• 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 promises more House votes to derail ObamaCare implementation (1 Viewer)

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed Sunday to hold more House votes to thwart ObamaCare, a major priority for the GOP as the law is implemented.

"You're going to see a lot more," Boehner told CBS's "Face the Nation." "You're going to see bipartisan votes coming out of the House to derail this thing.

The House has voted nearly 40 times to defund, dismantle or repeal the healthcare law, prompting frustration from Democrats who say the votes are aimed at sabotage.
Click to expand...


Read more @: Boehner promises more House votes to derail ObamaCare implementation - The Hill's Video

In other words more mindless, votes, more votes that have no hope of going anywhere.
2rcv22a.jpg
 
fmw said:
It keeps them busy doing things other than growing government. I support that.
Click to expand...

In other words you support things that will accomplish nothing instead of doing serious business?
 
Here's a clue something's wrong:

When the law has yet to be implemented and Obama and Sebelius are issuing waivers all over the place for their big union buddies because they have better health insurance plans and they don't want them jeopardized and the waivers got to be so numerous that Obama and Sebelius had to put a stop on the waivers.

When the law has yet to be implemented and the employer mandate has to be delayed (read scrapped) because too many of Obama's big union buddies are scared that full time employment as they know it is going to be gone as employers move to get under the 50 at 30hrs mandate numbers.

When three years after it was voted on the majority of Americans still don't want it and Obama hasn't a clue how to sell it.

I could go on, but you get the point.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Here's a clue something's wrong:

When the law has yet to be implemented and Obama and Sebelius are issuing waivers all over the place for their big union buddies because they have better health insurance plans and they don't want them jeopardized and the waivers got to be so numerous that Obama and Sebelius had to put a stop on the waivers.

When the law has yet to be implemented and the employer mandate has to be delayed (read scrapped) because too many of Obama's big union buddies are scared that full time employment as they know it is going to be gone as employers move to get under the 50 at 30hrs mandate numbers.

When three years after it was voted on the majority of Americans still don't want it and Obama hasn't a clue how to sell it.

I could go on, but you get the point.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make much difference to the point. Whether you like the bill or hate it there are only 2 ways to get rid of it in america. You either repeal it through the legislature, which is not happening with a dem senate and Obama in charge, or you get the courts to declare it unconstitutional which has already failed setting precedent which will make any further attempts that much harder. So until something changes these votes are a waste of time and resources.

This may become an even bigger problem seeing as how the bill might actually do something about the insane costs of health insurance. Seeing as how it looks like in many of the states implementing it you are seeing a drastic decrease in health insurance costs to affordable levels the act may actually gain support. I was just reading some news NY rates went down to around 55 dollars a month as opposed to the hundreds of dollars that used to be their minimum. If employers can get rates like that when the mandate comes into effect it is actually good for them too. To give you an idea that is a .34 cent an hour benefit for a FT 40 hour a week employee. When you consider tax incentives and the reality bulk insurance purchases end uip being less it really is not a terrible expense for an employer to make to comply with the law, and your FT employees get health care and can stop bitching about not having it.
 
tererun said:
It doesn't make much difference to the point. Whether you like the bill or hate it there are only 2 ways to get rid of it in america. You either repeal it through the legislature, which is not happening with a dem senate and Obama in charge, or you get the courts to declare it unconstitutional which has already failed setting precedent which will make any further attempts that much harder. So until something changes these votes are a waste of time and resources.

This may become an even bigger problem seeing as how the bill might actually do something about the insane costs of health insurance. Seeing as how it looks like in many of the states implementing it you are seeing a drastic decrease in health insurance costs to affordable levels the act may actually gain support. I was just reading some news NY rates went down to around 55 dollars a month as opposed to the hundreds of dollars that used to be their minimum. If employers can get rates like that when the mandate comes into effect it is actually good for them too. To give you an idea that is a .34 cent an hour benefit for a FT 40 hour a week employee. When you consider tax incentives and the reality bulk insurance purchases end uip being less it really is not a terrible expense for an employer to make to comply with the law, and your FT employees get health care and can stop bitching about not having it.
Click to expand...

So, right, tererun. Of course, each state has latitude to run their exchange their way. So, you're bound to see different numbers where ObamaCare's implementation is concerned vary from state-to-state. Nonetheless, although I've never been overwhelmingly crazy about the law myself, I can see some practicalities to it. As I've said before it was the best compromise the public could expect under today's congressional hyper-partisanship.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
In other words you support things that will accomplish nothing instead of doing serious business?
Click to expand...

When you consider that “serious business”, as you mean it, means passing more destructive crap akin to the ObamaCare scam, having them do nothing is certainly very much preferable. If they have any chance of undoing some of the damage that they've already done, so much the better.
 
Objective Voice said:
So, right, tererun. Of course, each state has latitude to run their exchange their way. So, you're bound to see different numbers where ObamaCare's implementation is concerned vary from state-to-state. Nonetheless, although I've never been overwhelmingly crazy about the law myself, I can see some practicalities to it. As I've said before it was the best compromise the public could expect under today's congressional hyper-partisanship.
Click to expand...

I have gone back and forth on the whole act. There are some good things in it like the limiting of expense not related to customer care that should certainly happen. Also, I do like that it seems to have driven competition in a industry that seemed to have a lot of price fixing in it. I am still very skeptical about forcing everyone into private health insurance because it is one of the biggest areas of dishonest and evil practices of corporate america. One of the reasons people went without health insurance was because it was so insanely expensive for something you only need if you get hit with some huge illness. I can afford to go to the doctor for regular check ups, or even if I get something that requires some prescription. To spend hundreds of dollars a month of your paycheck just in case you got a serious debilitating injury or illness and then to know they would refuse payment and toss you off your policy for making a claim was insane. I never wanted health insurance to pay for regular doctor visits because I could do that myself, but I wanted it for the reality that a huge injury was way beyond what a middle class person could afford to pay treatment on.

If this is true and it lowers the basic coverage to a level that is around 50-100 a month that is actually reasonable. It is reasonable from an employer's side, and from a personal side. I am actually wondering if obama was smart in delaying the employer mandate. It seemed like a horrible backstab at first, but if the act works in the places that back it, and businesses see it as being affordable and possible to do, it may actually work out for him. This way in states that were oppositional and have done everything they can to make the implementation as hard and as crappy as possible he will have something to point to to show them that it does work and that the businesses should put their money behind full implementation so they can get the reduced rates promised.

It is hard to say at this point if the act is full fail like the republicans have been predicting, or if it might be an acceptable middle step between the old way and full state medical coverage. One thing is for sure if it even remotely works out the republicans will lose whatever credibility they have with the middle. After all this chicken littling the sky had better be falling. The world has not ended because of mexicans, blacks, abortions, legalized drugs, muslims, higher taxes on the rich, and gay marriage. It is the problem with terror based propaganda. If the world does not end you seem a little paranoid delusional.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
In other words you support things that will accomplish nothing instead of doing serious business?
Click to expand...

I do have to agree with the idea that many times congress doing nothing is far better than one side or the other getting their extremist BS passed. Look at states which have predominantly one side or the other in charge and some of the BS they pull because the opposition is not effective. Yes, the republicans have taken it to a spiteful and stupid level recently, but the reality is that it is supposed to work that insanity of extremists gets stopped by gridlock. The problem with that theory seems to be that when it comes to things like spying on the american people and corporate welfare from our tax money it gets passed without any gridlock. Oh, and let us not forget wars and pay raises for congress. Then there is huge private contracts which always seem to get passed for their corporate buddies.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
In other words you support things that will accomplish nothing instead of doing serious business?
Click to expand...

You mean like spying on millions of innocent americans? Or getting us into another war and killing hundreds of thousands of people?
 
tererun said:
It doesn't make much difference to the point. Whether you like the bill or hate it there are only 2 ways to get rid of it in america. You either repeal it through the legislature, which is not happening with a dem senate and Obama in charge, or you get the courts to declare it unconstitutional which has already failed setting precedent which will make any further attempts that much harder. So until something changes these votes are a waste of time and resources.

This may become an even bigger problem seeing as how the bill might actually do something about the insane costs of health insurance. Seeing as how it looks like in many of the states implementing it you are seeing a drastic decrease in health insurance costs to affordable levels the act may actually gain support. I was just reading some news NY rates went down to around 55 dollars a month as opposed to the hundreds of dollars that used to be their minimum. If employers can get rates like that when the mandate comes into effect it is actually good for them too. To give you an idea that is a .34 cent an hour benefit for a FT 40 hour a week employee. When you consider tax incentives and the reality bulk insurance purchases end uip being less it really is not a terrible expense for an employer to make to comply with the law, and your FT employees get health care and can stop bitching about not having it.
Click to expand...

One would think that after this one would post a link showing that this is happening.

So....want to provide proof of your claims?
 
Huh. How about more House votes to repeal the Patriot Act? That'll get my attention.
 
tererun said:
It doesn't make much difference to the point. Whether you like the bill or hate it there are only 2 ways to get rid of it in america. You either repeal it through the legislature, which is not happening with a dem senate and Obama in charge, or you get the courts to declare it unconstitutional which has already failed setting precedent which will make any further attempts that much harder. So until something changes these votes are a waste of time and resources.

This may become an even bigger problem seeing as how the bill might actually do something about the insane costs of health insurance. Seeing as how it looks like in many of the states implementing it you are seeing a drastic decrease in health insurance costs to affordable levels the act may actually gain support. I was just reading some news NY rates went down to around 55 dollars a month as opposed to the hundreds of dollars that used to be their minimum. If employers can get rates like that when the mandate comes into effect it is actually good for them too. To give you an idea that is a .34 cent an hour benefit for a FT 40 hour a week employee. When you consider tax incentives and the reality bulk insurance purchases end uip being less it really is not a terrible expense for an employer to make to comply with the law, and your FT employees get health care and can stop bitching about not having it.
Click to expand...

I don't know the details related to NY - it would be interesting to see who is eating the reduction in cost for insurance there. If the reductions are being eaten by the taxpayers of NY through insurance exchanges that artificially reduce the costs now but will eventually rise again once people buy in, that's just a fools game. If the insurance companies are eating it, I'll believe it when I see it.

As for businesses, two facts remain - if you don't provide insurance to your employees now and you will have to under the employer mandate, you will either raise the cost of your product or reduce your employee compliment or the hours they work to ensure you're under the mandate - since business is not exactly booming and competition remains fierce, I don't see raising prices to pay for insurance as a viable option - secondly, for those who do provide insurance, mostly unionized shops, unions are finding that the companies now have the option of paying the "fine" or tax at a far lesser cost to them than actually providing the insurance - that potentially leads to the loss of employer subsidized health insurance for many and that's what unions are warning about.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
In other words you support things that will accomplish nothing instead of doing serious business?
Click to expand...

Like what "serious" business? I'm not interested in corporate welfare, welfare, immigration reform, gun control or whatever other nonsense they want to do that they don't have the power to do.

Sorry, but I want them to focus on repeals of some laws right now like Obamacare and the Patriot act.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
In other words you support things that will accomplish nothing instead of doing serious business?
Click to expand...

Without question. I hate to tell you this but I consider the US Congress to be the biggest impediment to progress in our country. The less it does, the better. I also support free country club memberships for all members of congress and a 4 hour work week for them.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yea **** the government governing! :roll:
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it governing. I have a problem with it growing or even maintaining its current size.
 
repeal and replace with medicare for all.
 
Democrats rammed through ****ty legislation they didnt bother to read. A week or so ago, the President decided that ****ty legislation was going to impact businesses and unemployment (theres a shocker) and announced he would suspend the business mandate for 1 year (someone will have to produce the part of the Constitution that enables the President to override the law of the land...and in this particular case the law o f the land which HE promoted and signed). Now the republicans who ALWAYS opposed this legislation see the presidents chicken **** maneuver as an opnening to repeal what they never wanted in the first place. They dont want it. The president and democrats are scared ****less about what it is going to do to the economy and ultimately, their reelection chances in 2014. Bottom line...how can you be shocked the republicans are moving to repeal a POS law that even the guy that signed it doesnt want to see implemented?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom