The house to take it up shortly...thank God.

What are Tahoe's arguments against the health care bill? I'm too lazy to go back and find them and they may not exist anyway with the board fiasco.

I'm not interested in the GOP arguments as I am well aware of those.

Myself I can see the argument against mandating coverage (if you don't have the public option I don't think it can be done). I think the bill is mostly good though.

I don't know where to start, but...

More Gov't in our lives.
Gov't forcing us to buy something.
Putting the cost of peeps who do not have HC on the backs of working peeps.
How the bill will add to the debt and raise taxes.

Just off the top.

Maybe Mxy can help in this because I'm a bit lost. How can a bill that passed two houses of Congress and has been signed by the President be repealed by one single house?

^ It can't.

It's not going to be repealed. The repeal vote is just theater for tea party dupes who will cheer a meaningless vote like it meant something.

^ lol @ Gee for still being derogatory toward the Tea Party after Nov's Election.

Also, to say its not going to repealed is awfully short sighted. I can't say it will be, but my guess is it will be in 2013.

Maybe Mxy can help in this because I'm a bit lost. How can a bill that passed two houses of Congress and has been signed by the President be repealed by one single house?

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or asking for real, so if you do have a problem with the title...maybe the Mods could add the word 'attempt'? The attempt to repeal WaiverCare?

^ lol @ Gee for still being derogatory toward the Tea Party after Nov's Election.

Also, to say its not going to repealed is awfully short sighted. I can't say it will be, but my guess is it will be in 2013.

Who said anything about 2013? I'm talking about the dog and pony show they're trying to put on right now. A vote that they and everyone else knows can't lead to repeal but they'll do it anyway just to entertain the TP'ers and the TP'ers will eat it up like catnip. Dupes.

Who knows, eventually they might even succeed... it wouldn't be the first time the republican party has convinced turkeys to vote for thanksgiving.

Who said anything about 2013? I'm talking about the dog and pony show they're trying to put on right now. A vote that they and everyone else knows can't lead to repeal but they'll do it anyway just to entertain the TP'ers and the TP'ers will eat it up like catnip. Dupes.

Who knows, eventually they might even succeed... it wouldn't be the first time the republican party has convinced turkeys to vote for thanksgiving.

I did.

And as far as 'can't lead to repeal' I'm not sure why you say that. Can you fill me in on what you are saying. Serious question.

The number of states that are fighting WaiverCare in the courts is now 26. Amazing. This will prolly go to the SC in 2012ish.

I did.

And as far as 'can't lead to repeal' I'm not sure why you say that. Can you fill me in on what you are saying. Serious question.

They don't have the votes to get it past both houses or overcome a veto even if they did. It's pure theater so they can tick off a box for the dupes to say "See, I tried"

But, as I understand it, a vote in congress gets it started. If Prince Harry doesn't allow it to come up in the Senate, the repeal will sit until the next election. Then the Senate could take it up then. But I do think it would have a chance to get through the Senate if Harry lets it go to the floor for a vote.

I think its a great election 2012 item to go to the peeps with though.

Also, congress will not fund it, along with taking it to the courts. We'll see...

EFWdiS55_j8&feature

It's saber rattling, nothing more or less.

It's a way to do something without doing anything.

That's a core competency of most Congresses.

It puts peeps on record for the next election. Its a really good move.

Especially the way it was shoved down peeps throats. It should be repealed for that reason alone.

245-189 to REPEAL WAIVERCARE!

I googled "waivercare" and this thread was in the first page of results. Tahoe is trending.

^ lol... I honestly came up with that gem on my own.

A Dem refers to Repubs as Nazi's cuz of a disagreement on HC reform...I'm sure that falls in the 'thats ok' category for Obama.

Especially the way it was shoved down peeps throats. It should be repealed for that reason alone.
Some things don't make sense unless you force them to.

Having said that, we live in a representative democracy, and the reps were not shoved down peeps throats.

The way a whole lot of politics happens involves shoving things down peeps throats. If you're objecting to the process, by all means, suggest a better way to fix it. Keep in mind that we live in a society where a quarter of the population believes in astrology. We live in a society where 40% of folks feel the earth was created <10000 years ago. We have monied interested who always strive to game the system. "Pretty please may I" ain't gonna cut it. Reasonable arguments don't work with unreasonable people.

I've heard that many studies have shown that repealing it would cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are tax breaks in the bill for small businesses that allow them to hire more people based on health care costing the business less. The pre-existing stuff is good and so is allowing kids to be on their parent's insurance until 26.

As I mentioned I'm not sure they can mandate coverage. The only other argument I see against it is the impact on immediate debt.

I think the GOP should stop wasting their time on this and look at shoring up defense spending. That is where all our money is being wasted. No other country spends the % we do on defense. They could easily eliminate our debt by cutting that.

Some things don't make sense unless you force them to.

Having said that, we live in a representative democracy, and the reps were not shoved down peeps throats.

The way a whole lot of politics happens involves shoving things down peeps throats. If you're objecting to the process, by all means, suggest a better way to fix it. Keep in mind that we live in a society where a quarter of the population believes in astrology. We live in a society where 40% of folks feel the earth was created <10000 years ago. We have monied interested who always strive to game the system. "Pretty please may I" ain't gonna cut it. Reasonable arguments don't work with unreasonable people.

Let the other side take part in the discussion.

Instead BO and Botox Nanci said... "We won"

So go for it. Now hopefully the bill that was shoved down peeps throats will get shoved up the peeps asses who did that.

It was ridiculous. And for peeps to act like it was a normal process is crazy. 2200 pages? 2300 pages? I forgot. But the Repubs were kept out of the deal.

It will be a long process to repeal and is still a 40/60 chance at repeal, but its still worth trying. When you have peeps like Harry Reid, who won't even let the bill come to the floor of the Senate, you end up blocking the will of the peeps. Whether it goes down or not, he should let the bill come up for a vote. Thats the kind of stuff that will spur another election like we just had.

I've heard that many studies have shown that repealing it would cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are tax breaks in the bill for small businesses that allow them to hire more people based on health care costing the business less. The pre-existing stuff is good and so is allowing kids to be on their parent's insurance until 26.

As I mentioned I'm not sure they can mandate coverage. The only other argument I see against it is the impact on immediate debt.

I think the GOP should stop wasting their time on this and look at shoring up defense spending. That is where all our money is being wasted. No other country spends the % we do on defense. They could easily eliminate our debt by cutting that.

Studies, studies, studies. Its like the CBO numbers that Mxy posted that said ObamaCare wouldn't add to the debt. We found out later that the crooked Dems really did an injustice to the American peeps by feeding the CBO a crock of doo for numbers. They should be investigated, imo. They kept money out, they did the 10 years collection of dough for 6 years of service and some services don't even start to drain the pool of money till year 11. It really is a travesty what the Dems did. And we saw the result in Novembers election.

As far as defense spending, I agree. We need to cut spending. I think part of it is to pull out of NATO a lil bit. Let Europe defend itself. Plus there's other places that I'm sure they could cut in defense.

But I am a conservative that believes a strong defense should be the number 1 priority with our tax dollars. I know you don't agree with that, but it could be cut, just make sure we're still strong.

I'm good with defense being the biggest chunk of spending (the #1 function of a government should be to create a safe environment for it's citizens).

But, do we really need that extra stealth bomber? What about a sub that costs billions? The cold war has been over for a while, what are we doing with these subs? And don't get me started on the overspending on private contractors that goes on. Soldiers get shitty overpriced equipment and we foot the bill. It's a huge undertaking I am sure, but one that needs to be done. The problem is the GOP platform is built on strong defense and until they tackle it, it simply won't be done. If the Dems tackle that you know the GOP would campaign on the Dems opening us to terrorism.

I'm good with defense being the biggest chunk of spending (the #1 function of a government should be to create a safe environment for it's citizens).

But, do we really need that extra stealth bomber? What about a sub that costs billions? The cold war has been over for a while, what are we doing with these subs? And don't get me started on the overspending on private contractors that goes on. Soldiers get shitty overpriced equipment and we foot the bill. It's a huge undertaking I am sure, but one that needs to be done. The problem is the GOP platform is built on strong defense and until they tackle it, it simply won't be done. If the Dems tackle that you know the GOP would campaign on the Dems opening us to terrorism.

We will never know the answers to those questions as that is sensitive material.

I think China just added about 30 submarines to their fleet. They have increased their defense spending by over 400% this past year. At least thats what we think we know. Clearly they are spending on defense and that means offensive weapons too.

And Gates was just embarrassed in China as they tested their new Fighter.

Studies, studies, studies. Its like the CBO numbers that Mxy posted that said ObamaCare wouldn't add to the debt. We found out later that the crooked Dems really did an injustice to the American peeps by feeding the CBO a crock of doo for numbers. They should be investigated, imo. They kept money out, they did the 10 years collection of dough for 6 years of service and some services don't even start to drain the pool of money till year 11. It really is a travesty what the Dems did. And we saw the result in Novembers election.
The election results have a whole lot more to do with ~10% unemployment and general economic conditions than healthcare. FWIW, I'd argue the unemployment #s are more "cooked" than the healthcare savings #s ever were. The real things to do to save money with healthcare reform involve allowing the guv'mint to collectively bargain with the drug dealers and allowing folks to buy Medicare or other public option to keep the other insurers honest. That hasn't happened and you're getting shit like:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/01/blue-shield-of-california-defies-state-insurance-commissioner-on-rate-hikes.html

Unemployment numbers are jacked. They don't account for under-employed for one thing. You could have an engineer working at McDonald's because he can't find a good job and it won't count as unemployed.

The defense thing really could be a thread of its own. While defense spending is expensive and like all areas of government a careful accounting could find things to trim, it is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to the debt in two ways. First, it is dwarfed by health care and entitlements. They are the elephant in the room and a sub here or a missile there is the bowl of peanuts on the table. Second, it's not the maintenance of a solid defense and deterrent that is wrecking us right now, it is perpetual war. This shit has to stop. Yesterday, if not sooner.

The election results have a whole lot more to do with ~10% unemployment and general economic conditions than healthcare. FWIW, I'd argue the unemployment #s are more "cooked" than the healthcare savings #s ever were. The real things to do to save money with healthcare reform involve allowing the guv'mint to collectively bargain with the drug dealers and allowing folks to buy Medicare or other public option to keep the other insurers honest. That hasn't happened and you're getting shit like:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/01/blue-shield-of-california-defies-state-insurance-commissioner-on-rate-hikes.html

Not afaict it didn't. Some of the polls I saw, post election, had HC.

I didn't realize how big of an issue HC is to this country. I think its generally an issue for older peeps. But its sort of a "HANDS OFF" my HC that I didn't realize. I guess I should have remembered Hillary Care and the opposition to it. Peeps thought it was allergic reaction to Hillary, I'm not so sure it had much to do with Hillary anymore.

^ And, Obama gave the Repubs an issue to run on. I think it was HC that won the last election. I think Harry is going to try to hide the Dems in the Senate from having to go on record on what they feel about ObamaCare...at least the Senators that are up for election in 12.

I so wish he'd hold a vote and make Obama veto it. That would set things up nicely for 12 run at the WH too.

Just go on record for how you stand now. They're getting a second chance. If they still vote for it, fine. I do realize that some blue dogs were voted out for voting for it though too. I know we (opponents to OBCare) won't get all the Dems but I thing we'd only need 2 to vote no to repeal it.

I haven't seen any poll that suggested that HC was the biggest issue - not even close.

The one I remember had 70% thinking the economy was the biggest issue with jobs at #2.

Well I hope you and the rest of the Dems keep thinking that. :)

Its not just the uncertainty of taxes that stops small bizs from hiring, its not knowing HC costs.

It's neither of those things. They'll hire when there's demand for their products and services. The rest of that stuff is way off in the margins.

I haven't seen any poll that suggested that HC was the biggest issue - not even close.

The one I remember had 70% thinking the economy was the biggest issue with jobs at #2.

Exactly. I didn't see one pole that had HC higher than 3rd. Sure it is a big deal, but people care more about paying the rent then health care.

Just glossed over the awesome Repubs awesome proposals for a new aweseome HC bill and they are....awesome.

Confess. They were tl and you dr.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-doubts-health-care-law-hold-costs/

^


The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee.

^ if this were Bush HC y'all would be all over the 2 big lies by the Pres, buts that ok. I understand.

WAIVERCARE and of course, its loaded with Unions.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/unions-make-40-percent-employees-exempted-obamacare?utm_source=Tweed&utm_medium=twitter

Ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

OUCH!

Wasn't the mandate already unconstitutional by a judge? Is this a higher level judge or a different part of the bill?

In Virginia it was, but was also ruled Constitutional by another judge(or 2). This one has 26 states involved in the case.

SC, here we come.

AP report.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7406128.html

PENSACOLA, Fla. (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Pensacola,_Florida) — A federal judge (http://topics.chron.com/topics/United_States_federal_judge) ruled Monday that the Obama (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Barack_Obama) administration's health care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that sued to block it. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Roger_Vinson) accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.
The next stop is likely the U.S. Supreme Court (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States). Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance provision violates the Constitution.
In his ruling, Vinson went further than the Virginia judge and declared the entire health care law unconstitutional.
"This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling.
At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.
Attorneys for President Barack Obama's administration had argued that the health care system was part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.
But attorneys for the states said the administration was essentially coercing the states into participating in the overhaul by holding billions of Medicaid dollars hostage. The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.
Florida's (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Florida) former Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum (http://topics.chron.com/topics/Bill_McCollum) filed the lawsuit just minutes after Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business (http://topics.chron.com/topics/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business), also joined.
Other states that joined the suit are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

And the big part in this ruling is that the judge ruled that the mandate provision is NOT severable. I don't thats ever been ruled before. So the entire law has to go...Congress can't just sever that part and call the rest good.

I think the rulings have come down along party lines. A Repup appt Judge rules against it and a Dem appointed judge rules for it.

So it basically comes down to Kennedy.

Scalia has been a strong supporter of the commerce clause.

Kind of a tangent to the thread but an interesting approach to fighting costs in the trenches.

Can we lower medical costs by giving the neediest patients better care? (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all)

So he took what he learned from police reform and tried a Compstat approach to the city’s health-care performance—a Healthstat, so to speak. He made block-by-block maps of the city, color-coded by the hospital costs of its residents, and looked for the hot spots.

If he could find the people whose use of medical care was highest, he figured, he could do something to help them. If he helped them, he would also be lowering their health-care costs. And, if the stats approach to crime was right, targeting those with the highest health-care costs would help lower the entire city’s health-care costs. His calculations revealed that just one per cent of the hundred thousand people who made use of Camden’s medical facilities accounted for thirty per cent of its costs.

Scalia has been a strong supporter of the commerce clause.

But if a citizen decides not to participate, then Congress can't force them to buy something or be fined.

Congress can't compell someone to take part in commerce or buy insurance.

At least thats the way I'm reading it.

You can choose not to act, and they will tax you. Congress has the right to tax.

You can choose not to act, and they will tax you. Congress has the right to tax.

But the Obama admin, in speech after speech said it wasn't a tax. And, more importantly, in their court arguments they say it isn't a tax.

That last part is wrong, apparently in the Florida arguments they argued it was a tax. It must have been the Virginia decision that says its not a tax.

Regardless of what it is called, it is clearly legal. This is just theater. I want to say SCOTUS goes 7-2 on this with Roberts on the majority, but I'm thinking he's still fresh enough to be political and let it fly 6-3.

Regardless of what it is called, it is clearly legal. This is just theater. I want to say SCOTUS goes 7-2 on this with Roberts on the majority, but I'm thinking he's still fresh enough to be political and let it fly 6-3.

lmao

Sounds like this one calls for laying down some alpacas in the supreme court betting pool.

I have no idea what the ruling will be but for anyone to say they know is laughable.

But if the Gov't mandate us to buy something, I hope the Repubs mandate everyone buy a gun. And everyone has to buy a bible. And everyone has to read it. The possibilities are endless once we let the Gov't mandate things like this. If allowed, this has bigger ramifications than HC alone.

^ if this were Bush HC y'all would be all over the 2 big lies by the Pres, buts that ok. I understand.

I didn't bother reading your link because it was from fox news and they have a pattern of lying. Give me another source and I'll read it.

That's fear mongering.

FYI: Switzerland issues every man 2 guns that they are required to house in the homes in case the Nazi's return and decide they don't buy "neutral" states anymore.

I didn't bother reading your link because it was from fox news and they have a pattern of lying. Give me another source and I'll read it.

lol

That's fear mongering.

FYI: Switzerland issues every man 2 guns that they are required to house in the homes in case the Nazi's return and decide they don't buy "neutral" states anymore.

Call it what you want, but where does Gov't mandates stop?

I have no idea what the ruling will be but for anyone to say they know is laughable.

But if the Gov't mandate us to buy something, I hope the Repubs mandate everyone buy a gun. And everyone has to buy a bible. And everyone has to read it. The possibilities are endless once we let the Gov't mandate things like this. If allowed, this has bigger ramifications than HC alone.

We are already mandated to buy car insurance by the government. Are you saying they should not require that?

Call it what you want, but where does Gov't mandates stop?

OK, fine. Don't mandate health coverage. What is your solution? Don't treat people without insurance? Just let them die in ER?

Frankly I am sick of paying with my taxes for a health care program (medicare) that is better than what most insured people have. Why should working citizens that pay for coverage get screwed by the insurance companies while medicare people can get better treatment?

Peeps who 'choose' to drive have to buy insurance.

And don't tell me for a second that medicare isn't better than most insurances. I have at least a dozen relatives and friends that are nurses, doctors and medical malpractice lawyers. They all say people can get treatment easily with medicare and everyone else has to fight tooth and nail for the same things from their insurance company.

Peeps who 'choose' to drive have to buy insurance.

What about people who choose to smoke and get lung cancer? Or choose to eat like shit and get fat? Some health issues are from choices. Shouldn't we force people not to burden us with these choices?

I'm ok with making health care insurance mandatory only for those who choose to use the health care system. Opt in at 18, or opt out. But you can't buy it in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

OT...I want this HC bill to repealed and replaced. I want reform. I also will give Barack credit for getting it started. I want his to be repealed but make no mistake it was him who at least did SOMETHING, even if it was all fucked up.

McConnell expected to attach 'repeal passed by the house to a bill coming to the floor today.

^Are you not addressing posts 65-67?

65 said not to tell you something, so I'm not going to and 67 is Fool saying something that I don't disagree with all that much.

Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, circa 1796

I wanna see how the originalists defend that.

OK, fine. Don't mandate health coverage. What is your solution? Don't treat people without insurance? Just let them die in ER?


This is the bottom line that health care opponents choose to ignore. We already have universal health coverage in the form of emergency room treatment. It's the most expensive way possible to provide health care and gives the worst outcomes.

Somehow republicans have done the math and concluded that ten pounds of cure is cheaper than one ounce of prevention. These are our deficit hawks? No wonder the country can't balance a checkbook.

Okay, that's ^ cogent.

This is the bottom line that health care opponents choose to ignore. We already have universal health coverage in the form of emergency room treatment. It's the most expensive way possible to provide health care and gives the worst outcomes.

Somehow republicans have done the math and concluded that ten pounds of cure is cheaper than one ounce of prevention. These are our deficit hawks? No wonder the country can't balance a checkbook.

Opposing ObamaCare is not opposing HC reform.

Amazing, criminal actually imo, that these unions fought for ObamaCare and now are 40% of the waivers.

Higher Health Care costs for everyone, cept Obama's cronies.

Senate vote to repeal ObamaCare fails on straight party line vote.

Now, hopefully, voters in the 23 Dem Senate seats that are up in 12, will repeal them.

Opposing ObamaCare is not opposing HC reform.

They don't have to be one in the same, but almost all of the GOP oppose both.

They don't have to be one in the same, but almost all of the GOP oppose both.

LMAO

What exactly is the GOP plan... cover the rich... fuck the poor?

LMAO

Why do you say that? If you got every single Republican Congressman to tell the truth about what they want, I would bet that almost every single one doesn't want health care reform of any kind. They want the system to stay exactly the way it was before Obama tinkered with it.

lol You obviously aren't following the debate. And you weren't following it last year either when the Repubs were shut out of the process of drafting the bill.

That "shut out" line will never be true no matter how hard you hit it.

It is absolutely true. As Nanci said, we have to pass it to see whats in it.

It's not, that's why it took so long to pass. Made all kinds of concessions out of the gate. I gave you a link to a documentary about it. You could be informed if you wanted to be.

I don't need a documentary I was following it.

I thought you were more aware than this, Fool. You watch some documentary and let that form your opinion.

This bill was literally writen behind closed doors...Dems closed doors.

When Repubs tried to talk to Nanci or Prince Harry, it was "We won".

It's not, that's why it took so long to pass. Made all kinds of concessions out of the gate. I gave you a link to a documentary about it. You could be informed if you wanted to be.


Seriously, are you just fuckin with me? Do you honestly believe what you are saying here?

Either that or you are in the twilight zone?

The writing of the bill took over a year. Your guys were busy screaming "Hell no!" on the House floor. You're stance is ridiculous.

The doc was to catch you up since you're clearly either uneducated on the issue or being myopic about it.

^ LMAO

You should just add that to your sig. It's the only thing you know how to come back with anymore.

I'll consider that.

LMAO

lol You obviously aren't following the debate. And you weren't following it last year either when the Repubs were shut out of the process of drafting the bill.

Tell me you are drunk right now. They were not shut out of the process. They were asked for their ideas and the Repubs had none. All they did was say no to everything (even their own ideas). The Dems were forced to move on. Even if the GOP did present some ideas, that doesn't mean they want to do anything at all. If my boss comes to me and says I have to take on a new project and wants me to decide which one to take...it doesn't mean I want to take one on just because I picked one. It means it was going to happen anyway so I might as well deal with it and give my input. The GOP input was "Hell no you can't".

If they really cared about overhauling the system, why have they never tackled it EVER? Clinton and Obama have been the ones that have tried. The Bush's and the GOP haven't cared one bit until it was forced down their throats and they had to weigh in.

Tell me you are drunk right now. They were not shut out of the process. They were asked for their ideas and the Repubs had none. All they did was say no to everything (even their own ideas). The Dems were forced to move on. Even if the GOP did present some ideas, that doesn't mean they want to do anything at all. If my boss comes to me and says I have to take on a new project and wants me to decide which one to take...it doesn't mean I want to take one on just because I picked one. It means it was going to happen anyway so I might as well deal with it and give my input. The GOP input was "Hell no you can't".

If they really cared about overhauling the system, why have they never tackled it EVER? Clinton and Obama have been the ones that have tried. The Bush's and the GOP haven't cared one bit until it was forced down their throats and they had to weigh in.


I stopped at the bolded part. And you say FoxNews lies? Puhlease!

Then what are the ideas? Myself and others have asked in here at least a half dozen times. I have yet to see an idea they had posted in here.

The idea was to stonewall this President at all costs. No victories for him. None.

All I've ever seen is buying coverage across state lines and ending lawsuits. That's it.

This is what their website says:

http://speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan _Updated_11-04-09.pdf

Notice a complete lack of description on how they actually achieve this without adding to the debt as it claims.

The idea was to stonewall this President at all costs. No victories for him. None.

I know it feels like that, but it was more of stopping the Gov't from taking over hc, imo.

Then what are the ideas? Myself and others have asked in here at least a half dozen times. I have yet to see an idea they had posted in here.


You have the internet just like I do Chris. You have 2 of them though.

Yeah, and when i searched for it I got the BS I posted from their website. If you don't know what the ideas are why should I bother to attempt to find them?

I know it feels like that, but it was more of stopping the Gov't from taking over hc, imo.

Tell me again why a government take over of HC is bad? I know everyone in Europe is complaining about it...oh wait, they are not.

Tell me again why a government take over of HC is bad? I know everyone in Europe is complaining about it...oh wait, they are not.

C'mon man. Gotta go back to square one and rehash this shit. Cost, peeps like what they have now, Peeps don't Gov't to take over 1/6th of the economy, peeps want the decision of their future hc to be between them and their doctor not the gov't. Those are off the top. But if you google it, I'm sure you'll come up with some good stuff. Acutally check out Rush Limbaugh dot com. I bet he has something.

C'mon man. Gotta go back to square one and rehash this shit. Cost, peeps like what they have now, Peeps don't Gov't to take over 1/6th of the economy, peeps want the decision of their future hc to be between them and their doctor not the gov't. Those are off the top. But if you google it, I'm sure you'll come up with some good stuff. Acutally check out Rush Limbaugh dot com. I bet he has something.

That may be what they want, but that isn't reality of govt run systems.

The fact is that medicare patients have an easier time getting what they and the doctor want. Everyone with private insurance is at the mercy of the insurance companies. The system we have now gives the patient LESS control than a govt system would. Yes, a govt system would cost more overall. However, every survey I've seen from europeans say they'd much rather pay a little extra out of each paycheck than be screwed by insurance companies later. The better the care (their system), the healthier people are and the less drain they are on everyone else. Their standard of living is much better with a govt health care system.

And therein lies the debate Chris.

And all y'all talking about wasting time and theatre and this and that, the real waste of time is the Dems passing a bill NO MOTHER FUCKER READ!

And now its time to go and fix this piece of shit?

Talk about bass ackwards. Dems took the cake here.

Virginia asks the SC to expedite case. Obama's DOJ said they wouldn't join. So there ya go...Obama wants to waste time and money.

And therein lies the debate Chris.

It's really too bad that the GOP makes it something it is not. The debate is whether to sacrifice a little more from your paycheck in order to never have to worry about coverage. The GOP throws around shit like death panels, taking the choices out of the hands of the patients/doctors and all that other BS just to distract people. Really it boils down to cost to the individual. That is the only reason to oppose universal care.

It's really too bad that the GOP makes it something it is not. The debate is whether to sacrifice a little more from your paycheck in order to never have to worry about coverage. The GOP throws around shit like death panels, taking the choices out of the hands of the patients/doctors and all that other BS just to distract people. Really it boils down to cost to the individual. That is the only reason to oppose universal care.

I can't even agree here that you have framed the debate correctly.

you know democracy has evolved into nonsense when People don't agree with facts and even call their opinions facts all for the sake of feeling right. Where has humility and self esteem gone? Has it been washed away by the change in media over the past 20 years, the internet, or both?

^ Great post. Chris read that.

Barry says he'll talk to anyone about HC, the libs eat that shit up. A republican Congress peep asked, but he didn't come through. Which you never hear about cuz you get your 'news' from MSNBC.

Anyway, here's another challenge to WaiverCare or UnionCare or whatever you want to call it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104576122172835584158.html

^ Great post. Chris read that.

Uh, I don't know for sure who he meant (maybe just a statement in general), but the Fox News is the one calling opinions facts all the time. I don't recall stating my opinions as facts.

Some people seem to think that the alternative to lack of cost control by the government is cost control by the free market.

Unfortunately, there really isn't a free market when it comes to health insurance. They're not subject to anti-trust laws. In practice, a small number of insurers jack up prices willy-nilly because they can, because no one wants to fuck with their health. Call me when insurers actually start advertising against each other, going head-to-head.

If anything, the government needs to deal with insurers without having lobbyists tie both hands behind their back. As it stands now, anything the government tries to do to deal with the insurers will just get passed down to us as "your bad government at work" (whether it's true or not) and people are suckers for this shit.

Great point. Yeah, you never see United telling people that Blue Cross coverage sucks. It's not like cell phone providers or other consumer based services. Maybe they would if you had legit choices but most of us probably just buy into the plan our work has because other options are no good.

Some people seem to think that the alternative to lack of cost control by the government is cost control by the free market.

Unfortunately, there really isn't a free market when it comes to health insurance. They're not subject to anti-trust laws. In practice, a small number of insurers jack up prices willy-nilly because they can, because no one wants to fuck with their health. Call me when insurers actually start advertising against each other, going head-to-head.

If anything, the government needs to deal with insurers without having lobbyists tie both hands behind their back. As it stands now, anything the government tries to do to deal with the insurers will just get passed down to us as "your bad government at work" (whether it's true or not) and people are suckers for this shit.

Correct, cuz the Dems fight competition cross state lines.

But even if allowed, the Dems will attempt to REGULATE THE FUCK OUT OF THEM, to make sure free markets don't work.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/08/republicans-plan-choke-funding-health-care-law/

It's really too bad that the GOP makes it something it is not. The debate is whether to sacrifice a little more from your paycheck in order to never have to worry about coverage. The GOP throws around shit like death panels, taking the choices out of the hands of the patients/doctors and all that other BS just to distract people. Really it boils down to cost to the individual. That is the only reason to oppose universal care.

LOL...thought it wasn't going to cost more.

Obama's plan does not cost more. But his plan is also not universal coverage. If we used the European model it would cost everyone a little more, yes.

Correct, cuz the Dems fight competition cross state lines.
Most of the Republican proponents of allowing health insurers to cross state lines don't want the health insurer regulation to cross state lines. So, this is giving the insurers even more ability to divide and conquer.

What they need to do is repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which (at the moment) most Dems have been in favor of and most Reps have been against. That's the law that makes "state lines" relevant, by exempting insurance from federal antitrust laws.

Just open up the markets and I bet insurance goes down coupled with malpractice reform.

The complicated thing is that there's some types of insurance that had historically been geographical and arguably may still make sense to be tied to states. Think home/fire/flood insurance. Meanwhile, there's other types that ought to be national. What state you reside in has relatively little to do with your own health or what auto you drive on what roads, and people and cars can move between states more readily than houses.

As the insurance industries evolved, much of it stuck at a state level because those historical things to insure way back when were geographically tied. A lot of laws and practices evolved with this state-level focus. The McCarran-Ferguson Act was Congress reacting to mostly maintain that status quo even when SCOTUS said that insurance was, in fact, interstate commerce (a no-brainer even back in the 1940s).

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261297/hands-my-mental-activity-rich-lowry

This judge is a crack up.

Early but sounds like most of the legislation made it through in some form. They ruled the gov. couldn't mandate purchase of health care but could tax citizens who don't have it? Reading this off of live blog http://news.yahoo.com/the-supreme-court-s-obamacare-decision--live-coverage-from-scotusblog.html

They didn't like the government's argument, but found that the way the ACA was structured essentially corresponded to a tax which is ok.
It's a distinction without a lot of meaning, in practical terms. Basically, it's upheld. That's the headline for today.

I'm waiting for John Roberts to be lit on fire as a flaming liberal.

Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won.

Ahh, so they liked one of the government's arguments and that was enough.

In any event, there's no big impact to Obamacare.

Gotta love CNN's initial headline:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/5994/cnndeweydefeatstruman.jpg