- #1
- 753
- 2
So if the Republican party regain control of the house and senate, are they able to reverse the bill?
-
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Register for no ads!
No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed.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?
It's immoral because you do not have the right to medical care.
Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it.
What do you mean by that? Who would attack who?
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.
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.The proposed solution risks bankrupting the nation is the problem however.
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.
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]
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.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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The government already had heavy subsidies on things that go into junk foods. How is that any less controlling of your lifestyle?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?
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?
The government already had heavy subsidies on things that go into junk foods. How is that any less controlling of your lifestyle?
Well, considering that where I live, candy isn't even taxed, I'd be willing to put candy on the sales tax...
The question seems rather fuzzy.
Can the law technically be repealed? Of course - it takes a majority of both houses and the President's signature, or a supermajority of the President vetoes it.
Can the law be politically repealed? That's a question for fortunetellers, but it depends on how angry the populace stays in November, and/or November 2012. It's probably true that what looked like clever idea to make the bill appear to reduce the deficit - have ten years of revenues plus Medicare cuts cover six years of expenditures - doesn't look quite so good in this light, as the first four years have tax increases and Medicare cuts, but many of the benefits don't kick in until later.
Can the law be overturned some other way? There are two - one is that the law needs to survive a court challenge. I think it will, after Wickard v. Fillburn, but one can never tell. The other is that Congress can always refuse to fund it.
The most likely scenario for "repeal" in my view is that this law will be replaced with something smaller. That's something that requires less of a supermajority.
"Overall, how would you rate the job each of the following has done in the
efforts to address problems in the health care system over the past year, leading
up to yesterday's vote in the House -- as excellent, good, only fair or poor?
Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Unsure
% % % % %
"President Obama"
3/22/10 18 28 20 31 3
"Democrats"
3/22/10 7 25 30 33 5
"Republicans"
3/22/10 5 21 34 34 5"From what you know of that legislation, do you think the amount you pay for
medical care would increase, decrease, or remain the same if it becomes law?"
Increase Decrease Remain the Same Unsure
3/19-21/10 62 16 21 1
"From what you know of that legislation, do you think you and your family would,
in general, be better off, worse off or about the same if it becomes law?"
Better Off Worse Off About the Same
3/19-21/10 19 47 33
"From what you know of that legislation, do you think you and your family would, in
general, be better off, worse off or about the same if it becomes law?" If worse
off or about the same: "Do you think other families in this country would be
better off if that legislation becomes law, or do you think that legislation
would not help anyone in the country?"
Better Off Other Families Better Off Would Not Help Anyone Unsure
19 42 37 2
"From what you know of that legislation, do you think the federal budget deficit
will go up, go down, or stay the same if it becomes law?"
Go Up Go Down Stay the Same Unsure
3/19-21/10 70 12 17 1Claiming 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.
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.
Well you have a point there, but I was talking from a basic assumption in which they aren't subsidized.
Just because something isn't taxed doesn't mean you should then tax it IMO.