Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 234

Thread: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

  1. #201
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I guess it depends on what changes are being proposed. You have to remember there were two basic objectives behind the PPACA:

    1) to provide access to insurance coverage to as many people as possible;

    2) to provide various funding mechanism to pay for health insurance exchanges at both the state and federal levels.

    The goal, of course, is to increase access to health care while bringing down the cost. If such a bill continued to meet such objectives without forcing people to change their existing health care coverage, increase the cost or eliminate it all together all while being self-sustaining financially, I don't see why such a bill would fail to pass muster.
    Well, I was only referring to the proposal you made, no others. But I think I got my answer.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  2. #202
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Well, I was only referring to the proposal you made, no others. But I think I got my answer.
    Towit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Actually, the question of appropriations (funding) where the PPACA is concerned could easily be remedied if Congress acted accordingly, i.e., a) appropriate funds as outlined in the law itself or b) modify the law by removing the word "Sec, HHS is authorized to appropriate" or words to that effect from the law wherever it appears. Of course, they'll do neither because that 25% of congressional membership that has brought about this lawsuit (towit, House Republicans) doesn't want to do it. They'd rather continue to use political and procedural tactics to undermine existing law just to win political points rather than fully acknowledge that by working with their Democrat colleagues they could fix the law even if it means "repeal and replace" the PPACA with something that still provides health insurance but resolves the process issues within the law. Yes, I know there have been several attempts to repeal Obamacare, but there haven't been any serious proposals (bills) to replace it with anything substantial.
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    No disrespect, but based on the rationale you've outlined above, do you honestly think that the Democrats in the Senate would allow a vote and adopt a bill from the House that altered the ACA in the way you suggest and even if by some miracle they did, the President wouldn't veto it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I guess it depends on what changes are being proposed. You have to remember there were two basic objectives behind the PPACA:

    1) to provide access to insurance coverage to as many people as possible;

    2) to provide various funding mechanism to pay for health insurance exchanges at both the state and federal levels.

    The goal, of course, is to increase access to health care while bringing down the cost. If such a bill continued to meet such objectives without forcing people to change their existing health care coverage, increase the cost or eliminate it all together all while being self-sustaining financially, I don't see why such a bill would fail to pass muster.
    Notwithstanding my initial response above, I'll answer your more direct question this way: "No, the Democrats would not support repealing and replacing ObamaCare with a different health care reform bill as long as they believe doing so undermines the objectives and ultimate goal mentioned above.

    I believe the reason funding authorization was given to the Sec, HHS within the health care reform law was to ensure congressional (House) opposition could not defund aspects of the law. By giving sweeping authority and virtually a blank check to the Sec, HHS, it insured the even if Congress (GOP) tried to defund the law, the Sec, HHS could still use his/her authority under the law OR unexhausted funds already appropriated for other means to carry out those provisions of the law as he/she saw fit, i.e., Cost-Sharing Reductions to Beneficiaries as outlined in section 1402 of the PPACA towhich this lawsuit is really all about.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 11-28-14 at 06:56 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  3. #203
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Towit...







    Notwithstanding my initial response above, I'll answer your more direct question this way: "No, the Democrats would not support repealing and replacing ObamaCare with a different health care reform bill as long as they believe doing so undermines the objectives and ultimate goal mentioned above.
    Which is no answer at all.

    You claimed in your posts that all the Republicans had to do was "remove the words 'Sec, HHS is authorized to appropriate'". I simply asked if you actually believe the Democrats would agree to that "simple" change and if they did, would the President not veto it. It's a simple question.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #204
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Which is no answer at all.

    You claimed in your posts that all the Republicans had to do was "remove the words 'Sec, HHS is authorized to appropriate'". I simply asked if you actually believe the Democrats would agree to that "simple" change and if they did, would the President not veto it. It's a simple question.
    And I answered you. No, they would not, not if they believed that by doing so it undermined the objectives and ultimate goal of standing law. And considering that the GOP has already tried to defund the law on a number of occasions, it stands to reason they would never do so.

    Both situations - altering the law by removing Sec, HHS funding authorization and repeal and replace based on past GOP proposals - in the minds of congressional Democrats equate to the same thing. Both threaten to undermine existing objectives and the goal set forth in existing law. So, no, as things currently stand they wouldn't go for that.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 11-28-14 at 07:05 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #205
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    And I answered you. No, they would not, not if they believed that by doing so it undermined the objectives and ultimate goal of standing law. And considering that the GOP has already tried to defund the law on a number of occasions, it stands to reason they would never do so.

    Both situations - altering the law by removing Sec, HHS funding authorization and repeal and replace based on past GOP proposals - in the minds of congressional Democrats equate to the same thing. Both threaten to undermine existing objectives and the goal set forth in existing law. So, no, as things currently stand they wouldn't go for that.
    So your claim that things "could be easily remedied" by this change if Congress did it, but Republicans won't because they don't want to was a bit of a crock because you acknowledge that Democrats wouldn't let it happen. Pretty convenient to blame a flawed law enacted by Democrats alone and one that Democrats won't allow to be changed on the Republicans.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  6. #206
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    So your claim that things "could be easily remedied" by this change if Congress did it, but Republicans won't because they don't want to was a bit of a crock because you acknowledge that Democrats wouldn't let it happen. Pretty convenient to blame a flawed law enacted by Democrats alone and one that Democrats won't allow to be changed on the Republicans.
    All I'm saying is I understand what both sides want on this issue. In principle, Republicans don't like various part of ObamaCare, specifically, the taxation on individuals and businesses, the authoritarianism from the Executive Branch, the excessive spending and especially the expansion of and perceived access to government health care to immigrants. Ideologically, they don't want to give a Democrat President a victory at any level.

    Democrats support this law in large part because it insures a large number of people who weren't insured previously, provides what they believe to be greater insurance benefit coverage by stabilizing/standardizing essential benefits, provides for funding (in the future at least) through taxation making health care exchanges self-sustaining and forcing government to find ways to "make it all work" while retaining the hardline on maintaining funding measures in the immediate future.

    Could these problems be fixed if both sides at least tried to understand where the others sees problems with the law and really work to resolve them while also maintaining broad reach in access to health care, self-sustaining funding without federal funding (tax dollars/appropriations) and reducing the size or scope of government? Sure! But such will never happen as long as both sides remain so firmly entrenched.

    Personally, I've always believed Universal Health Care or a system similar to the CLASS Act would be far superior to what we got because at least with either EVERYONE would have a buy-in into the health care system similar to what Medicare now provides only you get to use it much sooner rather than paying into it for 35-40 years and only being able to use it once you retire. But you can never get Congress to stop the stupidity and just do it without trying to win votes by downing the other side for making common sense decisions.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 11-29-14 at 06:29 PM.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  7. #207
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    All I'm saying is I understand what both sides want on this issue. In principle, Republicans don't like various part of ObamaCare, specifically, the taxation on individuals and businesses, the authoritarianism from the Executive Branch, the excessive spending and especially the expansion of and perceived access to government health care to immigrants. Ideologically, they don't want to give a Democrat President a victory at any level.

    Democrats support this law in large part because it insures a large number of people who weren't insured previously, provides what they believe to be greater insurance benefit coverage by stabilizing/standardizing essential benefits, provides for funding (in the future at least) through taxation making health care exchanges self-sustaining and forcing government to find ways to "make it all work" while retaining the hardline on maintaining funding measures in the immediate future.

    Could these problems be fixed if both sides at least tried to understand where the others sees problems with the law and really work to resolve them while also maintaining broad reach in access to health care, self-sustaining funding without federal funding (tax dollars/appropriations) and reducing the size or scope of government? Sure! But such will never happen as long as both sides remain so firmly entrenched.

    Personally, I've always believed Universal Health Care or a system similar to the CLASS Act would be far superior to what we got because at least with either EVERYONE would have a buy-in into the health care system similar to what Medicare now provides only you get to use it much sooner rather than paying into it for 35-40 years and only being able to use it once you retire. But you can never get Congress to stop the stupidity and just do it without trying to win votes by downing the other side for making common sense decisions.
    Change on issues of such magnitude don't come easily. That's why they should be done judiciously and cooperatively right from the start. I mentioned in a previous post that Canada's universal health care doesn't cover the cost of medications for anyone over 18 and under 65 unless they are on welfare. That's been a problem from the beginning and a government commission recommended that drugs be covered for all some 50 years ago and the vast majority of Canadians would support it and yet no such change has been proposed in that period of time let alone adopted by dozens of different governments over those decades.

    Even though a majority of Americans look at the ACA unfavourably for one reason or another, you may end up being stuck with it as it is for decades, just as Canada has, because changing it has too many special interests at cross purposes.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  8. #208
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I guess it depends on what changes are being proposed. You have to remember there were two basic objectives behind the PPACA:

    1) to provide access to insurance coverage to as many people as possible;

    2) to provide various funding mechanism to pay for health insurance exchanges at both the state and federal levels.

    The goal, of course, is to increase access to health care while bringing down the cost. If such a bill continued to meet such objectives without forcing people to change their existing health care coverage, increase the cost or eliminate it all together all while being self-sustaining financially, I don't see why such a bill would fail to pass muster.
    This may be a little elementary a question here, but could you explain who was ever denied buying health insurance?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #209
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,599

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    This may be a little elementary a question here, but could you explain who was ever denied buying health insurance?
    LOL.

    How quickly we forget the mess we had before the ACA!

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_condition

    Thanks, Obama!
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  10. #210
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: House GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    LOL.

    How quickly we forget the mess we had before the ACA!

    Pre-existing condition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Thanks, Obama!
    So you needed 2000++ pages of every progressive wish under the sun, and the redistribution of wealth to solve that? I don't think so...
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •