Repeal Healthcare?

[Nusc]

So if the Republican party regain control of the house and senate, are they able to reverse the bill?

 

[DavidSnider]

Theoretically, yes.

But rolling back the entitlements that were passed in this bill would be political suicide.

 

[Nusc]

It's funny how people attack those trying to help them.

 

[russ_watters]

What do you mean by that? Who would attack who?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama would never sign a repeal of the bill, so Congress would need the votes to override a veto. That requires a supermajority in both the House and the Senate - not possible. Beyond that, the Republicans would have to sell the idea of cancelling health coverage for sick children.

 

[lisab]

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

I know I linked to this in another thread, but it fit here too. http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Republicans will now huff, and puff, and blow smoke from their ears in order to pacify their base, but it is all show.

Lisab, I thought that blog from Frum was right on. This turned out to be the Republican's Waterloo, not Obama's.

 

[calculusrocks]

Stuart Varney asked Ron Paul this on Fox Business Channel. Ron Paul says bankruptcy will repeal the legislation.

context - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOQE8hsQpo&feature=related

 

[humanino]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOQE8hsQpo&feature=related

It's immoral because you do not have the right to medical care.

Sure. I only wish once this settled down and bankruptcy turns out not to happen, all those voices will find something more useful to do with their life than noise. Albert Camus once said

Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it.

 

[Nebula815]

It could be repealed I think, or parts overturned by the SCOTUS maybe. All we heard was how it would "never" be passed, how it would be political suicide for the Democrats to pass it, well they passed it. To say it can't be repealed, I'm not buying. To say it will be difficult to repeal, I agree.

But if there is one thing Obama has shown a few times, it is that conventional wisdom does not always apply.

 

[Pattonias]

The only way that this will ever be repealed is if it fails in action. Unfortunately the more likely action, should the government bankrupt itself, would be to raise taxes to compensate for the extra expense. I'm pretty sure we should just get used to the idea of having national health care.

 

[Brian_C]

It can and will be repealed if enough people turn against it. See Prohibition.

 

[Nusc]

What do you mean by that? Who would attack who?

The Repbulicans attacking Democrats!


Their so afraid of government, it's pretty sad.

 

[Evo]

The truth is, we need medical coverage for those that don't get it through their employer or can't afford it. In the situation we are in with high unemployment, the number of Americans suddenly left without insurance has skyrocketed. This isn't acceptable in a successful western society.

Is the proposed solution perfect? No. Do changes need to be made for it to become a reality? Yes. Do we need it? Absolutely.

 

[Nebula815]

The truth is, we need medical coverage for those that don't get it through their employer or can't afford it. In the situation we are in with high unemployment, the number of Americans suddenly left without insurance has skyrocketed. This isn't acceptable in a successful western society.

Is the proposed solution perfect? No. Do changes need to be made for it to become a reality? Yes. Do we need it? Absolutely.

The proposed solution risks bankrupting the nation is the problem however.

 

[Gokul43201]

The proposed solution risks bankrupting the nation is the problem however.

Do you have a reference for an estimate of the risk? The CBO has released estimates projecting decreases in the deficit over the next 10 years.

See cost estimates: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfmhttp://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm [Broken]

 

[calculusrocks]

It's immoral because you do not have the right to medical care.

That's right.

Sure. I only wish once this settled down and bankruptcy turns out not to happen, all those voices will find something more useful to do with their life than noise. Albert Camus once said Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it.

I'm convinced the philosophy you must be referring to is the philosophy of liberalism. What we've done over the last century is spend, spend, spend and take more and more liberties away. Now where are we?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVDEHvI9WH_Q [Broken]

It takes courage to admit you have a problem, an addiction. Politicians are addicted to showing their generosity by spending other people's money and its running this nation straight into the ground.

 

[Nebula815]

Do you have a reference for an estimate of the risk? The CBO has released estimates projecting decreases in the deficit over the next 10 years.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11378&type=1http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11378&type=1 [Broken]

The CBO is wrong. They have to use various assumptions in making their calculations. You could also look at the history of most all the government health entitlements. They never come out costing what they are projected to. The bill supposedly pays for itself by cutting Medicare, but it is also supposed to expand Medicare. Now anyone knows you can't expand Medicare with the same bill that is funded with cuts to Medicare.

When asked about this, President Obama couldn't answer and waffled on the issue completely. The Democrats know the bill will cost an astronomical amount, they will announce the need for new taxes to pay for it.

 

[turbo]

The truth is, we need medical coverage for those that don't get it through their employer or can't afford it. In the situation we are in with high unemployment, the number of Americans suddenly left without insurance has skyrocketed. This isn't acceptable in a successful western society.

Is the proposed solution perfect? No. Do changes need to be made for it to become a reality? Yes. Do we need it? Absolutely.

Can't agree more. My state is rural/forested with primarily seasonal and part-time jobs that don't offer any health-insurance, and income levels that don't allow workers to afford them. Without some fundamental reforms, more people would be left behind, denied preventative health care and denied treatment until their conditions got serious enough to to require ER visits, which we ALL pay for.

 

[Zefram]

The bill supposedly pays for itself by cutting Medicare, but it is also supposed to expand Medicare. Now anyone knows you can't expand Medicare with the same bill that is funded with cuts to Medicare.

You're confusing Medicare and Medicaid. They're different programs.

 

[Nebula815]

You're confusing Medicare and Medicaid. They're different programs.

Nope, I am aware they are different. The bill claims it will cut Medicare spending to pay for health reform and expand Medicare's future solvency. If you solely cut back $500 billion in Medicare expenditures that could make it more solvent, but if you then go and spend that same $500 billion for health reform, you cannot claim you made Medicare more solvent.

 

[Stanwyck66]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

Now that the fear mongering is over mostly, I predict popular support for this bill will swing substantially in favor of it.

 

[Nebula815]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

Now that the fear mongering is over mostly,

It isn't fearmongering. Fearmongering is when you make over-exaggerated claims of what the bad results will be if people do or do not do something.

Claiming that this bill will blow a hole in the deficit and debt isn't fearmongering, as the numbers don't add up and history is also a good indication.

Claiming that it gives government a lot more control over our lives is not fearmongering. In addition to the health insurance companies now being controlled by the government, you now literally will have the IRS being involved in a lot more of your life, and also this now gives the government the ability to justify regulations and taxes on all sorts of new things because "These things increase healthcare costs."

When "the government is paying for your healthcare," this happens. In New York State, they are trying to pass legislation to severely curb the amount of salt used in restaurant food. SALT! Something humans have been consuming for thousands of years.

The reasoning is that it will help curb healthcare costs.

I could imagine a tax on fast-food, a tax on soda, a tax on any kind of junk food, etc...regulations on this and that that we haven't thought of yet.

I predict popular support for this bill will swing substantially in favor of it.

Of course it will. And then when the nation is met with the staggering reality of just how much it costs, and thus has a crazy level of debt and deficit, and has to raise taxes, and then eventually start cutting benefits because there just isn't enough money, people will be screaming.

 

[Char. Limit]

I could imagine a tax on fast-food, a tax on soda, a tax on any kind of junk food, etc...regulations on this and that that we haven't thought of yet.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with taxing soda and junk food. If you can come up with a good argument on why we shouldn't tax those things... well, I want to see it.

Of course it will. And then when the nation is met with the staggering reality of just how much it costs, and thus has a crazy level of debt and deficit, and has to raise taxes, and then eventually start cutting benefits because there just isn't enough money, people will be screaming.

Too late, people (AKA conservatives) were doing that a year ago.

 

[Nebula815]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with taxing soda and junk food. If you can come up with a good argument on why we shouldn't tax those things... well, I want to see it.

So then you are okay with the government just being able to come and try to dictate and control your lifestyle?? Why not just ban them altogether then?