lowest average life expectancies, the greatest medical needs and the most to grain from a "public" system, that are its most vociferous critics!

 

[Talismen]

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States are often made by government, public health and public policy analysts. The two countries had similar health care systems before Canada reformed its system in the 1960s and 1970s.

The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%. In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States.

Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private) though these statistics don't take in to account population differences.

The repeal of "Obamacare" is a clear admission by the conservatives that they consider healthcare to be the same as any other private commodity - effectively abandoning those elements of society who can't afford access.

I don't know where you hail from, but in my neck o' the woods, ER's cannot turn down treatment due to inability to pay. Those who cannot afford healthcare go there already.

And since I may be a few weeks away from losing my job (basically due to automation), I'll be in the same boat as "those who cannot afford" health-care.

But, I've already looked into it, and there are plenty of programs out there for folks who cannot pay, or don't have means to pay.

The problem comes in when people who abuse the system, and simply refuse to pay, burden everyone else.

 

[jgarden]

1. Every system (taxation, investments, justice, etc) is going to attract some level of abuse - but does it make sense to penalize "the many" because "the few" might recerve something they don't deserve?

2. As in the "justice system," it is better to error on the side of letting the "guilty" go free ("reasonable doubt"), rather than convict an innocent person. Following the same principle, it is better to provide healthcare to all, rather than withhold medical care in the fear that they might be scamming" the system.

3. Using the Canadian model where public healthcare is provided for all citizens through general tax revenues, (irrespective of one's economic status) the prospects of "scamming" the government are substantially reduced particularly since there is only 1 healthcare administrator - the province!

In Canada, an average of $917 was spent annually by individuals or private insurance companies for health care, including dental, eye care, and drugs. In the U.S., this sum is $3,372. In 2006, health care consumed 15.3% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 10% of GDP was spent on health care. This difference is a relatively recent development. In 1971 the nations were much closer, with Canada spending 7.1% of GDP on health while the U.S. spent 7.6%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

4. Needless to say, the private insurance companies in American have a vested interest in ensuring that regardless of its merits, an affordable public healthcare is not allowed to erode into their share of the 15.3% GDP ($3 372(US) per capita) that is being spent on their services (2006 figures).

With Canadians spending considerably less of their GDP on healthcare and with average private insurance premiums of only $917, their system routinely outperforms its American counterpart in terms of costs and outcomes. With that additional 5% GDP at its disposal, the US could finance a virtual "mountain range" of abuses and still have a system that is far superior to that which is currently in place!

 

[Talismen]

1. Every system (taxation, investments, justice, etc) is going to attract some level of abuse - but does it make sense to penalize "the many" because "the few" might recerve something they don't deserve?

Is it right to ask "the many" to pay for those who could just as easily pay for their own?

2. As in the "justice system," it is better to error on the side of letting the "guilty" go free ("reasonable doubt"), rather than convict an innocent person. Following the same principle, it is better to provide healthcare to all, rather than delay medical care because they might be scamming" the system.

Scamming has been going on for years, and govt providing the healthcare will not stop that. Govt can't get "cash for clunkers" right, let along root out all the wasteful spending and scamming that goes on within medicare/medicaid and other govt provided healthcare programs currently.

3. Using the Canadian model where public healthcare is provided for all citizens through general tax revenues, irrespective of their economic status, the prospects of "scamming" the government are substantially reduced since there is basically just 1 healthcare administrator - the province![/b]

And the quality of that care sucks rotten eggs.
Why?

I know someone who's friend was on a waiting list in canada, for a mammogram. She knew she had breast cancer but they needed to do another mammogram to get a good look.

She's dead now.

4. Needless to say, the private insurance companies in American have a vested interest in ensuring that regardless of its merits, an affordable public healthcare is not allowed to erode the 15.3% GDP ($3 372(US) per capita) that is being spent on their services (2006 fiures).

Of course they do.
Govt doesn't have to compete with anyone, and their costs are lower.

Mind you, I think many health insurance companies do their own share of "scamming", but, letting the free markets, and "customers" themselves determine which insurance company is the best, is the way to put the bad ones out of business.

 

[jgarden]

If "Talismen" is going to withhold his support of healthcare or any public system until its "scam-proof" it will never happen. As is the case with most arguments involving conservatives, one side provides examples with references - while the other side summarily dismisses them but invariably provides no documented evidence to support its claims!

The "scam" argument is just another in the long list of "roadblocks" that the GOP has set up to resist change and promote the vested interests of the private sector (HMO's, insurance cimpanies) that bankrolls them!

Whatever its deficiencies, the Canadian health system doesn't have the luxury of excluding 1/6th of its poorest citizens because they're not insured.

..... a McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care; the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism

If private healthcare system actually promoted competition, why is the ratio of American "medical tourists" leaving the country for foreign healthcare, as compared to "medical tourists" entering the US approximately 10:1?

 

[Talismen]

If "Talismen" is going to withhold his support of healthcare or any public system until its "scam-proof" it will never happen.

Thank you...You just proved my point.

It's easier for government to just ignore the scamming, and instead just steal more money out of the pockets of those who earn it, in order to hide said scamming.

Actually fixing the problem isn't something government is capable of doing, so they just patch it with more money, or act like the need is really greater and it's not scamming that is increasing the cost.

It's all bullshit.


PS - I'm not a "his"...I'm a woman.
Hence the reason for the "Lady Templar" moniker right under my username, near my avvy.

 

[Sallow]

Breaking promises, wasting time and money, and passing legislation that will go nowhere.

Trifecta!

Good job!

 

[Talismen]

Breaking promises

By the time the budget is passed, 1/2 the year will be over.
Just sayin.

wasting time and money, and passing legislation that will go nowhere.

Making good on a promise. Plain and simple. Yes, some of it is theater. But...It will also give some of the dems who will be up for reelection in 2012, to vote against.
And after what they just witnessed in the House in 2010, they might want to think twice.

 

[asaratis]

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States are often made by government, public health and public policy analysts. The two countries had similar health care systems before Canada reformed its system in the 1960s and 1970s.

The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%. In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States.

Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private) though these statistics don't take in to account population differences.

The repeal of "Obamacare" is a clear admission by the conservatives that they consider healthcare to be the same as any other private commodity - effectively abandoning those elements of society who can't afford access.

The "irony" is that its the political representatives of the "red" states (South, Midwest) which have the lowest average life expectancies, the greatest medical needs and the most to grain from a "public" system, that are its most vociferous critics!

Everyone, including illegal aliens, has access to health care in the US. Obamacare is killing private sector jobs and creating more government jobs.

American Thinker Blog: Obamacare stops construction at 45 physician owned hospitals nationwide

...and we STILL don't know all that is in the bill.

 

[Bones]

56 million (and growing) Americans are without health insurance and I doubt that it is a choice on their part. Seriously, how can you shaft a population so detrimentally in terms of affordable coverage? For full insurance, I would need to pay 400 dollars a month and I, and many others, simply cannot afford that. Additionally, considering most full-time positions, that include such benefits, have hundreds of people applying for the same damned position, the possibility of the uninsured getting said insurance is next to zero.

So if I, or one of the 56 million other Americans, break a leg or get a cavity or need a visit to the emergency room, I'll have to pay 500-2000 dollars for such minor medical attention. The insurance scam is beyond sickening and the uninsured aren't the only ones suffering. A good chunk of the insured are also indebted for life and/or going bankrupt because of inordinately expensive medical costs.

The medical system is broken and I do not foresee any change soon.

 

[Revere]

Only about 12 million Americans who want to buy health insurance can't afford it.

 

[Revere]

Dude, you should produce something such that you have $400 a month for health insurance.

 

[Revere]

Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States are often made by government, public health and public policy analysts. The two countries had similar health care systems before Canada reformed its system in the 1960s and 1970s.

The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP. In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%. In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States.

Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private) though these statistics don't take in to account population differences.

The repeal of "Obamacare" is a clear admission by the conservatives that they consider healthcare to be the same as any other private commodity - effectively abandoning those elements of society who can't afford access.

The "irony" is that its the political representatives of the "red" states (South, Midwest) which have the lowest average life expectancies, the greatest medical needs and the most to grain from a "public" system, that are its most vociferous critics!

Everyone, including illegal aliens, has access to health care in the US. Obamacare is killing private sector jobs and creating more government jobs.

American Thinker Blog: Obamacare stops construction at 45 physician owned hospitals nationwide

...and we STILL don't know all that is in the bill.

It doesn't matter. Whatever bullshit agency rules are written have the same force as the law that was voted on.

 

[RDD_1210]

Only about 12 million Americans who want to buy health insurance can't afford it.

How many HAVE insurance and still go bankrupt due to medical bills?

 

[Revere]

Only about 12 million Americans who want to buy health insurance can't afford it.

How many HAVE insurance and still go bankrupt due to medical bills?

How many people went bankrupt over mortgages the government was going to bail them out of?

Since when has government stopped anyone from going bankrupt for any reason?

 

[MajinLink]

Only about 12 million Americans who want to buy health insurance can't afford it.

How many HAVE insurance and still go bankrupt due to medical bills?

How many people went bankrupt over mortgages the government was going to bail them out of?

Since when has government stopped anyone from going bankrupt for any reason?

are you retarded?

 

[Revere]

Does Obamacare guarantee you won't go bankrupt over medical bills?

I bet that dude who died before Medicaid paid for his transplant wishes he could have gone bankrupt paying for a transplant, rather than waiting for governmentn to pay it.