• 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

Why is everyone still calling this a heathcare bill? It is a law now....a freaking LAW. What the Republican majority should do is merely defund it.

almost a voice of reality, emerging from the babble of the far right
and destroy the party further by also defunding social security, medicare and medicaid ... or do you now agree those programs have a valid purpose and deserve funding
 
CBO has to score what they are given, if I wrote a bill and claimed that revenues from our national unicorn farm would rise 500% and not raise any taxes, they would have to score it that way. Still doesn't make it add up, here in the real world.


Sorry, sweetie, that's not quite how it works.

The don't score 'claims'.
 
Why is everyone still calling this a heathcare bill? It is a law now....a freaking LAW. What the Republican majority should do is merely defund it.

Just like the anti war Democrats defunded the military.

It makes a good talking point, but it will never happen.
 
Sorry, sweetie, that's not quite how it works.

The don't score 'claims'.

You should really research this some more so you won't embarrass yourself further. It is common knowledge, at least among people that follow politics, that the CBO is not allowed to make any budget assumptions except those given it by Congress. If Pelosi tell them that 100% of uninsured people will buy health insurance, that's what they have to assume in their calculations.

Politics 101.
 
You should really research this some more so you won't embarrass yourself further. It is common knowledge, at least among people that follow politics, that the CBO is not allowed to make any budget assumptions except those given it by Congress. If Pelosi tell them that 100% of uninsured people will buy health insurance, that's what they have to assume in their calculations.

Politics 101.

could you please offer a source to document that bold assertion
 
could you please offer a source to document that bold assertion

This seems like a silly exercise. I thought everyone knew this basic fact. Guess some people don't follow news as much as others:
ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.
Op-Ed Contributor - The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com
 
almost a voice of reality, emerging from the babble of the far right
and destroy the party further by also defunding social security, medicare and medicaid ... or do you now agree those programs have a valid purpose and deserve funding

Perfect example of the left using their socialization of |America as a weapon.

The programs should be funded for those who have paid into them, then deconstructed.

Are we free people, or wards of the state?
Can we secure our own futures and assist others, or do we need the government to destroy the fabric of society by confiscating our funds and telling us how to manage our lives?

The programs serve their purpose perfectly. To buy votes.

.
 
This is incorrect. What you see is disdain for ignorant voters. A democracy is only as good as those who vote. And American voters are not the most intelligent or informed. The fact that our two parties are locked between not cutting and no revenue raising is sign of that. Not to mention a majority of voters haven't realized that a third party is bad, badly needed.

Translation: A majority of American voters don't agree with me on most things. Thus they are either dumb or ignorant.

Tell me how those three things I mentioned will go down with voters. And then tell me how easy it will be to repeal when the elderly, uninsured and everyone 24-26 abandons the GOP. You know why the GOP hasn't seriously gone after social security and medicare? Because of the elderly. Fixing those two would put us back on the path to solvency rather then bull**** talk about immaterial pork. Tiny percentage jumps in either do far more damage then pork spending does. If the GOP actually gave a **** about fiscal conservatism, they'd fix SS and MC. But they won't because it will cost them huge number of votes.

Yeah, because the GOP never tried to fix SS. That time they tried and were made out as a bunch of evil granny-killers and in the end failed totally never happened. And it certainly didn't happen under Bush, that fiscal mega-liberal.

Also: you never answered my question, which is why the debate will suddenly change and people will be so much more "informed" the next time around. Don't bother though, I don't really expect you to give a real answer at this point.

Doesn't care? Do you know what one of the largest complaints about Medicare that the elderly had was? :2wave: You just argued that arguably the biggest gripe of the largest voting blocs in the country had suddenly doesn't care about it. Try think about that for a moment will ya? It's like saying that all the pro-weed people suddenly stop caring about weed.

Odd place to cut off my quote. The point was that they may want to fix it, but that concern is vastly overshadowed by the rest of the bill. Hence the elderly oppose it by much larger margins than other age groups. And if after a year of debate they still don't know about the donut being closed now (unlikely, if they're as concerned about it as you claim), there's no reason why they'll suddenly realize it later and change their minds.
 

Just a little background to know where the Op-Ed contributor - Douglas Holtz-Eakin - is coming from.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin in addition to being director of the CBO from 2003-2005, was also the chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain‘s 2008 presidential campaign. He's the president of the American Action Forum, a self-admitted center-right policy institute that includes members such as Norm Coleman, Jeb Bush and Tom Ridge.



Here are a couple of rebuttals/explanations relative to Holtz-Eakin's Op-Ed.


Center on Budget and Policy Priorites

Health Reform Will Reduce the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


and the CBO themselves

Director's Blog Blog Archive Uncertainty in Estimates for Health Care Legislation
 
I read some portions of the Center on Budget and Policy's report and will have to read the rest later this evening once I get home. I like reading non-partician critiques of the issues because they're not slanted on either the right or left. From what I've read so far, it would appear the fears Conservatives have on health care reform adding to the deficit are completely unfounded. But like I said, I'll have to read both reports in their entirety and post back on them later.
 
Just a little background to know where the Op-Ed contributor - Douglas Holtz-Eakin - is coming from.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin in addition to being director of the CBO from 2003-2005, was also the chief economic policy adviser to U.S. Senator John McCain‘s 2008 presidential campaign. He's the president of the American Action Forum, a self-admitted center-right policy institute that includes members such as Norm Coleman, Jeb Bush and Tom Ridge.



Here are a couple of rebuttals/explanations relative to Holtz-Eakin's Op-Ed.


Center on Budget and Policy Priorites

Health Reform Will Reduce the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


and the CBO themselves

Director's Blog Blog Archive Uncertainty in Estimates for Health Care Legislation


From the link

Some analysts believe that CBO is underestimating the ultimate costs of the new subsidies to buy health insurance (which could make the legislation deficit-increasing instead of deficit-reducing). Others assert that CBO is underestimating the ultimate savings from changes in the Medicare program (which could make the legislation reduce deficits by more than we have estimated). Certainly, the budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems is very uncertain. However, CBO staff, in consultation with outside experts, has devoted a great deal of care and effort to this analysis, and the agency strives to develop estimates that reflect the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes. As a result, we believe that CBO’s estimates of the net savings that would result from the legislation have a roughly equal chance of turning out to be too high or too low.

Not real confident here


Focusing on another area of concern, some observers argue that CBO’s estimates are unrealistic because the Congress will not allow the Medicare spending cuts and future tax increases in the proposals to take effect. CBO’s responsibility to the Congress is to estimate the effects of proposals as written and not to forecast future legislation.


From the horses mouth
 
You know, if the republicans get a majority and actually do overturn the healthcare bill, I can see them losing the majority in the next election, and another bill getting passed. I could actually see congress see-sawing over this for awhile.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, sweetie, that's not quite how it works.

The don't score 'claims'.

They score bills as written. If that was written into the bill, by law, they have to score it in that manner.
 
You know, if the republicans get a majority and actually do overturn the healthcare bill, I can see them losing the majority in the next election, and another bill getting passed. I could actually see congress see-sawing over this for awhile.

1. There is very little chance that the Reps actually take control of the leg. this year
2. Even if event 1 were to happen, there is very little chance of getting by a Dem fillibuster or Presidential veto
3. If were to be overturned, its a dead issue for years even when the Dems take power again.
 
Last edited:
if the gop comes even close in november, dems will NOT filibuster the removal of that mendacious mandate on individuals

centrist dems will certainly come our way to eliminate so evil an exigency

the prez might veto, he's capable

if so, he would only further diminish

the provision is simply too unpopular, poisonous, pernicious

the gop will proceed piecemeal, being pros

we will be praised
 
Back
Top Bottom