• 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!

G.O.P. Newcomers Set Out to Undo Obama Victories

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Soon after the 112th Congress convenes Wednesday, Republicans in the House plan to make good on a campaign promise that helped vault many new members to victory: voting to repeal President Obama’s health care overhaul.

“If we pass this bill with a sizable vote, and I think that we will, it will put enormous pressure on the Senate to do perhaps the same thing,” Mr. Upton said on “Fox News Sunday.” “But then, after that, we’re going to go after this bill piece by piece.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/us/politics/03repubs.html
And it will be bi-partisan! (Notice the NYT journOlists refrain from mentioning that bit?)

How about the Senate? Will we see bi-partisanship there? Or more bull-ship? ROTFLOL.
Readying the noose for 2012.
Beautiful.

Upton, a Michigan Republican, said that his party had 242 votes in favor of repeal, and that "there will be a significant number of Democrats who will join us."
New Congress sets its eyes on oversight - CNN.com

Decisive, historic victories are game changing. I wonder... how many Dems that voted for the stink bomb called ObamaKare will vote to repeal it?

Any guesses?

.
 
Last edited:
I hope they also plan to allow hospitals to turn away ER patients who can't afford to pay. You know, since paying for the healthcare of others is so terrible for us. If we're not going to do it efficiently, maybe we should stop doing it.
 
I hope they also plan to allow hospitals to turn away ER patients who can't afford to pay. You know, since paying for the healthcare of others is so terrible for us. If we're not going to do it efficiently, maybe we should stop doing it.

I am inclined to agree. It should either be one way or the other. We should either let people die in the street or we need to manage healthcare effectively. Unfortunately the recent healthcare legislation is so bastardized that it doesn't really manage healthcare effectively.
 
I am inclined to agree. It should either be one way or the other. We should either let people die in the street or we need to manage healthcare effectively. Unfortunately the recent healthcare legislation is so bastardized that it doesn't really manage healthcare effectively.

Geez, maneez.

NO ONE is saying healthcare shouldn't be reformed, but not in the nationalized abortion form that Obamacare is carefully predestined to become.

But that will be what Obama runs on: "We gave the rich their tax cuts, and they STILL want to take away your healthcare!"

No you didn't, and know we don't.
 
Geez, maneez.

NO ONE is saying healthcare shouldn't be reformed, but not in the nationalized abortion form that Obamacare is carefully predestined to become.

But that will be what Obama runs on: "We gave the rich their tax cuts, and they STILL want to take away your healthcare!"

No you didn't, and know we don't.

So what's your healthcare reform plan?
 
I hope they also plan to allow hospitals to turn away ER patients who can't afford to pay. You know, since paying for the healthcare of others is so terrible for us. If we're not going to do it efficiently, maybe we should stop doing it.


So you admit that "access" was never the issue?


j-mac
 
So what's your healthcare reform plan?


My God, it took the Apollo project over a year, and 2100 pages to lay this current turd on us, and you want him to write a plan right this moment?

Unreasonable much?

j-mac
 
My God, it took the Apollo project over a year, and 2100 pages to lay this current turd on us, and you want him to write a plan right this moment?

Unreasonable much?

j-mac

Actually, no.

What I'd like for any GOP Senator to do is show that their health care proposals were any better than what was signed into law. Better yet, show a proposal where GOP ideas weren't incorporated into the law. I think it's been archieved by now, but there use to be a thread in the Health Care forum that linked to a spreadsheet listing all of the health care reform bill proposals. I reviewed most of them and if memory serves me correctly, there were only 2 leading GOP proposals and both offered many of the same things we eventually got in "ObamaCare"...

- eliminating pre-existing conditions
- raising the federal poverty limit
- expanding Medicaid
- reducing fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare and funding and/or closing the "donut hole" for prescription drugs
- starting state-sponsored health insurance exchanges (a GOP idea)
- reducing or eliminating the life-time cap of benefits

About the only thing all the proposals had in common was none really offered a clear way to reduce health care costs or pay for their proposals upfront. So, GOP, if you're going to repeal what's already out there, you'd better come up with something much better than what we got! As I've said several times before, HR 3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - was the best compromise we were going to get in this country's present partisan atmosphere.
 
My God, it took the Apollo project over a year, and 2100 pages to lay this current turd on us, and you want him to write a plan right this moment?

Unreasonable much?

j-mac

They've had countless years - they could have done something substantial by now.

Actually - they did. At the time the AACHA was circulating there were several other extensive plans either presented in bill-form . . . or being worked on.

Some were just as ridiculous. Some were simple and fixed just a few things. Other measure were meant to be applied slowly to permit adjustment before presenting or writing the next measure. . . and so on.

The sheer number of ignored plans that were presented or suggested is astonishing.
 
And it will be bi-partisan! (Notice the NYT journOlists refrain from mentioning that bit?)

How about the Senate? Will we see bi-partisanship there? Or more bull-ship? ROTFLOL.
Readying the noose for 2012.
Beautiful.



Decisive, historic victories are game changing. I wonder... how many Dems that voted for the stink bomb called ObamaKare will vote to repeal it?

Any guesses?

.

I think some may be willing to stand up to Pelosi now. They saw how so many Dems were thrown under the bus for voting for the piece of crap.

I think despite Harry Ried they may vote to repeal it in the senate too. Remember they also have the Dem from WV who is pretty much a conservative.
 
My God, it took the Apollo project over a year, and 2100 pages to lay this current turd on us, and you want him to write a plan right this moment?

Unreasonable much?

j-mac

Are some bullet points too much to ask?

Also, why are you talking about space programs that ended in 1972?

So you admit that "access" was never the issue?


j-mac

Being forced to wait until a condition becomes serious-to-life-threatening and then being stuck with a bill 10 times higher than what it would have been a month earlier is not what I would call good access.
Yes, people have some access via ERs that can't turn them away. They also go bankrupt in the process.
Oh, and the ER only has to stabilize them, not treat them.
 
Last edited:
Actually, no.

What I'd like for any GOP Senator to do is show that their health care proposals were any better than what was signed into law. Better yet, show a proposal where GOP ideas weren't incorporated into the law. I think it's been archieved by now, but there use to be a thread in the Health Care forum that linked to a spreadsheet listing all of the health care reform bill proposals. I reviewed most of them and if memory serves me correctly, there were only 2 leading GOP proposals and both offered many of the same things we eventually got in "ObamaCare"...

- eliminating pre-existing conditions
- raising the federal poverty limit
- expanding Medicaid
- reducing fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare and funding and/or closing the "donut hole" for prescription drugs
- starting state-sponsored health insurance exchanges (a GOP idea)
- reducing or eliminating the life-time cap of benefits

About the only thing all the proposals had in common was none really offered a clear way to reduce health care costs or pay for their proposals upfront. So, GOP, if you're going to repeal what's already out there, you'd better come up with something much better than what we got! As I've said several times before, HR 3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - was the best compromise we were going to get in this country's present partisan atmosphere.


It is not that the GOP and liberals can't agree on things that actually help the situation, but in a 2100 page bill, how many things tucked in there do you think are actually NOT about health care? I think alot.


j-mac
 
They've had countless years - they could have done something substantial by now.

Actually - they did. At the time the AACHA was circulating there were several other extensive plans either presented in bill-form . . . or being worked on.

Some were just as ridiculous. Some were simple and fixed just a few things. Other measure were meant to be applied slowly to permit adjustment before presenting or writing the next measure. . . and so on.

The sheer number of ignored plans that were presented or suggested is astonishing.


I agree, however we won't get far if the demo's continue to use this as a trojan horse to single payer.

j-mac
 
Are some bullet points too much to ask?

Also, why are you talking about space programs that ended in 1972?



Being forced to wait until a condition becomes serious-to-life-threatening and then being stuck with a bill 10 times higher than what it would have been a month earlier is not what I would call good access.
Yes, people have some access via ERs that can't turn them away. They also go bankrupt in the process.
Oh, and the ER only has to stabilize them, not treat them.


Plans have been out there. And some things we agree on, however, if you think that The Apollo Alliance didn't write the bill, I suggest you do some research.

Oh, and there are plenty of ways that a person without insurance can see a doctor without having to go to the ER.


j-mac
 
Actually, no.

What I'd like for any GOP Senator to do is show that their health care proposals were any better than what was signed into law. Better yet, show a proposal where GOP ideas weren't incorporated into the law. I think it's been archieved by now, but there use to be a thread in the Health Care forum that linked to a spreadsheet listing all of the health care reform bill proposals. I reviewed most of them and if memory serves me correctly, there were only 2 leading GOP proposals and both offered many of the same things we eventually got in "ObamaCare"...

- eliminating pre-existing conditions
- raising the federal poverty limit
- expanding Medicaid
- reducing fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare and funding and/or closing the "donut hole" for prescription drugs
- starting state-sponsored health insurance exchanges (a GOP idea)
- reducing or eliminating the life-time cap of benefits

About the only thing all the proposals had in common was none really offered a clear way to reduce health care costs or pay for their proposals upfront. So, GOP, if you're going to repeal what's already out there, you'd better come up with something much better than what we got! As I've said several times before, HR 3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - was the best compromise we were going to get in this country's present partisan atmosphere.


This was proposed by my rep. U.S. Congressman John Shadegg : Serving the 3rd District of Arizona

There were many alternatives before the obamacare abortion was passed,still are, many still refuse to open their eyes. Partisan blinders maybe? I am not sure how long this country can afford that game.
 
I hope they also plan to allow hospitals to turn away ER patients who can't afford to pay. You know, since paying for the healthcare of others is so terrible for us. If we're not going to do it efficiently, maybe we should stop doing it.

This would be a great start. It would also solve 90% of the illegal immigration problem we have.

Besides, I’m sick of people telling me they have a right to complain about what others eat, drink, smoke etc. “because our tax dollars will have to pay for their medical care”. You might me amazed at how many people go get medical insurance when they learn they might be turned away if they don’t have cash or insurance.

It’s called personal responsibility.
 
I hope they also plan to allow hospitals to turn away ER patients who can't afford to pay. You know, since paying for the healthcare of others is so terrible for us. If we're not going to do it efficiently, maybe we should stop doing it.

But...but...but...the American people oppose Obamacare! And, it's supposed to lower insurance rates! And...and...and...we can keep our providers!

BTW, isn't alreay illegal to turn away ER patients? That was the law, before Obamacare. Was it not?

If providing healthcare is the primary goal of Obamacare, why is there a new tax law and funding for Obama's private army included in the bill? Got an answer for that? No? Didn't think so.
 
Let me just add to my previous post that I think charities would probably move in to fill the gaps for most of those that truly can’t afford health insurance.
 
Let me just add to my previous post that I think charities would probably move in to fill the gaps for most of those that truly can’t afford health insurance.

Yeah, but then the gubmint couldn't swoop in to save the day. Can't have that ****!
 
Let me just add to my previous post that I think charities would probably move in to fill the gaps for most of those that truly can’t afford health insurance.

What charities? Like the Red Cross who runs massive debt often and their disaster relief supplies are frequently being depleated by worldwide disasters that they respond to?

It's just a fact of life - there will always be 'poor' - and there will always be people who *don't* care and most certainly many who won't be donating to save their fellow man from anything.
 
...Being forced to wait until a condition becomes serious-to-life-threatening and then being stuck with a bill 10 times higher than what it would have been a month earlier is not what I would call good access.

That's not the way it works in California. Here they show up at an ER whenever they want, and they say they can't pay. They get the treatment for free and that's the end of it.
 
What charities? Like the Red Cross who runs massive debt often and their disaster relief supplies are frequently being depleated by worldwide disasters that they respond to?

It's just a fact of life - there will always be 'poor' - and there will always be people who *don't* care and most certainly many who won't be donating to save their fellow man from anything.

Give me a break. Americans are the most charitable people on the planet. If the government stopped redistributing so much of our money, Red Cross would probably be doing a lot better.

Like I said though, if people know they won’t get treatment if they don’t buy insurance, the rate of uninsured will drop astronomically.
 
That's not the way it works in California. Here they show up at an ER whenever they want, and they say they can't pay. They get the treatment for free and that's the end of it.

I can attest to this. Last time I was in an ER it was filled with people wearing shoes and jackets etc. that cost way more than I pay for my clothes and I know most of them didn’t have insurance.
Many were there for flu like symptoms or other minor issues. It’s pretty bad in Cali.
 
Give me a break. Americans are the most charitable people on the planet. If the government stopped redistributing so much of our money, Red Cross would probably be doing a lot better.

There's not a single successfull story that I can think of which would prove you correct on your assumption that our fellow citizens will assist each other sufficiently.
Welfare - it's like a drug. . .the more you give - the more they 'need' - the more they 'need' - the less successful you will be at weening them off. . . enact the 12 step program (so to say) and make a slow process and maybe there's be a few who can become self-sufficient.

Like I said though, if people know they won’t get treatment if they don’t buy insurance, the rate of uninsured will drop astronomically.

Why do people *have* to have insurance?
I've know quite a few people who don't have insurance - by choice - and who still cover the cost for all of their ails without faulter.

They are the ultimate in self-sufficiency.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom