Deal or no deal? Repeal or no repeal?

[Zoom-boing]

Repeal it, rework it, keep the good, get rid of the bad and don't pass anything else without bipartisan support. And shoot Pelosi (ooo, did I say that last bit outloud?)

 

[Oddball]

Repeal it, rework it, keep the good, get rid of the bad and don't pass anything else without bipartisan support. And shoot Pelosi (ooo, did I say that last bit outloud?)

You can't polish a turd.

Better to throw out Rosemary's baby and keep the bath water.

 

[rightwinger]

The Bill is now law.

Does the GOP have the balls to tell 40 million Americans that they want to take away their healthcare? Do they want to throw people back into the uninsured?

They aren't taking anybody's health care away because the legislation doesn't kick in until 2013. You can't take away something from someone that they don't have. But even if they already were receiving it, they'd be telling them to be responsible for themselves and get their own insurance like the remaining 85% of Americans that managed to do so.

Perhaps you've been living in a bubble, but we have a $13 trillion dollar debt on our backs and creating a brand new entitlement welfare program when we can't pay our existing bills was nothing less than reckless and irresponsible.

Go for it GOP...Run in 2010 telling people you want to take away their healthcare

I agree. Considering the majority of the country wants it repealed, that's exactly what they should do.

Wrong and wrong

Health reform kicks in this year. Critical elements like allowing children up to 26 to be carried on their parents policies, inability to cancel or deny due to pre-existing conditions, subsidies to those who cannot afford coverage.

The majority of Americans DO NOT want it repealed

 

[daveman]

The Healthcare Bill is here. It won't be repealed now and it will not be repealed while a Democrat is President. So you are looking at at least two years before you can hope to repeal.

Fixed that for ya.

Altering Quotes is not allowed - Modbert. If you have a problem with this, feel free to PM a moderator.

Roger dodger. My apologies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Bill is now law.

Does the GOP have the balls to tell 40 million Americans that they want to take away their healthcare? Do they want to throw people back into the uninsured?

They aren't taking anybody's health care away because the legislation doesn't kick in until 2013. You can't take away something from someone that they don't have. But even if they already were receiving it, they'd be telling them to be responsible for themselves and get their own insurance like the remaining 85% of Americans that managed to do so.

Perhaps you've been living in a bubble, but we have a $13 trillion dollar debt on our backs and creating a brand new entitlement welfare program when we can't pay our existing bills was nothing less than reckless and irresponsible.

Go for it GOP...Run in 2010 telling people you want to take away their healthcare

I agree. Considering the majority of the country wants it repealed, that's exactly what they should do.

Check the history of the figures, consider the better propaganda machine of the Dems, the fear of the Republican Party by most Americans, and you might want to rethink your position.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Republicans will stay in the minority if they wage the campaign on this as the primary issue.

 

[Oddball]

They're already campaigning on getting rid of that turd, and kicking the hell out of the squishtard goobers who've been masquerading as republicans for the last few decades....And it's about time.

Still, I'm harboring no illusions that they, in any significant number, will ever come through in the end...So your progressive Fabian wet dream is most likely safe, Fake.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wrong and wrong

Health reform kicks in this year. Critical elements like allowing children up to 26 to be carried on their parents policies, inability to cancel or deny due to pre-existing conditions, subsidies to those who cannot afford coverage.

Yes, parts of the law are going into effect now, but the real meat and potatoes which will really fuck everything up is a couple of years away. I'm not particularly concerned about a 26 year old not being allowed to be on Mommy and Daddy's insurance. That's well past the age in which you need to become an adult. I was on my own at 18 for God's sake.

As more facts about what health care deform will do keep coming, more people are favoring repeal.

The majority of Americans DO NOT want it repealed

Unfortunately for you that's just not true.

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

 

[Greenbeard]

There is no taking away. the back up insurance isn't available yet.

None of the supposed benifits kick in until 2012. All we have now are the taxes

Of course that's not true. Applications for entry into the new high risk pools for the heretofore insurable will be available next week, just as the new web portal (HealthCare.gov) containing comparative information on health plans in every state is launching. At a minimum, this will ultimately have "information on the percentage of total premium revenue expended on nonclinical costs...eligibility, availability, premium rates, and cost sharing with respect to such coverage options."

Connecticut became the first state to permanently expand its Medicaid program in accordance with the new law last week.

Rebates to seniors who're hitting the donut hole in prescription drug coverage began going out earlier this month.

Private insurers have already agreed to end pre-existing condition exclusions for children.

Eligible small businesses can use the new Small Business Health Care Tax Credit (retroactive to January 1) to offer new or help pay for existing coverage for employees.

Dependent coverage will be extended for a great many recent college graduates, etc this year.

States are establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance or health insurance ombudsman programs to assist people with the filing of complaints and appeals or enrollment in a health plan.

The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program is getting on its feet this month.

It's true that the Medicaid expansions and the opening of health insurance exchanges isn't required to happen before 2014 (though as Connecticut demonstrates, states don't have to wait) but different parts of the law come online earlier than that.

As more facts about what health care deform will do keep coming, more people are favoring repeal.

What facts are you talking about?

 

[Polk]

Four years before a benefit is delivered. Meanwhile they will be taxing the crap outta us.. There is time for repeal. it should be a priority.

You guys realize that just because you say something, that doesn't magically make it true.

 

[Foxfyre]

Four years before a benefit is delivered. Meanwhile they will be taxing the crap outta us.. There is time for repeal. it should be a priority.

Is WillowTree and I the only ones here who think OweBamaCare is a pile of horsehocky? I say REPEAL. That gets my vote.

No, I've already said that I want it back on the front pages and fresh in the minds of the voters when they vote in November. So if the 218 sensible members of the house can force a vote and repeal it in the house, it probably won't be able to go any further than that, but it would send a LOUD signal of hope to a lot of frightened people.

But the few most appealing parts of the healthcare bill are of course those that are already in effect, or at least I'm afraid a lot of Americans will look at it that way. So I do think those pushing for repeal need to reassure us that repeal doesn't mean they forget about fixing stuff that really does need to be fixed, and spell out what they will deal with right away if they are put back into power.

They did that again and again of course from the get go but most of it was buried by the Obama friendly media or drowned in the noise here on message boards. So we just have to work harder to get the message out that you can deal constructively with issues without socializing a huge chunk of the American economy, imposing a lot of unconstitutional mandates, and dismantling the best healthcare system in the world.

 

[Charles_Main]

This is too funny...


You actually think they have the votes to repeal the Healthcare Bill?

You guys tried that one before and got your heads handed to you. Better question.....are Republicans willing to run in 2010 on repealing healthcare?

Better think about that one

Unfortunately he is right, and Obama knows it. We all knew it when we said don't pass it. Despite the Polls I think when it comes right down to it the republicans wont have the balls to push for repeal.

 

[syrenn]

If they want to repeal it then repeal it. If they think it is so bad for the public why hold the repeal to try and fuck obama in 1012? If they truly feel the need to repeal and hold on doing it, the only people they are fucking is the public that they claim to be concerned about.

That a nasty little trick they are cooking. Who to fuck obama or the public?

 

[Greenbeard]

So we just have to work harder to get the message out that you can deal constructively with issues without socializing a huge chunk of the American economy, imposing a lot of unconstitutional mandates, and dismantling the best healthcare system in the world.

Oh good lord, tell me you don't actually think that's what this law does.

 

[daveman]

So we just have to work harder to get the message out that you can deal constructively with issues without socializing a huge chunk of the American economy, imposing a lot of unconstitutional mandates, and dismantling the best healthcare system in the world.

Oh good lord, tell me you don't actually think that's what this law does.

Can you show me the part of the Constitution that grants government the power to force people to buy something?

 

[Foxfyre]

So we just have to work harder to get the message out that you can deal constructively with issues without socializing a huge chunk of the American economy, imposing a lot of unconstitutional mandates, and dismantling the best healthcare system in the world.

Oh good lord, tell me you don't actually think that's what this law does.

As is, not entirely no. But I sure as hell think it lays the groundwork to do all of that. And I'm betting that deep down you know that the long range game plan is just that. As each component fails to accomplish what it is supposed to do, which they know will be the case, and fails to reduce costs in any way, or affects access in adverse ways, that will be the government's license to implement 'fixes', each one that will move us closer to the total government controlled single payer system that Obama wanted all along. And once they get even close to that, most of the private sector health care network will already be dismantled and it will be almost impossible to return to a private system.

Let's back up to campaign mode again to June 29, 2008. The sound is poor but listen carefully:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE[/ame]

 

[Care4all]

I'd say no, especially since you KNOW that it can not be repealed in the senate and will not be repealed and ONLY want to do this to stir up as much trouble as possible before this november's election...as you SAID.

Care

 

[Greenbeard]

Can you show me the part of the Constitution that grants government the power to force people to buy something?

The Constitutional basis has been walked through in numerous places. Here's an older one from Georgetown (The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance) and here's a shorter brief out this week from the Urban Institute (Are State Challenges to the Legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Likely to Succeed?). The short answer being that justifications tend to go in one (or more) of three directions: 1) the interstate commerce clause authority to regulate health insurance (as expressly indicated by the Court in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association), 2) Congress's general power to levy a tax, or 3) a necessary-and-proper clause justification, since the individual mandate only exists to make the guaranteed issue rules functional.

But of the "socializing a huge chunk of the American economy, imposing a lot of unconstitutional mandates, and dismantling the best healthcare system in the world" trifecta of wild claims, this is the least interesting since even it were struck down as unconstitutional, the individual mandate could easily be restructured to get exactly the same effect in an undeniably constitutional way.

As is, not entirely no. But I sure as hell think it lays the groundwork to do all of that. And I'm betting that deep down you know that the long range game plan is just that.

Don't you think the fact that your criticisms aren't aimed at this law but at some future imaginary bill you're fabricating betray a certain weakness in your position?

As each component fails to accomplish what it is supposed to do, which they know will be the case, and fails to reduce costs in any way, or affects access in adverse ways, that will be the government's license to implement 'fixes', each one that will move us closer to the total government controlled single payer system that Obama wanted all along.

In 1993, Senate Republicans (including then-minority leader Bob Dole) put out a piece of legislation intended to counter President Clinton's health care proposal. Five cosponsors of that bill still sit in the Senate today, though a few are on their way out: Kit Bond, Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and Chuck Grassley. This bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, was substantially similar to the law passed this year. Here's a quick outline of its primary components:

• Universal access to health insurance coverage, in part through premium assistance to low-income individuals who don't quality for Medicaid (ultimately up to 240% of the federal poverty line)
• A mandate on employers to provide health insurance plans to employees
• Requirements for qualified heath plans to meet standards of
  • guaranteed eligibility, availability, and renewability of health insurance coverage
  • nondiscrimination based on health status (i.e. eliminating pre-existing conditions)
  • benefits offered
  • insurer financial solvency
  • enrollment process
  • premium rating limitations (allowing variation in premiums based only on age and family)
  • risk adjustment
  • consumer protection
• The formation of individual and small employer purchasing groups
• Requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, establish standards for large employer plans similar to requirements applicable to small employer plans
• Formation of a Benefits Commission to develop a standard (minimum) benefits package that any qualified health benefits plan must offer
• Enumeration of state responsibilities in implementing state insurance market reforms
• An individual mandate requiring all citizens to be covered by a health plan
• Certain alterations to tax law, including an excise tax for excess contributions to medical care savings accounts
• Quality assurance programs, including the creation of a national health data system
• Medical liability reform, including a requirement that states adopt an alternative dispute resolution method for the resolution of health care malpractice claims
• Efforts to fight fraud and abuse in federal health programs
• Efforts to bolster the primary care workforce

Aside from the many delivery system reforms in the law passed this year (which is where the long-term cost control potential lies), this should sound very familiar. So I have to ask: were the Senate Republicans in 1993 trying to put us on a road to single-payer? And, if not, why is an extremely similar piece of legislation a single-payer Trojan horse when passed by Democrats?

And once they get even close to that, most of the private sector health care network will already be dismantled and it will be almost impossible to return to a private system.

So this law doesn't do that or anything remotely like it. I trust you'll make that clear when you're getting the message out.

Let's back up to campaign mode again to June 29, 2008. The sound is poor but listen carefully:

I don't know where you got that date but the video is from June 30, 2003. That's Obama speaking to organized labor five months after throwing his hat into the ring for the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. An underfunded upstart running to the left to gain traction in a crowded Democratic primary in a blue state is not particularly unusual.

Show me Obama putting single payer on the table during the 2008 campaign. Or go to 2009-10 and show him going to bat for a public insurance option and demanding its inclusion in any bill that makes it to his desk.

If history is any guide, there won't be any more major overhauls of the health care system for decades (smaller ones, sure, but nothing on the scale of what you're envisioning). Not only will Obama have nothing to do with whatever comes next, he may not even be alive when health care is next addressed on a large scale.

 

[daveman]

Can you show me the part of the Constitution that grants government the power to force people to buy something?

The Constitutional basis has been walked through in numerous places. Here's an older one from Georgetown (The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance) and here's a shorter brief out this week from the Urban Institute (Are State Challenges to the Legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Likely to Succeed?). The short answer being that justifications tend to go in one (or more) of three directions: 1) the interstate commerce clause authority to regulate health insurance (as expressly indicated by the Court in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association), 2) Congress's general power to levy a tax, or 3) a necessary-and-proper clause justification, since the individual mandate only exists to make the guaranteed issue rules functional.

But of the "socializing a huge chunk of the American economy, imposing a lot of unconstitutional mandates, and dismantling the best healthcare system in the world" trifecta of wild claims, this is the least interesting since even it were struck down as unconstitutional, the individual mandate could easily be restructured to get exactly the same effect in an undeniably constitutional way.

I don't know why you people even bother with the Constitution any more. None of you seem to give a damn about it.

 

[my2¢]

My vote: "Other"

I think the most good would come if it was declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court.