• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner: GOP Will Repeal Health Care Law

cholla said:
Try this link YouTube- Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn't Reduce Spending
Click to expand...

You can either take the word of the CBO, an organization dedicated to this sort of thing, or you can take the word of a politician with an obvious conflict of interest.

cholla said:
Please provide the source so I can judge for myself. I have a hard time swallowing things like this.
Click to expand...

Apparently the only source you'll accept is the bill itself. I suggest you read it. These are all provisions in the bill, and this information is publicly available. I've read it myself, and seen every one of these items. This really isn't something that's up for debate...
 
Deuce said:
You can either take the word of the CBO, an organization dedicated to this sort of thing, or you can take the word of a politician with an obvious conflict of interest.



Apparently the only source you'll accept is the bill itself. I suggest you read it. These are all provisions in the bill, and this information is publicly available. I've read it myself, and seen every one of these items. This really isn't something that's up for debate...
Click to expand...

If Paul Ryan in the above link, has an obvious conflict of interest then why did Obama and the others not call him out right there in the summit meeting and prove that what he said was wrong.

This explains why the CBO, although non partisan and dedicated to this sort of thing, has to give an artificial estimate

Op-Ed Contributor - The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com

Here is another from the other side of the aisle

Paul Ryan v. the President - WSJ.com

And are you really suggesting that the debate on health care reform is settled and not up for debate?
 
zimmer said:
Boehner: GOP Will Repeal Health Care Law : NPR

That's exactly what the American masses wanted to here.
Talk about giving people something to vote for... driving people to the polls... perfecto.

.
Click to expand...

I trust you are saying this with you tongue firmly planted in cheek, as the last thing Americans want is another year arguing about health care. Its a done deal. If the Republicans don't learn to deal with it, then their deal (the idea of gaining a majority) will be done gone.
 
tell it to mark critz
 
Oh my!...

.. another empty promise from John the Boner.

Whodda thunk it?

:rofl
 
The Prof said:
we won't repeal it

but we will radically rewrite it

wait and see

we'll FIX it!
Click to expand...

I'm waiting.

First, let's see whether that other party, the one that started all the deficit spending during the last administration and still calls itself "conservative" will get a majority next time around,

The, let's see if they can actually improve on an admittedly imperfect measure, and perhaps do what should have been done initially, which has to be done sooner or later, which is to

control costs!

Maybe so, maybe not. Time will tell.
 
cholla said:
There is no way to get enough votes to override an Obama veto, the hope is to gain enough seats to be able to defund the bill, until such time as we have a president that will repeal the law.
Click to expand...

Two arguments against that:

To be clear, appropriations bills, which are the legislative vehicles Congress uses to disperse money to the government, can be vetoed by the President and would require a veto override from Congress to then become law. What McCain is talking about, presumably, is engaging in a game of appropriations chicken.

A Republican-led Congress would send Obama an appropriations bill minus the money for enacting the health care law and dare him to veto it. If he vetoes it, no funds are appropriated and unless Congress folds and sends it back with the health care money included, funding for the government would start to run out. Most of the health care funding would be contained in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, which funds a lot of the programs that get the most use, like public schools, low-income heating assistance, unemployment insurance, job training, and public broadcasting, so it would be a very high-stakes game.
Click to expand...

McCain: We Will Defund Health Care Reform - Blog - OpenCongress

As Fabian notes, “Eliminating funds for the health law would likely be done through the appropriations process in Congress, but it is unclear how Republicans would accomplish their goal by sidestepping a veto. Under the constitution, the president has the right to veto any bill that is passed by Congress.” Indeed, it’s also unclear how much damage the Republicans could actually do, since most of the reform legislation is funded through mandatory spending, which is harder for Congress to control than discretionary spending.

Mandatory spending, such as Medicare and Medicaid, continues from year to year unless Congress passes new legislation to reduce it; discretionary spending, which covers most of the day-to-day operations of federal agencies, is appropriated every year in annual appropriations bills. It’s far easier for Congress to adjust an appropriations mark than muster the political support to pass new legislation to defund the new Medicaid expansion or affordability credits to middle class Americans.
Click to expand...

Wonk Room Will Republicans Be Able To Defund Health Care Reform?

Are Republicans ready for a game of chicken?


cholla said:
Why would anyone want to get rid of the provisions that make sense?
Click to expand...

I thought Republicans said it needed to be scrapped and the process to be re-started? Then which portions would they repeal?
 
we'll start with the individual mandate, it's politically pernicious, poisonous, ie, extremely unpopular

the exemption for seiu would be low hanging fruit

the secret deal with phrma pisses off the left more than the right

the mandate on states is completely impracticable

i could go on, but that's good enough for ante
 
cholla said:
If Paul Ryan in the above link, has an obvious conflict of interest then why did Obama and the others not call him out right there in the summit meeting and prove that what he said was wrong.

This explains why the CBO, although non partisan and dedicated to this sort of thing, has to give an artificial estimate

Op-Ed Contributor - The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com

Here is another from the other side of the aisle

Paul Ryan v. the President - WSJ.com

And are you really suggesting that the debate on health care reform is settled and not up for debate?
Click to expand...

What I'm suggesting is that the contents of the bill are not up for debate. Those provisions you were linked to exist in plain black and white and are presently law of the land.
 
Deuce said:
What I'm suggesting is that the contents of the bill are not up for debate. Those provisions you were linked to exist in plain black and white and are presently law of the land.
Click to expand...

They are presently the law of the land, correct. I think the topic of conversation is whether the Republican Party is capable of regaining power and changing some of those provisions.

Personally, I think any big changes made by the opposing party are unlikely in the extreme, but who knows? Maybe they will succeed against all of the odds.

First step: Win back congressional seats in November. Second step, get the Whitehouse back in '12.

Now, who are they going to run in '12? Who is capable of winning the WhiteHouse, particularly if the economic recovery continues until then? There is the first big hurdle to jump.

Of course, after that one, there will be others.
 
we don't necessarily have to TAKE congress (altho we likely will)

just coming close will suffice

cuz all the mike rosses and frank kratovils, unlike our tone deaf president, will HEAR the umistakable roar of the american voice and come our way

say goodbye to the individual mandate, for instance

very few in THIS FORUM, even, support it
 
Dittohead not! said:
They are presently the law of the land, correct. I think the topic of conversation is whether the Republican Party is capable of regaining power and changing some of those provisions.

Personally, I think any big changes made by the opposing party are unlikely in the extreme, but who knows? Maybe they will succeed against all of the odds.

First step: Win back congressional seats in November. Second step, get the Whitehouse back in '12.

Now, who are they going to run in '12? Who is capable of winning the WhiteHouse, particularly if the economic recovery continues until then? There is the first big hurdle to jump.

Of course, after that one, there will be others.
Click to expand...

Hey, I wasn't the one questioning whether the provisions existed in the first place.

Until 2012 the GOP can't do anything. It's mathematically impossible for them to get a filibuster-proof or veto-proof majority in the senate in 2010, and getting a 60-vote majority isn't going to be easy in 2012 either. Everything also hinges on getting the white house, because a veto-proof majority is probably impossible.

2 years is a long way off in election terms but I don't see anybody yet who has a good shot against Obama in 2012.
 
we could run a community organizer from chappaqua and beat this guy, so long as he or she likes lipton

the individual mandate, as an example, is so universally loathed, half the party formerly in power will support its overturning
 
Deuce said:
Hey, I wasn't the one questioning whether the provisions existed in the first place.

Until 2012 the GOP can't do anything. It's mathematically impossible for them to get a filibuster-proof or veto-proof majority in the senate in 2010, and getting a 60-vote majority isn't going to be easy in 2012 either. Everything also hinges on getting the white house, because a veto-proof majority is probably impossible.

2 years is a long way off in election terms but I don't see anybody yet who has a good shot against Obama in 2012.
Click to expand...

I don't think the goal is to get the supermajority. I think the goal is just to get the normal majority. If I was a Republican strategist, I would campaign like it's 1999 to just take 51 votes in Senate, or at minimum reclaim the House, and then just start voting on and passing along bills that will benefit the middle-class, but are guaranteed to be vetoed down the chart - something akin to the Contract With America of the early to mid 90s. Switch the "party of no" moniker over to the Dems and watch Obama get crucified in the court of public opinion much more than what he's getting now.

It's essentially cat and mouse, but with the Republicans trying to be the cat in this one. Winning Congress in totality should not be the chief objective, but to discredit Democrats to the point of delivering a death blow in '12.
 
The Prof said:
we'll start with the individual mandate, it's politically pernicious, poisonous, ie, extremely unpopular
Click to expand...

They can't get rid of the "individual mandate" without also allowing insurance companies to use pre-ex limitations and rescind policies when the proposed insured lies on the contract and that lie was material to the issuance of the policy. Otherwise, you'll just have healthy people not purchasing insurance until they get sick. Since the fines for not purchasing insurance are so weak, I still think many people will do this. I know if I lose my job, I will.

I personally feel that the government should get rid of the mandate, and allow insurance companies to deny claims based on pre-ex conditions and rescind policies when the propsed insured commits material misrepresentation on the applicaiton.

If they do that, the government can then work on increasing portability and affordability.

Pre-ex denials and recissions aren't as onerous as the left have managed to convince the populace that they are. However, I can see toughening up the laws on rescissions a bit to prevent a few bad apples from misusing the process.
 
buck said:
They can't get rid of the "individual mandate" without also allowing insurance companies to use pre-ex limitations and rescind policies when the proposed insured lies on the contract and that lie was material to the issuance of the policy. Otherwise, you'll just have healthy people not purchasing insurance until they get sick. Since the fines for not purchasing insurance are so weak, I still think many people will do this. I know if I lose my job, I will.
Click to expand...

absolutely spot on!

there's also the class act which mandates that insurers charge MORE for the "young invulnerables" to pay for gramma and gramps

yet, when the young flee this built in DISincentive, naturally, the insurers are stuck with disproportionate numbers of the old and expensive

the whole thing is a fiscal house of cards, as is

that's kinda the point

but politics is politics

and the mandate is easy pickings

we'll sell it viably as we go and it will improve things
 
Deuce said:
What I'm suggesting is that the contents of the bill are not up for debate. Those provisions you were linked to exist in plain black and white and are presently law of the land.
Click to expand...


Quote:
Originally Posted by cholla
This is a health care law that is going to bankrupt the system.

Improving the health care system is not at issue here, being able to honestly pay for the improvements is.

CBO says it will reduce the deficit.

This is what we are talking about here, not if it is passed into law or not. My links show how the CBO report is misleading, through no fault of their own, but in the tricky way the bill was written.

You have got to know this by now, I wonder why you are ignoring this.
 
buck said:
They can't get rid of the "individual mandate" without also allowing insurance companies to use pre-ex limitations and rescind policies when the proposed insured lies on the contract and that lie was material to the issuance of the policy. Otherwise, you'll just have healthy people not purchasing insurance until they get sick. Since the fines for not purchasing insurance are so weak, I still think many people will do this. I know if I lose my job, I will.

I personally feel that the government should get rid of the mandate, and allow insurance companies to deny claims based on pre-ex conditions and rescind policies when the propsed insured commits material misrepresentation on the applicaiton.

If they do that, the government can then work on increasing portability and affordability.

Pre-ex denials and recissions aren't as onerous as the left have managed to convince the populace that they are. However, I can see toughening up the laws on rescissions a bit to prevent a few bad apples from misusing the process.
Click to expand...


A high risk pool would allow you to get rid of the individual mandate and still let the ins. companys make money. There are other ways to accomplish the goals without mandating people to buy somthing that they don't want.
 
digsbe said:
It's nice to see that there is still hope for America :mrgreen: However, these Republicans better stick to their promises! They care too much about what the liberal media says about them and they compromise good ideas to seem "moderate." I will vote solid Republican all the way through in November, and if elected they better not disappointed me and the others who voted them in. I'm more disappointed with the Republicans than I am with the Democrats. This is great news to hear coming from the GOP, but I would like to believe it and not have to worry about empty rhetoric coming from Republitards who will flip flop once in office.
Click to expand...

me too they disapointed us.I hope they stand up if not we go after all the incumbent Republicans and vote them out of office
 
Highly unlikely. James has it correct. This for show and nothing more.

I wonder how this will go down:

1) We're going to strip health care from millions
2) Remember that drug donut hole that screwed elderly up the butt? Yeah we're bringing that back.
3) All you 25 and 26 year old students? Guess what? Up yours.

Sounds like a real election winner there. :2wave:
 
obvious Child said:
Highly unlikely. James has it correct. This for show and nothing more.

I wonder how this will go down:

1) We're going to strip health care from millions
2) Remember that drug donut hole that screwed elderly up the butt? Yeah we're bringing that back.
3) All you 25 and 26 year old students? Guess what? Up yours.

Sounds like a real election winner there. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes, all true, but that's without the spin. After the spin, it will be, we're restoring the best health care system in the world. God Bless America!
 
obvious Child said:
Highly unlikely. James has it correct. This for show and nothing more.

I wonder how this will go down:

1) We're going to strip health care from millions
2) Remember that drug donut hole that screwed elderly up the butt? Yeah we're bringing that back.
3) All you 25 and 26 year old students? Guess what? Up yours.

Sounds like a real election winner there. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what happened during the last health care debate, and exactly why the health care bill became so popular and Republicans are in such big trouble... oh wait :roll:

Why exactly is it supposed to be different when the exact same debate happens again?
 
we won't take on the pig comprehensively

unlike this idiot administration we know how to DO politics

we'll take on the most poisonous, pernicious pieces

and we'll be praised

such as the mandate, the seiu exemption, the secret deal with phrma, the unfunded mandate on the states, the half T cuts to m&m, the double counting of quarter T's, the taxes on payroll, employers, device makers and other industries not heavily concentrated in nebraska and florida...

we're going to take the house

Dem Turnout Falls Off A Cliff - Hotline On Call

ask david obey

and we are going to do our work, piecemeal

that's how one governs

in america

you have to pick positions that are popular, then proceed with them to completion

you don't CRAM, you don't DEEM

not without real consequences
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom