Its a law, not a bill anymore.

It needs to be repealed, and the House vote will certainly be to repeal it.

How it will fare in the Senate is another matter. I can certainly see Nelson,(Nebraska), Nelson, (Florida), and Manchin voting to repeal- so, if all Republicans vote to repeal, it will be 50-50, with Biden, I suppose, voting to stop repeal.

Nevertheless, it will give a clear indication to the electorate, (which does not buy the numbers being floated by the democrats), that republicans are serious about keeping their campaign promises.

Interesting numbers out from Reuters/ Ipsos, this morning. 71% do NOT want the debt ceiling raised. It has to be done, of course, but it must follow some very REAL actual budget cuts in order to be acceptable to the majority.

no joe, no bo, nj

Nevertheless, it will give a clear indication to the electorate, (which does not buy the numbers being floated by the democrats), that republicans are serious about keeping their campaign promises.

Interesting numbers out from Reuters/ Ipsos, this morning. 71% do NOT want the debt ceiling raised. It has to be done, of course, but it must follow some very REAL actual budget cuts in order to be acceptable to the majority.

If you're so bright why didn't you analyze the way the questions were asked. For instance, did the poll ask--do you oppose it because it does not go far enough?

Clearly, you are incapable of doing that because your inherent nature is to revel in negatives.

Look on the bright side sometimes. Words matter.

Well njnb the House is going to be wasting their time. They need to work with the Dems and the President if they want to make any changes or other wise they will just be spinning their wheels.

POLITICO: “As Republicans push forward on repealing health reform … a different conversation is happening among thousands of health care investors gathered in San Francisco for this week’s J.P Morgan Health Care Conference: how to capitalize on health reform’s new business opportunities. Investors say they’re increasingly optimistic on health insurers’ future for two crucial reasons: regulations released this year have been relatively industry-friendly, increasing stability, and the health reform’s new business opportunities are beginning to look more tangible.”

“There was initially a concern among investors that health reform would kill their business model. Now, that hasn’t happened.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=331A6E04-BA21-46B8-A94F-E2C3A568BD7A

The responsible action would be to work on fixing the things that both republicans and democrats think are problematic. I think if they went down this road, they would find there would be a decent amount of support.

As with all legislation, especially of this size, it will definately need adjustments.

Hopefully, the GOP will turn to fixing after they patronize the tea party with this vote.

No Jo: Yesterday I responded to your request for an apology (FT 1.24) I'm waiting for your response relative to lying about your Ph.D. Your choice is simple, Be honorable and fess up, or continue to be a fraud without credibility.

Whaaat? The health care industry is figuring it out that this might be to their advantage? Say it ain't so Dennis.

Recent HCR Repeal Polls

During November and December of 2010 there were several polls on HCR repeal. The pollsters were: FOX News, Kaiser, Quinnipiac, McClatchy and Pew. The breakdown was broken into 4 parts: Repeal/Repeal parts and Let Stand/Expand. The average of these 5 pollsters is:

Repeal all = 34%; Repeal parts = 23%;

Let Stand = 18%; Expand = 24%

Not much of a mandate for repeal.

You know, Ron, I pondered on the best way to respond to you. I had actually hoped that, after Obama's speech, it would not be necessary.

I see that nothing has changed.

So, here goes:

I have been telling you, and your little posse, that you are wasting your time playing your games with me. I have read the Rules for Radicals, know how they are used against your opponents, and will not play.

You see, I know that it requires two to have a game- and you, my friend, are stuck playing solitaire.

For the edification of those not familiar with the gist of this: Ron slandered a political organization by stating, categorically, that Loughner was a member. He then said he would apologize " if provided with proof he was not".

Upon being confronted with his Alinsky tactic of making his opponents prove a negative, he did, in fact, apologize- and then returned to the Rules for Radicals.

I have successfully defended my thesis once- I see no need to do so agin for your benefit.

Dennis,

I do believe when you look at the numbers, a definite 57% want parts or all of the HCL repealed. I do believe that is a larger mandate than the "Change" we had with our president--who won with only 53% of the vote.

Not that I disagree with all of the Law, but I am firmly against the government mandating that people purchase insurance.

Repeal all = 34%; Repeal parts = 23%;= 57%

Let Stand = 18%; Expand = 24%=42%

I guess 1% doesn't care. Must be the wealthy.

Not much of a mandate for repeal.

BigBear,

Yes but only 34% want it all repealed and that is what Congress is going to vote for.

There is not a mandate for full repeal. The 57% would reflect a desire to improve the law, not reject it.

So if they repeal the parts they don't like and leave the parts that are okay, they will repeal the mandate for purchase, which creates the funding pool from which benefits are paid. That will result in huge cost increases, because only the sick will buy insurance because now the insurance companies have to insure them, even if they are sick. Thus, the Republicans will be able to say "See? We knew it was a bad bill and it wasn't going to work and it would cost way too much! We were right." Whether they repeal part of it or all of it, they win.

Ron,

Regarding the begging of answers, how about this previously asked question

BTW - Speaking of no joe, she has been speaking a lot about the mental health issue regarding the Gifford shooting. I thought you were a mental health guy. Why is she talking about DSM-IV indicators and you are calling him a tea bagger. You have no clue or suspicion about an element of mental health being in question. I realize your not going to do a diagnosis over the blog, but really Ron.....disassociative thoughts, delusions, detached from reality, government brainwshing, withdrawing from all friends, the age of certain manifestations...... ever see any of this stuff before? Any of it arouse any professional interest, or bother you?

You use the term fraud a lot with no joe. You sure she's the fraud?

Repeal the health care law and replace it with what?

Spend how much repealing and spending how much more on what comes after?

None of this makes sense.

The Republicans quote polls and elections and opinion to support their call for repeal. How did this become law if not by majority vote? And please don't tell me it was forced down our throats...

I'm not sure what polls some people check out, but most polls have shown that over SIXTY to SEVENTY-ONE PERCENT never wanted Obamacare and want it repealed. those numbers are more solidified every day. Once the debates get going and

ALL of America has TRUE TRANSPARENCY and is ALLOWED to READ the BILL BEFORE IT IS PASSED, Americans will see through all the smoke and mirrors the Democrats hid behind "closed doors" last year!

So, at least MORE than TWO THIRDS of Americans are getting "some attention" from Congress.

The House Repeal of the Socialist Monster called Obamacare sends a very CLEAR message to ALL Senators, especially those "up for re-election on 2012?"

#1 Goal of ALL Politicians is? "Re-Election!"

It will be interesting to watch the Democrat Senators SQUIRM, whine and posture once the Repeal hits the Senate floor for debate... again, especially those up for re-election on 2012?

the Senate battle may very possibly lean toward repeal, since MANY Democrat Senators from RED states are PARANOID about Re-election... absolutely NO doubt about it!

If both Houses of Congress PASS Repeal, ALL Americans will watch Obamal PROVE he wants to govern against the will of most Americans when he "vetos" the bill...

leaving Obama "all alone" and in an even more difficult spot for his own Re-election efforts in 2012!

Of course... by mid-year "other Democrats including Hillary" will be positioning them selves to challenge Obama in the 2012 Democrat Presidential Primary?

America is in for an All Time Political Circus like they have never seen before.

Hillary-ous !

After the House REPEALS Obamacare... America is in for a classic political circus.

I would strongly urge the republicans and everyone else in this country to consider the medical costs of the people injured last Saturday. Further, I think the costs should be posted online so every American can see why we need health care reform. And, before you all start attacking me, please see the rebuttal regarding the "job killing" aspects of this bill that appeared in Forbes and the LA Times. It seems wonder of wonders, small businesses are embracing it and benefitting from the tax credits provided in the bill that allowed them to both hire new employees and offer health care.

".... I have read the Rules for Radicals..."

The F___ing, WHAT???

Get a life, will you?

But, really- if the GOP gave one rat's ass about health care, they would have instituted all their GREAT ideas under Bush, when they had the majorities to do so. Stop with all the smoke-screen lying, for God's sake. They don't care. It doesn't make them or their handlers money.

Keep the law, it saves money and insures more people.

Tweak it a little, and come up with something different for the mandate part.

The Health Care Reform Legislation needs to be refined, not repealed. Refinement is something that democrats are willing to work with republicans to accomplish. Repeal is simply not going to happen and will be a complete waste of effort. Republicans should make a better decision and work towards something that has a more reasonable chance at success.

Hold the phone there folks. The drafters of the healthcare bill apparently forgot to include a severability clause. Absent such a clause, if any portion of the bill is repealed the entire thing goes bye bye. Bye bye bill.

Spanky,

“if any portion of the bill is repealed the entire thing goes bye bye.”

A severability clause has nothing to do with repeal. It has everything to do with a court ruling.

I look at it like this- By voting to repeal the health care bill, it actually provides the House a good foundation to start the replace discussion. They will have laid the groundwork by saying we've voted to repeal, it's died in the Senate but since we have voted it out, we can now work on a replacement plan that might prompt action, either a vote or a revisit, on the Senate floor. I don't realistically see this boondoggle going away without something else to put in it's place but isn't it better to have an actual vote to work off of rather than waste time re-writing something no one has given the official boot? It has to start somewhere so I am all in favor of getting 536 people's voices on the record with whether they are for or against the existing bill. I expect I'll only get a review of 435 but you never can tell these days...

It's not about whether or not the GOP cares about healthcare....either way it isn't the government's job. Mandating purchase of it is overstepping the authority of government.

This bill is a monumental mistake and unaffordable to both the government and the average American.

Let's see how wonderful it's been so far for the small parts enacted:

-Guaranteed to Issue and no prexisting conditions on children's policies: sounds good on paper, but guess what happened....almost every insurance company has quit writing policies of any kind for children. Those that still do have doubled and tripled the rate.

-no lifetime maximum and free wellness: Great...add benefits. Now do you think Pelosi and Obama understood that adding benefits would add cost? Nope...not a chance. Didn't even consider it when figuring out the cost of the bill. So what happens....the insured americans are seeing 25% increases in premium this year before normal inflationary increases!

Oh I know....fear mongering. But I am in the industry and am seeing the renewals for February and March and know what is happening.

The next crisis is that employers are no longer going to be able to offer plans. McDonalds was going to cancel their entire benefit package before the government gave them the union exemption. That exemption will not be extended to the firms with less than 500 employees so good bye employer sponsored health insurance. Welcome to your new Obama Hope and Change world and paying your entire premium.

But hey, there are a million people that can't get insurance....let's screw the other 300 million on their behalf.

Uh Dennis, what are you talking about? Absent a severability clause the bill cannot be enacted in parts. The clause has everything to do with how the bill works, i.e. absent such a clause it literally will be all of it, or none of it.

Just about every contract I have ever seen includes such a provision. The fact that this bill does not does not speak well of the drafters. It really is a basic, if not boilerplate, provision.

Here are a couple more Senators who might vote to repeal:

Claire McCaskill, Missouri. She voted for the original bill, but has been furiously backpedaling ever since. She faces a tough re election bid, and shows no sign of being happy to be an ex Senator.

Jon Tester, Montana. Got elected because his predecessor had some unsavory information come out. I do not know how he voted on the original bill, but if he wants to keep his seat, he will vote to repeal.

Wild card- Herb Kohl, Wisconsin. This might look to be a safe vote to vote against repeal, but after watching his colleague go down in flames, he might just be giving this another think.

Only one of these need to join the three I mentioned above, and Obama has a real fix on his hands.

Spanky,

If that were true then why wouldn’t Congress just go after repealing a part of it so it would have a better chance of being passed in both chambers?

The fact is, if they repeal part of it, it becomes a revised law and the clause is not a factor.

Now if the court strikes part of it down the whole law collapses.

Spanky,

From HeartLand.org:

“Our research suggests the Virginia case against the individual mandate, if successful, will probably not result in the entire law being declared unconstitutional.”

http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/28312/Research_Commentary_Severability_and_Obamacare.html

My problem with the Republicans repealing health care, is they have NO plan to "replace" or at least I haven't seen or heard of it. If they would actually have a bill ready and let the American people decide which bill is better, maybe it wouldn't look like they just are for the lobbyist. Any bill that either side would come up with would have to be tweaked as soon as attorney's find away to get around something. It is called "that's life".

If they are serious with the having a health care bill at all, they would take this one a part and look at the good and the bad and debate on those parts of the bill.

Dennis, do you at all wonder why their research indicates that it "probably" won't result in failure of the entire law.

Just sayin' the bill has no severability clause. Legally, that has meaning. Again this is basic law. And again, it is boilerplate language that is included in all contracts and such. Now why do you suppose they failed to include such a basic thing? Let me put it to you like this: if you hired a lawyer to draft a contract and that lawyer failed to include such a basic provision, you would have an excellent claim against that lawyer's malpractice policy.

Absent a severability clause you can't enact just a part. It is just the way it is. Sorry bro. we'd all hope our legislators were at least minimally competent. In this case, they were not.

Spanky,

You are wrong unless you can provide a reference that states that if congress modifies a law (repeals part of it) that has no severability clause the entire law is null and void.

Please let me know, with facts, if/when you can prove me wrong – have a good night.

no jo, a simple majority gets you nowhere in the Senate. it takes 60 votes. if 60 then Obama vetoes it and you need 67 votes to override his veto. can you count to 67? good luck.

newtman -

The 60 votes is for CLOTURE. Cloture is not the same as the actual vote for or against the bill. Cloture is the vote to end the discussion and allow the bill to come up for a vote.

Actually, I think they would get a cloture vote - unless the democrats filibuster it - which again sends a message to the electorate. Even if reid doesn't allow it to come to the floor of the Senate for debate, it sends a message to the electorate.

To me, it seems like it's a catch-22 situation for the democrats. Especially when so many of them were NOT running on their accomplishments this time. It tells me that a good many of them regret voting for Obamacare.

Tinman it is the Law now not a Bill and it stands no chance in hades of getting anywhere out of the House. It is nothing but theatrics to salve the Teapublican base, that is all, Kabuki Theatre.

It is a total waste of time effort and could be better spent actualy addressing some of the serious issues facing the country. But hey it will make them feel like they are showing President Obama a new party is in control of the House, never mind they don't have the Votes in the Senate nor the power to over ride the Presidents Veto even if it were to get that far.

Spanky and Dennis -

I am almost sure the Reconciliation Act that passed included the severability clause

Here's an idea. You know it's good because it came from the left. Repeal it and then you can read it to see what is in it. And then good luck understanding it. So silly yet so sad. How can anyone in their right mind be for something that is 4 to 5 reams of paper thick and even if they did read it, could not possible understand the entire thing. lol

midwestguy -

The liberals in Congress don't understand the principle of KISS, or if they do choose to ignore it because by making it much more complex than it needed to be they were able to hide a great many unsavory details. And as they say, the devil is in the details.

(Dream:)

First, repeal any medical/dental/optical/prescription coverage for the Congress, then take care of this. Oh! I just found some money for the working middle class!!! Why didn't I do this sooner?

I can only assume that is what was being discussed last night while drinking cocktails.

And deciding which 'code word' will replace 'killing'!

My prediction is it will be 'destroying'...

or maybe they were lying about their golf handicap.

I think we all got the code word from MSNBS this morning...it's "The 2004 Voice"......lame!

BTW NJNB....I left this site over a month ago, because it does no good to talk FACTS to people that aren't listening....they are dyed-in-the-wool radicals....luckily, there are MANY, MANY more of us.....no worries. This "Obamacare" will be repealed or defunded (whichever works) because the MAJORITY of us will never stop putting pressure on our elected officials to do the PEOPLES work

I'm loving "The 2004 Voice." That's the one Obama was presumably using in 2006, when he voted against extending the debt ceiling.

I remember you, TA, and I remember your posts. The reason no one believed your 'facts' is because: 1) they were not real facts, 2) were always proven to be not true and 3) you never, or were never able to provide proof or sources for those 'facts'.

I really hate cliches but this one fits: TA, you are allowed to have your own opinion but you are not allowed to have your own facts.

Matthew..I think you must have me confused with someone else; anytime I posted, I backed it up....not with links or cut & pastes, but with real information you could look up on your own as I do not have time to do your research for you.

Since you "remember my posts" why don't you recite one for us? ....and then show us all where I didn't espouse truth or facts.

Anyone can click on your name and see all of your posts . . . or didn't you know that fact?

Thank you for proving my point, you never posted links nor did you ever give sources. You were constantly proven wrong and when confronted with this truth always came back with the same thing, "Look it up for yourself." (. . . wait a minute! Glenn? Is that you?) but that is not how debate works, if you make a statement, it is your responsibility to provide the supporting proof. Just saying, "Accept it as a fact because I say so." does not work and is not acceptable.

NJNB NJ I do have an honest question for you that I've never gotten a conservative to answer. If the Republicans are so strongly on the side of repealing this and passing what they believe to be "common sense" adjustments to the rules around insurance, then why didn't they pass ANYTHING related to Healthcare when they had the opportunity under Pres. Bush? I mean they had the votes to pass things like 'pre-existing conditions' rules and tax credits for businesses offering healthcare, and the removal of healthcare caps on lifetime benefits. Why didn't they pass them when they had the chance? To most of us it appears they simply don't care whether or not you can afford or get the health insurance that may eventually save your life.

BTW I'm a tax accountant at the largest accounting firm in the world. I can and have read and understood the numbers surrounding the healthcare debate and can state that although there is some fuzzy accounting around the "savings" deemed from reducing fraud, the overall affect of the bill is positive. If you simply look at the long-term growth potential/expecations of healthcare costs which are either going to be paid by the government or the individuals in America it is clear that the correct cost for a surgery cannot be what is being stated as the asking price. It simply makes for a unsustainable level of cost for what ends up being a mandatory requirement for life at this point...

Mathew,

Since anyone can click on his name and see his post. by all means. do it go to one of his posts and then please post it here for all to see, you claim he is lying. but provide no proof but your typing.

Basedrum,

If you can't afford healtcare before the bill, tell me how is the Govt going to force people that cant afford it to buy it. If they dont have to buy it but still get all the Benefits of it. Who is paying for it and how much more does it cost those that have it. to make sure those that can't afford it to have it?.

Basedrum, if you are an accountant at "the largest accounting firm in the world", you know that businesses already have a tax incentive to provide health insurance to their employees. It is tax deductible.

Here is a little secret I will let you in on: many politicians, of both parties, look at the tax revenue not flowing to the government as a result of the government's not taxing those benefits, and become incensed. They see no reason that people get a benefit worth thousands of dollars, and pay nothing to Uncle Sam on it. It does not seem fair to them that business gets a break for providing insurance, and the recipients owe the government nothing.

Although I vehemently disagreed with him, at least McCain was honest enough to say this in his campaign, albeit couched in different words.

I do not know how old you are, but I have lived long enough to learn that, when the government says it is going to provide you with some benefit most people already have- grab your wallet.

And so perfectly Machiavellian, since the mandated insurance requirement was a provision crafted by the health insurance industry and written and submitted by the US Chamber of Commerce.

I posted this once before and got no debate. I'm really interested in what the opposition is.

No rational person could have believed that the bill would continue and be implemented without reform. The Republicans couldn't support it and work on a bipartisan plan the first time around for political reasons. Handing the President, in his first term, such a huge legislative success would have killed them this past November. I don't like that, but it is reality.

For the Democrat's part, they had to know (especially those in tight races) that they were committing political suicide by passing this bill. That took political courage -- for all of you out there who don't believe politicians still work for what they think is best for the country instead of their own interests, look no further than the Democrats who voted for this knowing they would be defeated because of it. But at least now it is done and it can be reformed through bipartisanship until it is a little more palatable.

Ultimately, it took those Democrats falling on their political swords to ensure that you will never again lose coverage for getting sick and all the other points that we all can agree on. Without them it would still be the status quo. Now the Republicans can get serious about implementing reforms that will allow them to portray themselves as the saviors in the next (and subsequent) elections.

Knowing you are going to get voted out and handing your opponents political ammunition for years to come to do whats best for the country. Somehow I can't see Boehner ever actually being that patriotic.

Interesting talking point. Democrats as patriots, valiantly sacrificing their careers for the good of Americans too stupid to appreciate all the good done in their names.

Where it fails, however, is that Americans were concerned about the COSTS of healthcare- and this law does nothing but exacerbate those costs.

Kindly spare me the other talking points about it cutting costs- and repeal would actually cost more- as I, along with the majority of Americans, understand that a publicly held corporation submitting the kinds of numbers to an accounting firm that the democratic congress handed to the CBO for evaluation would be doing federal prison time for fraud.

In other words, the democrats made a big mistake counting on the idiocy of the electorate. They believed that they could push this through without the consent of the governed, and the charisma of the president would save their seats.

Did not quite work out that way.

Possibly the worst attempt at spin on this board. And this is where Fiesty and Bev live. BUt hey, it would have been a brilliant strategy: vote for something you know will cause you to 1. lose your seat, and 2. your party to lose its majority, only to ensure that the whole thing either gets repealed of de-funded.

Not even Pelosi is that stupid.

NJNB & Spanky...how do you do it? I was on here for about two or three months last year and I just knew I was beating my head against a radical brick wall. More power to you, but after today, I have got to go back to threads that have actual adults with brains on them.

I'm not smart enough to debate the costs accurately. I am an engineer by training not an accountant, but I know enough to know that the way something this large is valuated requires more than a debit and credit ledger and that is about my limit for finances.

I didn't say or insinuate that Americans were too stupid to appreciate the good done in their name. On the contrary, it seems to me that national healthcare accessibility has been an issue the American public has wanted action on since the Nixon administration (maybe a little longer or shorter -- not an historian either.) The point is, the Democrats had a bully pulpit and used it to deliver a law they had no reason to believe would ever be enacted in the form they passed. They knew it would get dissected and ultimately improved by bipartisan debate.

Why would you believe that people savvy enough to navigate the political waters all the way to congress would be so woefully uninformed about the "idiocy of the electorate"? That sort of blind spot would have stalled their political careers at the school board level. No, these are really good politicians (maybe not great humans) but the one thing they are excellent at is knowing which way the electorate wind blows.

It is much easier to believe and makes for a much better sound bite to believe they are completely out-of-touch with the populace but it makes more sense to believe they knew what they were doing. They were delivering on a 30+ year old issue. An actually important issue. One that includes the best interest of the entire population and there was no way it would have been done if they hadn't "rammed it down our throats." Of course they knew what they were doing. They also put off many of the really huge administrative pieces into the future with an eye toward future reform -- after there had been sufficient time to really study the intricacies of the different policies.

Some may have believed that the president would save their seats. More likely, they believed that if they didn't go along with it their base wouldn't support them, so their seat was lost anyway. Then when the elections rolled around, their base stayed home and the Right did a better job of campaigning to the independents.

Reading these last three comments, my response is: Why would anyone do that? What motivation could there possibly be for someone to vote for something they know is cr*p when they know it would cost them their seat and the majority? The only reason I can think of is if they truly thought it would help a lot of people. You may or may not agree with them, but I believe they really thought it would help.

I would like to point out to no jo, no bo, nj that if you are truely a Ph.D. of a field involving politics, obviously you do not understand where a good portion of the debt has come from. Yes, the war and the continuance of National Security play a part in the debt, but the big kicker is in the unemployment. Now ask yourself, where does unemployment come from? I am assuming since you supposedly have a Ph.D. that you are employed and I can also assume that you are in good health with reasonable insurance rates, copays, and coverage because you are strongly apposing the health care law. Layoffs and firings have caused much of the unemployment problem, and many people cannot be hired again because of a lack of available jobs as well as physical ailments which reduce the possibility of being able to complete tasks in a timely manner, thus costing companies more money. Now think about this no joe, if you were to give everyone in America the health coverage they deserve and need, where would the money that they didn't have to spend on coverage go? Back into the economy! Go figure right? I don't think anyone could have guess that one right? Also, consider this, we as Americans claim to care about our fellow man, enough to start a war over supposed weapons of mass destruction (started during George W. Bush's reign in case you didn't know) to prevent the loss of life, yet a large portion of Americans could give two @!$%#s about their neighbor, friend, or brother, and to hell with a total stranger.

I believe that everyone needs to seriously reevaluate what American means. Does it mean greedy? Has our devotion to our appetites finally betrayed us as a nation? Are we America; Home of the brave and free? Or are we America: Home of the me, mine, and what I want?

Think about it... Then argue your points with your Ph.D.

Think about it... Then argue your points with your Ph.D.

Good luck with THAT Josh! lmfao!

BTW: The new motto of the right is: I GOT MINE FU! I can't wait to see the bumper stickers! lol

I wasn't even attempting to spin. I don't believe that an entire party could be as blindly ignorant as you would have us believe. The DNC has way too much money invested in polling to not know how this would end. They aren't dumb. They knew they had the one chance they were likely ever going to get to get health care accessibility enacted into law and took it. Perhaps it wasn't political courage. Perhaps the leaders of the party sacrificed some incumbent law makers on this alter knowing that they would lose the super-majority at mid-term anyway.

Look at it from the other side. What self-serving need did they fulfill by ramming this through? How did it benefit them? Maybe they didn't know the backlash would be as harsh but they knew that it wasn't going to go well. They also knew that complete repeal would be incredibly difficult for the other side since they would be voting against the parts everyone agrees on. They knew that it could get starved, but likely not defunded. I just have a hard time believing that an entire political party (one that has operated within the democracy for a long long time) would decide the time is right to show their true colors and un-mask themselves as unabashed socialists. That just sounds dumb, but that is what I hear over and over again from the pundits on the right.

Kowrie1 great post. I think you have put it very well. You also lay out the reasons why the left and the right differ on this. Neither side are completely altruistic, but in this case I think the left decided for substance over show and the right did the opposite. That the right cannot grasp this only serves to verify your thoughts.

Heartlight3 I agree with you; the left thought that it would help.

Why would they do it? Because, cynically, they believed that, while passing it would cost them their seats in this cycle, it would eventually become a new entitlement program that would guarantee them votes in future elections.

How? Well, they could always use the "republicans want to take away your healthcare" as a campaign scare tactic.

Unfortunately for the democrats, their timing could not have been worse. The specter of what is happening in Europe has a resonance, even with those who do not have financial or economics backgrounds. They see that spending far more than you earn is a recipe for disaster- and the evidence of what is happening across the pond was there to prove their worst fears justified.

It did not help the democrats' cause when a Canadian minister sought heart surgery here in the U.S.

There are very simple, cost effective ways to fix the healthcare system. First, legislate away mandates. In Idaho, a young, healthy adult can buy a policy that provides catastrophic coverage for less than fifty dollars a month. In New Jersey, that same young, healthy adult will pay a little over two hundred dollars a month- because, by law, they cannot buy only catastrophic coverage.

Legislate that people have the ability to buy into their municipality's group coverage- they provide it through their property taxes, why should they be precluded from enjoying the benefits?

Give doctors a tax incentive to treat patients pro bono. Doctors know their per hour earnings- allow them to deduct from their taxes the rates they would have charged if they treat patients without charge.

Last, do tort reform. The costs of defensive medicine are astronomical, and must be addressed. While there are cases of true malpractice, there is also an entire industry in the legal profession aimed at leading people to believe that they, too, can hit the litigation lottery.

Simple, cost effective, market force ideas. Wonder why congress does not try any of them?

First of all, Josh, I consult.

Second, I pay for my own insurance.

Third, I do not have "good health"- in fact, I have kidney disease, which is why I consult.

Fourth, see my post above for simple, cost effective solutions to the problems.

NoJoe - I guess that's the difference between you and me. I like to assume the best motivations when people do something good, and you seem to assume the worst, most cynical motivation. What more can I say?

Cool -- actual ideas and not name calling. I believe there is some truth to what you say about entitlement programs allowing pandering for future votes. No doubt that will be part of every future campaign. I tend to agree with you about market forces evening out most of the issues. Tort reform is essential if only because the threat of malpractice suits and the cost of that insurance drives great doctors out of practice.

Allowing people to buy into municipal programs is a great idea. Allowing groups of small businesses to pool their employees and purchase larger group insurance would help as well. Pro bono healthcare might be a stretch, but legislating nationwide and allowing companies to compete across state lines should all be rolled into a comprehensive HCR law. There will always be those that need gov't supplied care but that number would be a lot smaller if the market was incentivized to make care available for lower income people.

It is these sorts of ideas that I believe will gain political support in the coming years, and none of those things would have had that bipartisan support if there wasn't a national law that required "tweaking" in the first place.

".....after today, I have got to go back to threads that have actual adults with brains on them."

Well, now, it's REALLY time to stand up and do what "Democrats do well", and APPLAUD!!!

Yaaaaa!

("Brains on them"? Geez- not 'brains IN them"? Really??

Did the November election not say the direction the Administration and the leadership of the 111th Congress was taking us was wrong? Was it a dream I had that 63 Republicans defeated Democratic opponents in the largest shift of power in the house in 100 years. If you can spin the 2010 election as keep moving forward with the current agenda we do have a serious mental health problem in this country. My votes reflected Repeal and Change this congress Now. Did the Independents not abandon the Democrats in droves? I bet many of them wish they had a do over on the 08 election.

Nope Marcos, no dream. The current agenda will necessarily change with the midterm wins for the Republicans. You voted for the winners.

There won't be repeal but there definitely will be change, and now that change will be politically expedient for both sides to take part. The healthcare law will remain in some form or fashion and with your votes and the direction from the overwhelming number of Americans that voted for the Republicans, I am wondering what that change will look like.

I also started this whole thing wondering what the Right thought about why the Democrats rammed this down our throats. What was the motivation? So far only NJNBNJ has engaged me from the other side with ideas of her own other than trying to say I am trying to spin something. I'm not. I presented how I saw this thing and why I thought the politicians did what they did. I was just asking for other ideas that went a little deeper than calling all Democrats socialists etc.

Kowrie, look at that- we have common ground. Both of us agree to common sense solutions to problems politicians find intractable.

I wonder if some of them read this board. Be nice if they did.

Speedy, at the top of the thread, poses an interesting scenario: if more than three Democrats up for re election in 2012 vote for repeal, it will put Obama in an interesting quandary. Does he vote it, proving that he does not hear the voice of the electorate, dooming his chance at re election, or sign it, thereby closing firmly the wallets of his supporters, also dooming his chance at re election?

No wonder the democrats on this board are so apoplectic at the specter of a repeal bill. . .

No dream, just conclusive refudiation that the altruistic motivations discussed here by some were not ascrided to by the majority. Bottom line the Democrats assumed they knew better, and what they were doing was "right." They were wrong, and they paid for it at the polls.

You don't need a Phd in economics to understand that 1. government is horrible at running anything. It not their money, and it shows in every aspect, and 2. you can not cover over 30+ million people for nothing. There will be a cost, it will be substantially more than they project, and it will have bad consequences for everyone with coverage.

I also tend to think, that even without resort to a degree in accounting (because this all ain't about economics as much as basic accounting, i.e. you should spend less than you take in) that people understand that the CBO figures are just wrong, or only as good as the information given. For instance, we are not (that)stupid, The doctor fix was scored wrong, and medicaid cuts were counted twice. Bottom line, the government cannot accurately budget anything. Too much politics involved.

I never called the Democrats Socialists today as I am taking the Presidents advice and trying to be more civil.

I do wonder however given the mandate, even with government subsidies many people will not have the money available to purchase insurance without sacrificing food, heat, electric, water, shelter and minimal clothing. With the cost of gas going up again even more of our discretionary income will go to a necessity.

The idea about buying into municipal coverage is outstanding, as well as some form of tort reform and being able to buy across state lines.

The behind the scenes process that brought us the Affordable Health Care Act, the arm twisting, backroom deals, the lack of Republican input, and worst of all "We must pass this bill to see what is in it." We deserve better than that from the Speaker. The process was tainted.

I also agree that the cost figures used are perfect world projections and we are already seeing that real world pressures are destroying the rose colored glasses through which these numbers were viewed by the people who proposed them. This will eventually be decided by the courts.

I am not sure that Idaho is a shining example to the rest of the country for health care...granted it has been many years since I lived there. However, the cost of living there was far less than many other places in the US and furthermore, unless one lived in the extreme southwest or southeast of the state ( where the only "large" cities are ) there were precious few medical facilities. And when I lived there people ( if they could even afford to go to a doctor ) tended to travel over the border into Oregon or Washington, or Utah for serious health needs. My point being, that every state has different goods / services / needs. This is why there sometimes has to be federal oversight or mandates. Otherwise, insurance providers would base compensation on the poorest states and their lobbyists would use the wealthier states as examples of what "works". IMO

No Jo, I think the president would veto a repeal if it made it through the Senate. It would make spectacular political theater though. I just can't imagine him allowing his signature piece of legislation to die while he was still in office. In that case I do believe it would be a case of "thinking he knows whats best for the country." I do not (as I've said on this thread enough already) believe that is what motivated the Dems entirely. They knew it would get reformed but believed it was necessary to have something.

I don't care if it is repealed eventually. I believe that a substitute set of legislation would have to be put in place for that to happen. If that substitute was better then great.

I believe the numbers were probably skewed to show an inflated cost savings. That sort of game with my tax money is reprehensible. I believe that the Republicans in congress will skew them the other way as well, but less. I also believe they will look for ways to reform this law that benefits private industry and seeks to reduce government administration. That basic set of ideals is why I have been a registered Republican for 20 years. The last few years have made me cringe to admit that more often than not, but now that they have a more equal seat at the table perhaps they will begin behaving as grown-ups again.

The Republicans were left out of the debate?

Was I hallucinating when I watched that whole meeting with the President, Democrats, and Republicans? It was actually televised.

Why is it so incredibly hard for people to understand that in order for this country to fairly compete in a global economy, we need to give people health care. $1500.00 dollars or more is added to an American brand car because of health care costs. We are the only industralized country in the world that has no heath care for all.

And why is it difficult for people who probably have insurance, to understand that those who don't worry constantly about getting sick.

The bill is helping. A dear friend of mine no longer has sleepless nights worrying whether or not her insurance will be dropped because of her cancer treatments. Seniors are saving money on drugs and preventive care.

Health care reform is a no brainer. It has been scored by the CBO to save money. I wish someone would just be honest and say, Obama is for it, so we're against it. That's what it comes to. There are people on both sides of the aisles that just don't want President Obama to get credit for anything.

We have serious problems in this country. So far the only adult I see is Barack Obama.

Chandler, if you were directing that at me, then I don't think you read this thread. I don't believe anyone is against making sure every citizen has access to healthcare. The comments from NoJo (who is about as crazy right as I've read on these boards) took issue with the fact that it is an entitlement program that didn't incorporate enough market force solutions to keep costs down. The others are against this due to the cost, and some did not like the political process that was used to pass it.

No one here was saying they want people to lose coverage for getting sick. No one here wants prices to continue to skyrocket due to uninsured costs getting rolled.

There are a tiny (vocal but tiny) minority that just want the president to fail, but the vast majority of all citizens regardless of party realize that if the president is a total failure the country suffers. This debate was unique in execution. The Republicans could band together in a fruitless and symbolic rejection of the legislation due to the Democratic super majority. Now that they control the House they can more fully participate in reforming the law. Ultimately that is what makes good government. Compromise leads us to the political middle, which is where most of America resides.

The vote for repeal, however, I believe is an arrogant, symbolic, useless gesture. I would hold my Republican law makers in much higher regard if they dispensed with that foolishness and got busy reforming the bill. No one really wants to go back to the system that existed before, but a majority of the country thinks that this law needs tweaked. Some want a public option, no purchase mandate, and others want a more critical look at the financing and changes made that will encourage (not mandate) people to purchase private insurance. This law is here to stay. Hopefully the grown-ups will come to the committee tables and work to make the application of the law more palatable to the American public.

I'd personally have a lot more faith if the bill was not written by the insurance industry.

Kate -

How can you possibly not see that Obamacare and jobs ARE related?

As costs for insurance go up, especially as companies are now going to be mandated to provide coverageor face fines, the actual fixed costs for a business increases. This means that a company has to increase volume or prices just to stay in business. With increased health insurance costs, a company cannot afford to hire employees except as absolutely necessary.

The two are separate concerns- we are concerned with the cost of the bill. We are concerned with the bill's effect on jobs. When the cost of doing business increases as it has for many companies in terms of their health insurance premiums, it decreases their ability to grow their workforce, hence the concern over job growth as tied to the insurance bill. Yes, a healthier workforce is an admirable goal to work toward, but unfortunately this bill didn't do much at all to address the cost of health care, it just provided the insurance companies with a larger pool of victims, err, I mean customers, and higher profits.

"but unfortunately this bill didn't do much at all to address the cost of health care, it just provided the insurance companies with a larger pool of victims" - Which is why the insurance lobbies need to be out of the replacement process, but will not be. They lobbied hard for the requirement for all to purchase insurance, but lobbied against the public option which mignt have held costs down.

So you were against the house passing a cap and trade bill in the last session?

Steeler Fan-380417

Great point, to change the name.

Job1---yes, I was against that. I want to see accomplishments, not political statements/symbolism by either side. I would like to see compromise and progress, not political theater.

Perhaps they want to waste as much time as possible on a hopeless cause in order to avoid having to deal with anything that really matters. After all, they were elected to a majority in the House by doing nothing and proposing nothing for two years, maybe they think that is the way to win the jackpot in 2012.

Mr. McConnell has already said his number one priority is to deny the President a second term. That should give us some indication of their intent.

...and the people who were told we'd get a public option, but didn't. And the people who were told costs wouldn't go up, while they have. And the people who didn't expect their insurance providers to suddenly drop their children's coverage and refuse to take new policies for minors. And people who were told they wouldn't be penalized for not having health insurance. And anyone who realizes being forced to buy into private companies was a ploy pulled by insurance lobbyists in the first place who didn't want to see their profit margins fall from sensible restrictions that would've constituted actual reform.

Don't paint this issue as though one half of the country believes the medical system is fine as-is. The numbers over the past two years pretty much indicate that a large majority from both the political left and right agree our system is as broke as a Moscovian tramp - but legislation ham-fisted through Congress isn't the answer and sure as hell isn't what we were promised, or at least led to believe was promised.

The party of nope you can always count on them to shield big business and blame the working class.

Ramboet, who is going to pay for all these people that magically were given health insurance with the stroke of a pen? There must be regulation in the insurance industry. There must be competition among doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. Competition is healthy for any business.

Big B - that is what the mandate and the insurance pools are for. When the public option was removed, that was all they could get in the way of cost control. It won't control costs or provide competition as well as the public option would have, but they couldn't get the public option through. Also keep in mind that the mandate and the insurance pool have not kicked in yet.

Heartlight -

Obamacare did not address the cost drivers for health care at all - like the shortage of doctors and health care providers, pharmaceuticals, defensive medicine...

as a result, all Obamacare does is drive insurance costs higher - faster - as per the actuaries who handle medicare.

And they will also know that it raises approximately 1T in taxes to achieve the 143B reduction. They will also find out that the 1T will be raised over 10 years and the spending of around 850B will occur in 5 years. In addition to this they may find that some of the assumptions used in these calculations are already being proved wrong such as the take up of insurance in the HIgh risk pool...less than assumptions, but the cost of the High Risk pool is already greater than the assumptions.

Perhaps then they will make up their minds that the projected 143B in savings (I notice you use the word will not may), are actually unrealistic and are unlikely to happen.

A doctor recommended I have a breast biopsy recently, to look more closely at spots that showed up on my mammogram. Thankfully, it turned out to be benign, and thankfully I have insurance, but I couldn't help thinking, would I have chosen to go into debt $3000.00 for this test if I hadn't been insured? How many women choose to forgo testing because they can't afford it, and then it turns out to have been malignant?

You focus on the ills of "raising taxes" but you don't acknowledge that dying young, or being saddled with large medical bills is a kind of tax on the uninsured. And you don't differentiate between raising taxes on gold plated insurance plans, which we want to discourage because they raise costs, and raising taxes in people's paychecks, which most people think you mean when you talk about taxes.

Can anyone answer - why did they live the doctor fix out of the bill?

Also, why did the Unions get a better deal? Why are some companies get waivers?

Amy, most of us with 'gold plated' insurance do not really want it- we are forced to carry it because our states mandate it.

Think I would carry fertility treatment or maternity care if I were not forced to by my state? Or educational treatment for my non existent autistic child? Or erectile dysfunction treatment? Well baby care? Birth control?

I do not need any of those coverages, but New Jersey mandates that I have them. That makes my insurance "Cadillac" coverage- subject to extra taxes.

Pretty grand, is it not?

What about purchasing insurance across state lines. What's wrong with that?

thetotas: Can anyone answer - why did they l[eave] the doctor fix out of the bill?

Because even the CBO couldn't fudge that number enough to make it look like ObamaCare saved money.

See where BCBS in California is looking to increase their premiums by 59%? So, just where is this cost containment that ObamaCare was supposed to provide?

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/07/news/companies/California_blue_shield_rate_hike/index.htm

This from the link provided above.

"The company, a member of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association with 3.3 million members, which announced the move late Thursday, stressed that its decision has "almost nothing to do with the federal health reform law" and that ultimately the law will help slow down health care costs.

But responding to this most recent increase the company said, "our individual market medical costs are rising rapidly due to higher provider prices, increased utilization, and the fact that healthier people are dropping coverage during a bad economy," the company said."

How is this caused by the Health Reform Law?

That law will not save $0.10 over the next 10 years. It has already caused rate to climb, it will result in more providers not accepting medicare, and either much higher taxes or a greater deficit. The figures submitted to the CBO from which it's projections are calculated were bogus.

Thanks for sharing June - certainly goes against some of the narrative above!

Dan Fonte now that is how you work with elected representatives to show your displeasure with their actions. No guns required. Now that's how the political process is suppose to work.

Thanks Dan.

Is it my imagination or did Rep Renacci do the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and say "la la la, I'm not listening to you"? In other words, "Town Hall" meetings are anything but a chance for MC's to say "Here is why I'm doing what I'm doing, and nothing you have to say will change my mind."

The same as the cost for the 300 odd bills the last house passed that died in the senate.

Lee,

I know just what you mean!

Sincerely yours,

Clair Voyant

I think Sarah needs to straighten him out. I mean, just LOOK at what he (Lee 2380617) had the gall to SAY! I mean, it HAS to be a dig against HER, doesn't it??

I work for a Health Insurance Company and we have hired at least 15 people in the past three months and have 23 vacancies presently that are actively being recruited for.

When the Republicans call HCR "job killing" legislation they are being disingenuous.

I own a small business. You are incorrect.

Where do you suppose all the money to pay for those neat new "benefits" come from?

You see Sheila your employer, just like our governmnet gets to pass all of its new cost through to us. You do realize that, right?

Spanky:

I understand tha aspects of the bill that will increase cost overall, but the reality is my employer will hire over 20 people within the next 30 -60 days. Those people will be gainfully employed and paying taxes.

If those people were not employed...

You get the picture?

Oh I got it Sheila - its the very same picture as the government. Notice how regardless of the amount of revenues it brings in it always gets bigger? Take any level of government, no matter what the revenue stream it can always hire more workers, because it can always (at least historically) get more money, through additional or increases in taxes. Your employer does the exact same thing by passing the additional cost of the next worker hired onto its insureds. See, unfortunately for most of us our revenue stream is tied to the amount our customers are willing to pay for our goods or services. Your employer gets the benefit of a market that is far from free. How many insurers are there in MD? We don't have too many choices here in CA.

The insured, like the taxpayer is not asked if it would be ok. They just get a big fat bill.

It's nice that your employer hired several people. I can tell you first hand that the cost of healthcare (and all the new taxes) are preventing me and millions of other employers from hiring. THe marginal cost of the next worker keeps increasing. The money for all those neat, shiny benefits come directly from the insureds.

So to directly anwser your question, yes, I get the picture. Do you? Have you ever had to budget for health care costs for your employees? Have you ever had to decide whether to classify them as an employee or independent contractor because while you can afford most of the costs, you cannot afford to provide health insurnace?

Shiela-

How many policies does a worker at your insurance company handle per worker?

Now, consider how many employed people with insurance there have to be to support those 20 to 30 people being hired by your insurance company.

Companies that cannot afford to hire more people will not be providing insurance for the people they are not hiring.

At some point the overhead costs become too high and the business goes under. this means that those people are not covered by insurance any longer. How many policies would your company have to lose before they start to lay off workers because they do not have enough revenue coming in?

Jed- Do know how "insurance" works? Usually a lot of people pay in to insure against financial loss that may or may not happen. Insurance pays out to the few people who incur that financial loss. That's what insurance is. More people pay in than ever collect.

Jed, if you're still breathing, you could become one of the folks who are going to need to use way more than you've paid in.

Jed, don't forget to thank all of the people who paid into supporting the military for your national defense. Or those who paid into government agencies who ensure you have clean water and safe food. Or into the public services that maintain your roads. Or into the pool that insures your car...

It's not YOU and THEM, it's all of us.

At the present cost of health care, everyone except a small fraction of exceptionally healthy and lucky people will use more than they pay in. PONZI. Unsustainable and hugely expensive. This plan was purely political and not well thought out. That is why our wonderful leaders exempted themselves.

Whaaa! I am so sick of people with nice warm homes in the suburbs and shiny new SUVs and big fat rearends sniveling about how someone less fortunate than themselves is somehow benefitting from being less fortunate. If being the working poor and not having access to goods and services that the destitute or the middle class or the rich have is so great, why don't you make less money and try it. I have worked all my life. I have never been able to get affordable health insurance. And do you know what? The few times I have gone to a doctor or a dentist I have been charged up to twice what an insured person was. When I asked why, the answer has always been the same: because the insurance companies force health providers to accept less than what they charge for their services, and drive up the cost of operations for those health care providers because they have to hire someone to process the claims which aren't paid for months, causing these doctors to have to take out short term loans to make their payroll and malpractice insurance. Those providers that accept Medi-Care, state assistance, etc. are compensated even less. So, if you are a working stiff like me you not only cannot afford the insurance that some others overuse thereby driving up the costs even further, but you have to pay more for your care. I recently survived a bout with cancer. It wiped me out financially, and then left me with a pre-existing condition so that I could not even get insurance. Stop blaming your fellow Americans for a failed health care system and economy. And take a cold hard look at the insurance industry instead.

Do you mean the health insurance industry that just hit the jackpot by being insured gov subsidies and our tax money for insuring everybody? That insurance industry? The can't lose now insurance industry? The too big to fail insurance industry? The buoyed up by tax payer money no matter what insurance industry? That black hole will swallow up any chance our children had for advancing past where we are.

You Betcha!

Torpedoed, Would a frog bump his ass if he had wings? Typical lib emotionalism. Trying to pander to irrational and absurd fears to get what you want.

Cold hearted or not, the math is the math and this is nothing but a doomed to fail big time ponzi. Everyone wants to go to heaven. Nobody wants to die. The human condition, trying to control the uncontrollable and trying not to control the controllable.

I wish you good health jed. Your words would be an awful meal if it is you what needs care you cannot afford.

America was made by individuals Uniting for the common cause.

I believe the USA was born by some INDIVIDUALS working together to keep their INDIVIDUAL rights. Mandate by government to buy something is the exact reason the revolution occured. Didn't ya know?

Torpedo, you really need to get back on that medication. Your post is the only one using insults and name calling unless you take exception to being called a lib. Call me a conservative if you must. When someone disagrees with your point, we have this darned ole constitution thingy that allows them to. In your case especially, you should be gratful for that. Grow up.

It appears that somebody was not listening to the president last night.

True. To his own demise.

I think Obama will win reelection in 2012...we'll have to just wait and see.