GOP Plans Assault On Health Care

[Albert Di Salvo]

By KENDRA MARR Back To Story Page »


Rep. Fred Upton says, 'We're going to go after this bill piece by piece.'
Photo by AP Photo



The new Republican-controlled House plans to schedule a vote to repeal the sweeping health care overhaul before President Barack Obama delivers his annual State of the Union address late this month, incoming House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said Sunday.

“We have 242 Republicans,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” He added, “There will be a significant number of Democrats, I think, that will join us. You will remember when that vote passed in the House last March, it only passed by seven votes.”

Upton, whose committee will play a key role in the GOP's effort to roll back the law, said that he believes the House may be near the two-thirds majority required to override a presidential veto.

“If we pass this bill with a sizeable vote, and I think that we will, it will put enormous pressure on the Senate to do perhaps the same thing,” he said. “But then, after that, we're going to go after this bill piece by piece.”

Upton specifically called out the requirement for businesses to complete 1099 tax forms, the individual mandate and the amendment on abortion introduced by Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak. "We will look at these individual pieces to see if we can't have the thing crumble," he said.

Republicans officially take control of the House on Wednesday.

Moderator's Warning:

Removed portion of article due to Fair Use.

POLITICO Forums:Congress: GOP plans assault on health law - POLITICO.com

 

[justabubba]

Kucinich: GOP’s anti-health reform push may fuel Medicare-for-all drive

we can only hope
Kucinich: GOP’s anti-health reform push may fuel Medicare-for-all drive | Raw Story

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

we can only hope
Kucinich: GOP’s anti-health reform push may fuel Medicare-for-all drive | Raw Story

Where will you get the money to fund Medicare for all?

 

[justabubba]

Where will you get the money to fund Medicare for all?

getting out of two wars and reducing our foreign military expenditures would appear to be a great place to begin to realize savings

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

getting out of two wars and reducing our foreign military expenditures would appear to be a great place to begin to realize savings

That money is needed for debt service on the national debt, i.e., interest payments to the Chinese et al.

 

[Zyphlin]

getting out of two wars and reducing our foreign military expenditures would appear to be a great place to begin to realize savings

Ending the wars would be a short term budget windfall that would not have much affect on the long term cost of what you're suggesting. Additionally, one of the wars already has a defined point of end made by this President already and approved by a Democrat controlled congress and another of the wars was ramped up by those very same people. So its unrealistic to think that what you're proposing is actually going to happen, nor should something be passed banking on that happening to pay for it unless the wars have already been stopped at that point.

To get the savings that we'd need from reducing foriegn mliitary expenditures we would likely need to severely limit our strategic locations globally to near isolationist conditions, essentially permanently.

Its not a practical solution in and of itself. Especially since those current expenditures are costing us money and we need to find ways to REDUCE spending, not simply shuffling it to another project. What you're suggesting would actually be MORE costly, as the war's will inevitably go down in cost or go off the books where as what you're suggesting would continue on.

 

[OscarB63]

Ending the wars would be a short term budget windfall that would not have much affect on the long term cost of what you're suggesting. Additionally, one of the wars already has a defined point of end made by this President already and approved by a Democrat controlled congress and another of the wars was ramped up by those very same people. So its unrealistic to think that what you're proposing is actually going to happen, nor should something be passed banking on that happening to pay for it unless the wars have already been stopped at that point.

To get the savings that we'd need from reducing foriegn mliitary expenditures we would likely need to severely limit our strategic locations globally to near isolationist conditions, essentially permanently.

Its not a practical solution in and of itself. Especially since those current expenditures are costing us money and we need to find ways to REDUCE spending, not simply shuffling it to another project. What you're suggesting would actually be MORE costly, as the war's will inevitably go down in cost or go off the books where as what you're suggesting would continue on.

shhhh, don't sidetrack his anti-military hatred with such trivial matters as facts and logic

 

[Chappy]

The new House Republican majority will certainly bring to the floor a repeal of Obama's health care reform bill. House Democrats will debate them every step of the way, reminding us about all the excellent benefits contained in the plan.

I think the G.O.P. action will ultimately redound to the liberals' political cause and the Republicans will come off as overreaching. And, of course, the repeal will never come up on the floor of the Senate, or, if it does, it will die there. This is political theater but it's not really changing anything.

If House Republicans want to eliminate Obama's health reform program, they'll have to use the power of the purse and I suspect that blunt instrument won't get past the Senate or Obama's veto pen either. No, the law is here with us and as it becomes fully implemented over the next several years it will prove its worth.

More interesting this week is the Senate debate about filibuster reform. And, later, the debate over increasing the debt ceiling.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

....If House Republicans want to eliminate Obama's health reform program, they'll have to use the power of the purse and I suspect that blunt instrument won't get past the Senate or Obama's veto pen either.....

Here's where we part company. Neither the Senate nor Obama can force the House to fund Obamacare. It is outside their power. The Senate won't be much of a player because Reid has lost effective control of that chamber by virtue of all the Demos up for reelection in 2012.

Obama will have to persuade the Rep House to fund Obamacare. How is he going to do that? What are his carrots and his sticks? He has none.

 

[Renae]

Here's where we part company. Neither the Senate nor Obama can force the House to fund Obamacare. It is outside their power. The Senate won't be much of a player because Reid has lost effective control of that chamber by virtue of all the Demos up for reelection in 2012.

Obama will have to persuade the Rep House to fund Obamacare. How is he going to do that? What are his carrots and his sticks? He has none.

Yes he does, teh GOP is spineless. The Media will castigate them, Obama and Co. will urge "Working together" and the GOP will fold.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Yes he does, teh GOP is spineless. The Media will castigate them, Obama and Co. will urge "Working together" and the GOP will fold.

Then they will be introduced to their primary challengers and their political contributors will be asked to judge their actions.

 

[ksu_aviator]

I hope they do. I don't want to have to spend an extra $280 a month on the extra coverage (coverage I don't need, won't use and isn't cost effective) that is mandated in the HCR bill.

 

[Goshin]

I certainly hope they do go after it, and dismantle most or all of it. In fact I expect it of them, if they wish my continued support.

About .30 of every dollar of our budget is already debt. We have PASSED the limit of how much social welfare we can afford ALREADY.

 

[justabubba]

I certainly hope they do go after it, and dismantle most or all of it. In fact I expect it of them, if they wish my continued support.

About .30 of every dollar of our budget is already debt. We have PASSED the limit of how much social welfare we can afford ALREADY.

but the amount we can afford to spend on a projected global military presence is unlimited
got it
also recognize what is valued
sustaining a military industrial complex = good
sustaining the least among us = bad
forfeit your wwjd bracelet

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

but the amount we can afford to spend on a projected global military presence is unlimited
got it
also recognize what is valued
sustaining a military industrial complex = good
sustaining the least among us = bad
forfeit your wwjd bracelet

At the risk of being redundant I would like to mention that America is fast approaching the point where it can no longer afford either a military industrial complex or social welfare spending for the least among us because there are interest payments that must be made to the Chinese. If America misses a payment the Chinese will cut off its credit. That's the way it works when you're a debtor...your creditors get to make decisions for you.

 

[cpwill]

but the amount we can afford to spend on a projected global military presence is unlimited
got it
also recognize what is valued
sustaining a military industrial complex = good
sustaining the least among us = bad
forfeit your wwjd bracelet

well heck. while we're using magic numbers, let's just cut earmarks for the party not in power and pay for all of obamacare with that? :roll:


Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.... i have my problems with them, but they were all bipartisan. Democrats rammed Obamacare through under questionable legislative methods and against the (loudly) expressed will of the people.


As we warned you before, this fight isn't over; this fight is just getting set up.

 

[justabubba]

At the risk of being redundant I would like to mention that America is fast approaching the point where it can no longer afford either a military industrial complex or social welfare spending for the least among us because there are interest payments that must be made to the Chinese. If America misses a payment the Chinese will cut off its credit. That's the way it works when you're a debtor...your creditors get to make decisions for you.

for a change, you are correct




you are being redundant

 

[OscarB63]

but the amount we can afford to spend on a projected global military presence is unlimited
got it
also recognize what is valued
sustaining a military industrial complex = good
sustaining the least among us = bad
forfeit your wwjd bracelet

at least sustaining a military industrial complex provides jobs for people....what does welfare provide, other than another generation that needs welfare?

 

[justabubba]

at least sustaining a military industrial complex provides jobs for people....what does welfare provide, other than another generation that needs welfare?

at least you are open about where you actually stand:
**** the kids who were born into poverty
let them remain hungry while sleeping in the streets
sorry little curtain climbers should get a job and feed and diaper themselves

who knows, those manufacturers of weapons of destruction might be hiring toddlers. those arms suppliers certainly don't want to see our wars end, and provide congress with legal bribes (a/k/a campaign contributions) to assure that "end" does not result, so maybe those poor kids could grow into the jobs


stay classy

 

[OscarB63]

at least you are open about where you actually stand:
**** the kids who were born into poverty
let them remain hungry while sleeping in the streets
sorry little curtain climbers should get a job and feed and diaper themselves

who knows, those manufacturers of weapons of destruction might be hiring toddlers. those arms suppliers certainly don't want to see our wars end, and provide congress with legal bribes (a/k/a campaign contributions) to assure that "end" does not result, so maybe those poor kids could grow into the jobs


stay classy

correct. **** those kids who are born into poverty and stay there. **** them hard. I too was born into poverty and worked my way out. If I can do it, they can too. UNLESS, they care to admit that I am superior to them and they need me to take care of them.

if we are equals...**** them
if I am superior...I will help them

 

[justabubba]

well heck. while we're using magic numbers, let's just cut earmarks for the party not in power and pay for all of obamacare with that? :roll:


Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.... i have my problems with them, but they were all bipartisan. Democrats rammed Obamacare through under questionable legislative methods and against the (loudly) expressed will of the people.


As we warned you before, this fight isn't over; this fight is just getting set up.

did they not offer arithmetic in your school?
do the math

add up the earmarks
do the same for the cost of national health care

now compare


this is why pseudo"conservatives" should not be placed in positions of power. basic math escapes them. folks who are unable to comprehend basic math should not be allowed to participate in any discussion involving numbers ... especially where that discussion involves the nation's budget

 

[Zyphlin]

did they not offer arithmetic in your school?
do the math

Someone whose ridiculous math was blindly and ignorantly partisan to the point of also not being responsible shouldn't be critiquing someone elses math skills.

 

[justabubba]

Someone whose ridiculous math was blindly and ignorantly partisan to the point of also not being responsible shouldn't be critiquing someone elses math skills.

and we notice that you still have not trotted out the numbers to prove my point to be wrong

do that

i look forward to it

 

[Zyphlin]

and we notice that you still have not trotted out the numbers to prove my point to be wrong

do that

i look forward to it

And you've trotted out what numbers specifically to prove others wrong?

The War in Iraq is set to end within the next two years. What kind of math are you using that suggests 2 years of savings is going to have any kind of significant impact on paying for something that would be on the books potentially for the next 50 years plus?

The War in Afghanistan, even unrealistically, isn't going to be ongoing outside of this decade. Lets even end it at 2020, going really long term with it....ending it now would be 9 years worth of savings. Again, how exactly is 9 years worth of savings in the 2010's going to be paying for something in the 2040's?

So then your answer is "cut defense spending overseas". Defense represents roughly 19% of the budget currently. Medicare, in its CURRENT form which covers but a fraction of the population, already takes up 14% of the budget by itself.

Medicare, currently, covers roughly 35 million people. Meanwhile, there are roughly 310 million citizens in the US. So it covers just under 12% of the legal population.

Now, lets just pretend an absolute amazing best cast scenario for what you're suggesting with medicare for all. Lets say the top 10% of citizens don't take it and pay out of pocket for medical expenses. That leaves us with about 279 million people. Then, 35 million are already on medicare. So our final number is 244 million new people onto medicare. Or roughly 7 times the amount of people.

Now, continuing to be extremely generous with a best case scenario, despite a 700% jump in the amount of people covered we'll only say that it will cost double what it costs now to run medicare. Meaning its share of the Federal Budget would need to raise from 14% of the budget to 28% of the budget.

Now, to pay for it throughout its entire lifetime you seem to be suggesting that we simply cut defense spending, specifically foreign presense. That said, to pay for this RIDICULOUSLY gracious bump to Medicare you would need to lower defense spending down to only 5% of the national budget. A cut that size would unquestionably have to come with things being removed beyond simple foreign presense, as you're lowering the defense budget by almost 2/3rds. This would not be "reducing" our foreign military expenditures, it would mean eliminating it, along with a great amount of domestic expenditures as well.

So while feasibly it is possible...IE there won't suddenly be zero money for the military...the amount of a hit defense spending would take even in the most generous of generous scenarios would be unimaginably limiting on the military and would reach FAR wider than simply pulling troops back from locations around the world. Not to mention it in no way deals with the fact that the budget, as it stands is currently unsustainable. Furthermore, it doesn't account for the fact that our population growth is continually moving upwards, meaning that the Medicare number will also have to trend upwards in needing more and more of the budget to cover it, meaning again other programs will need to be continually cut or more money will be borrowed.

It is entirely unfeasable to attempt to provide "medicare for all" simply by "ending the two wars" and "reducing our foreign military expenditures". In the best case scenario it leaves our military severely underfunded and/or the medicare underfunded, and in the worst case scenario it'd be simply impossible.

Link 1 (budget graph)
Link 2 (medicare recipients)
Link 3 (US population)

 

[justabubba]

And you've trotted out what numbers specifically to prove others wrong?

The War in Iraq is set to end within the next two years. What kind of math are you using that suggests 2 years of savings is going to have any kind of significant impact on paying for something that would be on the books potentially for the next 50 years plus?

The War in Afghanistan, even unrealistically, isn't going to be ongoing outside of this decade. Lets even end it at 2020, going really long term with it....ending it now would be 9 years worth of savings. Again, how exactly is 9 years worth of savings in the 2010's going to be paying for something in the 2040's?

So then your answer is "cut defense spending overseas". Defense represents roughly 19% of the budget currently. Medicare, in its CURRENT form which covers but a fraction of the population, already takes up 14% of the budget by itself.

Medicare, currently, covers roughly 35 million people. Meanwhile, there are roughly 310 million citizens in the US. So it covers just under 12% of the legal population.

Now, lets just pretend an absolute amazing best cast scenario for what you're suggesting with medicare for all. Lets say the top 10% of citizens don't take it and pay out of pocket for medical expenses. That leaves us with about 279 million people. Then, 35 million are already on medicare. So our final number is 244 million new people onto medicare. Or roughly 7 times the amount of people.

Now, continuing to be extremely generous with a best case scenario, despite a 700% jump in the amount of people covered we'll only say that it will cost double what it costs now to run medicare. Meaning its share of the Federal Budget would need to raise from 14% of the budget to 28% of the budget.

Now, to pay for it throughout its entire lifetime you seem to be suggesting that we simply cut defense spending, specifically foreign presense. That said, to pay for this RIDICULOUSLY gracious bump to Medicare you would need to lower defense spending down to only 5% of the national budget. A cut that size would unquestionably have to come with things being removed beyond simple foreign presense, as you're lowering the defense budget by almost 2/3rds. This would not be "reducing" our foreign military expenditures, it would mean eliminating it, along with a great amount of domestic expenditures as well.

So while feasibly it is possible...IE there won't suddenly be zero money for the military...the amount of a hit defense spending would take even in the most generous of generous scenarios would be unimaginably limiting on the military and would reach FAR wider than simply pulling troops back from locations around the world. Not to mention it in no way deals with the fact that the budget, as it stands is currently unsustainable. Furthermore, it doesn't account for the fact that our population growth is continually moving upwards, meaning that the Medicare number will also have to trend upwards in needing more and more of the budget to cover it, meaning again other programs will need to be continually cut or more money will be borrowed.

It is entirely unfeasable to attempt to provide "medicare for all" simply by "ending the two wars" and "reducing our foreign military expenditures". In the best case scenario it leaves our military severely underfunded and/or the medicare underfunded, and in the worst case scenario it'd be simply impossible.

Link 1 (budget graph)
Link 2 (medicare recipients)
Link 3 (US population)

add reading impaired to the math impairment for those on the right wing
here was my request for the math to be performed so that the forum member would recognize for himself how misguided his statements were that eliminating the costs of earmarks would cover the health care needs of our nation
see for yourself:

did they not offer arithmetic in your school?
do the math

add up the earmarks
do the same for the cost of national health care

now compare


this is why pseudo"conservatives" should not be placed in positions of power. basic math escapes them. folks who are unable to comprehend basic math should not be allowed to participate in any discussion involving numbers ... especially where that discussion involves the nation's budget

now, do the math
please
embarrass your side
the right suffers from a logic deficit. an inability to understand basic math is proof of this