• 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!

BREAKING -- Reconciliation bill will have to go back to the House

Most of the bill doesn't even take effect for 4 years. It's not like anyone is suddenly going to be missing something if it gets repealed in a year. Plus, I don't think it will get completely repealed. I think parts of it will.



Anyone who knows politics knows that nothing is ever a done deal.

The parts I talked about take effect right away. That's why I doubt the Republicans will actually push repeal. The parts of the bill that are the most controversial are the parts that aren't set to take effect for 4 years, like the insurance mandate.
You are correct though....nothing is ever a done deal. We have 4 years to get the mandate replaced by a strong public option which would better serve the people of this country. Once the first parts of the bill take effect and people see the benefits, it will be an easier sell, and I expect even some Republicans will support it.
 
The parts I talked about take effect right away. That's why I doubt the Republicans will actually push repeal. The parts of the bill that are the most controversial are the parts that aren't set to take effect for 4 years, like the insurance mandate.
You are correct though....nothing is ever a done deal. We have 4 years to get the mandate replaced by a strong public option which would better serve the people of this country. Once the first parts of the bill take effect and people see the benefits, it will be an easier sell, and I expect even some Republicans will support it.

I don't think so. It's pretty much a given that their continued incumbency is riding on their opposition to this bill. I think they will continue to oppose it.

I would prefer a public option but I do not want to see taxing of "cadillac plans" or forced enrollment in the public option.
 
I don't think so. It's pretty much a given that their continued incumbency is riding on their opposition to this bill. I think they will continue to oppose it.

I would prefer a public option but I do not want to see taxing of "cadillac plans" or forced enrollment in the public option.

I agree that I wouldn't want to see taxing of premium plans either. But I don't think it would require that.

I DO however, believe in what you would call "forced enrollment". Mainly because we have to find a solution to people overusing the emergency rooms for their healthcare, which is what we have now. That cost is already passed on to the rest of us.
Give people an option to purchase a premium private insurance plan or the public option. This is not "Free healthcare". It would still require payment and the government would subsidize those making under a certain amount of money.
 
How many new bribes will it take to be passed?

It didn't take much in the way of "bribes" last time... and now that its clearly the 'will of the people', it should be a slam dunk.
 
Because it's not just a health care bill, its a budget reconciliation bill.

Which means that student loan should be included because...?

But you do know that the obstruction is not going to actually accomplish anything right? How does that benefit the country?

You seem to be operating from the perspective that only the passage of legislation can benefit from the country. That's the problem. From the Republican perspective, the status quo is preferable to the proposal that the Dems have put forward. Accordingly, it's entirely sensible for them to oppose the proposal.
 
Most of the bill doesn't even take effect for 4 years. It's not like anyone is suddenly going to be missing something if it gets repealed in a year.

Not so fast.


Voters will get their first taste of the benefits of health care reform only a few short weeks before the November midterm elections.

They won’t have to swallow most of the bitter pills until much later — well after President Barack Obama faces voters again in 2012.

Match the effective dates of key reform provisions against the election calendar, and it becomes clear that Democrats were as focused on writing a legislative overhaul of the health care system as they were on devising a political road map for selling it to voters.

The landmark health legislation the president will sign into law Tuesday, and an accompanying package of fixes still moving through the Senate, go further than previous incarnations of the bill to front-load the gain and push back the pain.

Timing right for Democrats' midterm election hopes - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com
 
Done and done.

220-207

End of the Thread.


  • Reductions in the penalty for individuals who fail to obtain insurance so that by 2016, individuals who do not have insurance would be fined $695 a year.
  • Penalties for employers whose employees receive subsidies in the new exchanges, rather than buying insurance through the employer.
  • Limits on the amount of money a low-income person or household would be required to pay out-of-pocket for health care.
  • A one-time, $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the “doughnut hole” during 2010, which will be phased out during the next decade.
  • Additional Medicare reimbursements during 2010 to physicians with lower-than-average practice costs.
  • More time for insurance companies to comply with the new regulations.
  • Scale back on the tax on high benefits and pushing the effective date on the tax to 2018.
 
Done and done.

220-207

End of the Thread.


  • Reductions in the penalty for individuals who fail to obtain insurance so that by 2016, individuals who do not have insurance would be fined $695 a year.
  • Penalties for employers whose employees receive subsidies in the new exchanges, rather than buying insurance through the employer.
  • Limits on the amount of money a low-income person or household would be required to pay out-of-pocket for health care.
  • A one-time, $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the “doughnut hole” during 2010, which will be phased out during the next decade.
  • Additional Medicare reimbursements during 2010 to physicians with lower-than-average practice costs.
  • More time for insurance companies to comply with the new regulations.
  • Scale back on the tax on high benefits and pushing the effective date on the tax to 2018.

No, not end of thread. That simply means that there is more time for the Republicans to overturn most of this crap bill before it ever takes effect.

All this democrat hand-wringing and smug chortling is gonna turn to crying before it's over with. :2wave:
 
Which means that student loan should be included because...?



You seem to be operating from the perspective that only the passage of legislation can benefit from the country. That's the problem. From the Republican perspective, the status quo is preferable to the proposal that the Dems have put forward. Accordingly, it's entirely sensible for them to oppose the proposal.

I'm not disagreeing with that...but let's not kid ourselves. Anyone who follows politics knows that these obstuctionist tactics are nothing more than political posturing. THAT is not unique to the Republicans in anyway, the Democrats are guilty of doing the same thing. However, yes...it is "sensible" for them to oppose the proposal. What is not sensible is pretending that it is any more than political grandstanding and pretending that it is actually going to accomplish anything.
 
If Republicans had spent 1% of the energy that they are using fighting this bill, attempting to participate in finding a solution to the healthcare problems, then perhaps they wouldn't have to be spending the remaining 99% stomping their feet.
 
Oh well since you ****ing say so, that just changes everything.

No, I am not wrong.

Yes, you are, not because I say so, because the article I posted does. Try reading it.
 
Yes, you are, not because I say so, because the article I posted does. Try reading it.

I did. Nothing in the article indicates that I am wrong. Did you have anything to add other than your proclomations or are you just gonna blab on without any substantial contribution again?
 
I did. Nothing in the article indicates that I am wrong. Did you have anything to add other than your proclomations or are you just gonna blab on without any substantial contribution again?

You claimed that none of the law's benefits take effect until 2014. That's the claim I was refuting. Here is the text of the article that proves you wrong:


Just when the midterm elections are heating up in September, key provisions will go into effect.

Senior citizens who fall into the “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug program would receive a $250 rebate, if the Senate passes the package of fixes this week.

People who get sick will no longer be vulnerable to losing their coverage, insurers will be barred from refusing to cover children with pre-existing conditions, and young adults up to age 26 will be able to stay on their parents’ insurance plan. Uninsured adults with a pre-existing condition will be able to secure coverage through a new program that expires once the exchanges begin in 2014.

And some small businesses will receive tax credits to help provide coverage for workers.

In 2011, lower-profile changes will kick in, including higher Medicare reimbursement rates for primary care physicians and free wellness exams for Medicare beneficiaries. The tax on the pharmaceutical industry will also start in 2011 — earlier than for other industries — but it will come as the bill aims to close the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole.

Read more: Timing right for Democrats' midterm election hopes - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com
 
You claimed that none of the law's benefits take effect until 2014. That's the claim I was refuting. Here is the text of the article that proves you wrong:

No, I claimed that many of the benefits would not take effect until 2014. Try reading.

You still have done nothing to prove me wrong.
 
No, I claimed that many of the benefits would not take effect until 2014. Try reading.

You still have done nothing to prove me wrong.

You said: "It's not like anyone is suddenly going to be missing something if it gets repealed in a year."

Wrong.
 
You said: "It's not like anyone is suddenly going to be missing something if it gets repealed in a year."

Wrong.

No, not wrong. You can cry and moan and bitch about how you want someone to be wrong all you want, but it's not going to make your authoritative decrees any more true. Get over yourself. Make a real argument. Or just move along and spare the bandwidth.

You have done nothing to prove me wrong. End of discussion.
 
No, not wrong. You can cry and moan and bitch about how you want someone to be wrong all you want, but it's not going to make your authoritative decrees any more true. Get over yourself. Make a real argument. Or just move along and spare the bandwidth.

You have done nothing to prove me wrong. End of discussion.

I think we've said all we need to here. Everything is on the record.
 
Done and done.

220-207

End of the Thread.


  • Reductions in the penalty for individuals who fail to obtain insurance so that by 2016, individuals who do not have insurance would be fined $695 a year.

    [*]Penalties for employers whose employees receive subsidies in the new exchanges, rather than buying insurance through the employer.
  • Limits on the amount of money a low-income person or household would be required to pay out-of-pocket for health care.
  • A one-time, $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the “doughnut hole” during 2010, which will be phased out during the next decade.
  • Additional Medicare reimbursements during 2010 to physicians with lower-than-average practice costs.
  • More time for insurance companies to comply with the new regulations.
  • Scale back on the tax on high benefits and pushing the effective date on the tax to 2018.





This is going to piss my employees off. We provide them with a "medcal allowance" to get health insuance on thier own....


Now I am going to b penalized for this? nope. The will get whatever plan we can get for what we are paying now..... Wont be nearly as good for most of them. :shrug:
 
This is going to piss my employees off. We provide them with a "medcal allowance" to get health insuance on thier own....


Now I am going to b penalized for this? nope. The will get whatever plan we can get for what we are paying now..... Wont be nearly as good for most of them. :shrug:

You're saying they will be mad that they are going to get the same thing they get now?
 
You're saying they will be mad that they are going to get the same thing they get now?




They wont. See a young guy working for me wont spend all that money on helthcare except for a catastrophy plan, while another may purchase a cadillac plan with it. They have the choice.....


NOW, it seems I got to find a plan for these guys where it doesnt cost me any more.


Some may get more than they need/want others far less....


Its rather pathetic that this provision is in the bill.
 
They wont. See a young guy working for me wont spend all that money on helthcare except for a catastrophy plan, while another may purchase a cadillac plan with it. They have the choice.....


NOW, it seems I got to find a plan for these guys where it doesnt cost me any more.


Some may get more than they need/want others far less....


Its rather pathetic that this provision is in the bill.

I still don't get it. Are you giving them the same allowance, or not?
 
Back
Top Bottom