Republican's Pledge to America Bad for America (1 Viewer)

[mertex]

The GOP unveiled their "Pledge to America" - and one of their main goals is to repeal and replace the government take over of health care. Republicans are adamant that their leaders make a "blood oath" to put health care repeal a #1 priority.

Can they repeal it?

Do they really care for America if they stoop to the point of shutting down government?

With a piece of legislation as large as the health care reform, an entire repeal is unlikely. However, if the Republicans take control of the House in November, they could use three types of tactics to effectively halt progress, according to Kaiser Health News.

The first is their "repeal and replace" agenda. The repeal demands votes, but just what they're planning to replace the current plan with is the biggest concern.

Some experts believe their proposals will ultimately costs consumer more and result in fewer Americans insured. Either way, the Republicans will have to sell their ideas to House members and to the public.

Even if the House Republicans put forth a plan that wins, they'll still have to pass it through the Senate, requiring 60 votes. Currently they have 41 seats and aren't likely to pick up many more in November. Ultimately, they would need two-thirds support from both House and Senate to override an Obama veto.


A second tactic is to prevent funding for the bill, which could ultimately lead to a government shut-down. Don't be confused: many Republicans aren't shying away from a shut-down.

More likely than a shut-down would be delaying or stopping funding for contentious provisions, such as the individual mandate.

Lastly, they could use "oversight shutdown," a nice way of saying they could waste every one's time. Accomplished by requesting numerous oversight hearings, it would require officials to spend precious time and resources preparing testimony, answering questions and appearing before committees.

As a bevy of consumer-friendly provisions start to kick in on September 23rd, it's plausible -- though not certain -- Americans will warm up to the health care reform. Until then, Obama will continue fighting and stumping for his Act under attack.

Tell Congress: Don't Undermine Health Care Reform!

Could the Republicans Really Dismantle Health Care Reform? | Health | Change.org

 

[Ockham]

The GOP unveiled their "Pledge to America" - and one of their main goals is to repeal and replace the government take over of health care. Republicans are adamant that their leaders make a "blood oath" to put health care repeal a #1 priority.

Can they repeal it?

Maybe, but there's a better chance, post mid term election, to defund it.

Do they really care for America if they stoop to the point of shutting down government?

Less government involvement is a good thing therefore a shutdown would be a boon, not a detriment. Granted a full shutdown for a long time may not be a good thing.

Some experts believe their proposals will ultimately costs consumer more and result in fewer Americans insured. Either way, the Republicans will have to sell their ideas to House members and to the public.

What experts? Link?

Even if the House Republicans put forth a plan that wins, they'll still have to pass it through the Senate, requiring 60 votes. Currently they have 41 seats and aren't likely to pick up many more in November. Ultimately, they would need two-thirds support from both House and Senate to override an Obama veto.

Then the party of "NO" rhetoric becomes the Democrats. :lol:

As a bevy of consumer-friendly provisions start to kick in on September 23rd, it's plausible -- though not certain -- Americans will warm up to the health care reform. Until then, Obama will continue fighting and stumping for his Act under attack.

Very doubtful as over a year of selling has not changed public opinion and now insurance companies are raising premiums on members like the AARP members up to 70% in some cases. Not something people will warm up to during this economy.

 

[Wiseone]

I for one would actually like to see a Republican plan that worked within the system, rather than always a plan to attempt to rewrite it entirely within their own ideals.

 

[Barbbtx]

Mertx@ More likely than a shut-down would be delaying or stopping funding for contentious provisions, such as the individual mandate.


There are 20 some states suing over the mandate. If the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, I don't see how the rest of the bill can stand. Forcing people to buy a product they don't want was how they planned on paying for it.

 

[mertex]

Maybe, but there's a better chance, post mid term election, to defund it.

HRC funding is part of the HHS appropriation. If the republicans refuse to fund it, the entire HHS appropriation will be held up. Holding up funding for Medicare and Medicaid does not sound like such a wise move, especially when there are many Republicans on Medicare. Guess who the Dems are going to point the finger at? It will be like suicide for the GOP.

Would Republicans be so reckless as to create that kind of chaos to America. Do you support it?

Less government involvement is a good thing therefore a shutdown would be a boon, not a detriment. Granted a full shutdown for a long time may not be a good thing.

That is not "less government involvement" - actually it is more Republican government involvement in creating more chaos to an already weak economy. It could turn into a long drawn out effort where we, the citizens are the ones that end up losing.

What experts? Link?

That was part of the article, they were not defined. I would imagine the experts are economists.

Then the party of "NO" rhetoric becomes the Democrats. :lol:

They would surely vote "no" on repeal, if they want to remain in their jobs, but Democrats have never exhibited the kind of behavior that Republicans are demonstrating, where they don't show any regard for the people.

Very doubtful as over a year of selling has not changed public opinion and now insurance companies are raising premiums on members like the AARP members up to 70% in some cases. Not something people will warm up to during this economy.

Public opinion shows that more people are getting on the "favor" side of HCR than there were before.

New Polls Bring Good News for HCR

As the hand-wringing and nail-biting about HCR shifts into overdrive, the latest polls bring some good news for Dems, explains WaPo's Chris Cillizza:

A new polling memo from Joel Benenson, the White House's pollster of choice, argues that support for President Barack Obama's health care plan has been building in the wake of his State of the Union speech in late January.
Since February 1, according to data compiled by Benenson, 44 percent of those tested in national surveys support the bill while 45 percent oppose it -- a sea change from the 38 percent favor/52 percent oppose average of polls conducted in the three months prior.
New Polls Bring Good News for HCR | Democratic Strategist

 

[mertex]

Mertx@ More likely than a shut-down would be delaying or stopping funding for contentious provisions, such as the individual mandate.


There are 20 some states suing over the mandate. If the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, I don't see how the rest of the bill can stand. Forcing people to buy a product they don't want was how they planned on paying for it.

What are you talking about. Polls now show those that favor HCR are in a dead heat with those that oppose it. I doubt Reps will be able to do much other than create more problems for the citizens, who will surely take note.

 

[Deuce]

Mertx@ More likely than a shut-down would be delaying or stopping funding for contentious provisions, such as the individual mandate.


There are 20 some states suing over the mandate. If the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, I don't see how the rest of the bill can stand. Forcing people to buy a product they don't want was how they planned on paying for it.

The individual mandate requires funding? For what?

 

[Ockham]

HRC funding is part of the HHS appropriation. If the republicans refuse to fund it, the entire HHS appropriation will be held up. Holding up funding for Medicare and Medicaid does not sound like such a wise move, especially when there are many Republicans on Medicare. Guess who the Dems are going to point the finger at? It will be like suicide for the GOP.

Would Republicans be so reckless as to create that kind of chaos to America. Do you support it?

. I would hope they are that reckless and certainly I would support it. 100% yes.

That is not "less government involvement" - actually it is more Republican government involvement in creating more chaos to an already weak economy. It could turn into a long drawn out effort where we, the citizens are the ones that end up losing.

. We lose no matter who's in office so how is your version of losing better than mine again? I'd rather lose with less involvement if possible rather than the way things are going now.

That was part of the article, they were not defined. I would imagine the experts are economists.

. Yeah, I'm looking for names.... But there are none and when there are none, I'm very skeptical of the information provided.

They would surely vote "no" on repeal, if they want to remain in their jobs, but Democrats have never exhibited the kind of behavior that Republicans are demonstrating, where they don't show any regard for the people.

. Then your obviously hyper partisan because Democrats do it all the time when their reelection is on the line.

PublicNew Polls Bring Good News for HCR
As the hand-wringing and nail-biting about HCR shifts into overdrive, the latest polls bring some good news for Dems, explains WaPo's Chris Cillizza:

A new polling memo from Joel Benenson, the White House's pollster of choice, argues that support for President Barack Obama's health care plan has been building in the wake of his State of the Union speech in late January.
Since February 1, according to data compiled by Benenson, 44 percent of those tested in national surveys support the bill while 45 percent oppose it -- a sea change from the 38 percent favor/52 percent oppose average of polls conducted in the three months prior.
New Polls Bring Good News for HCR | Democratic Strategist

The white houses own pollster of choice states Obama care is gaining ground with the American people? Truly amazing.... :lamo

 

[Barbbtx]

The individual mandate requires funding? For what?

The republicans may not have to do anything about the healthcare bill. It will fail all on it's own if the mandates aren't there.
The bill depends on people buying a product they may not want. I never said the mandate required funding, it is the funding that the bill is counting on. Without it, the bill is pretty much dead in my opinion.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888


"But because President Obama is likely to veto any Congressional efforts to repeal the health care plan, I am highly encouraged that Alaska has chosen to join 19 other states to challenge the Constitutionality of this law."
The Alaska Journal of Commerce - Alaska joins 19 states suing ...
The Alaska Journal of Commerce - Alaska joins 19 states suing federal government over health insurance reform 04/20/10

 

[molten_dragon]

Hopefully if the republicans get into office, they will realize that a wholesale repeal of the healthcare act is a futile endeavor. And even if they were successful, all that would happen is that the dems would pass it again (or something like it) as soon as they get back into power again. The healthcare bill is law now. It's not the best law, but it's what we have and everyone needs to deal with that reality. By all means, fix some of the issues with it, but a wholesale repeal just isn't smart.

 

[Ockham]

Hopefully if the republicans get into office, they will realize that a wholesale repeal of the healthcare act is a futile endeavor. And even if they were successful, all that would happen is that the dems would pass it again (or something like it) as soon as they get back into power again. The healthcare bill is law now. It's not the best law, but it's what we have and everyone needs to deal with that reality. By all means, fix some of the issues with it, but a wholesale repeal just isn't smart.

Worth a shot at repeal then. Hell, it took then 40+ years to get it passed the first time. Maybe the GOP will get lucky and it'll take 20+ years for a second try. I can live with that.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

.Yeah, I'm looking for names.... But there are none and when there are none, I'm very skeptical of the information provided.

That was part of the article, they were not defined. I would imagine the experts are economists.

Actually, not so much. This was the link from the article you provided (where it says "some experts"). Its one news editor's opinion and this is his reasoning:

Although the effect of these changes on individual premiums will vary a lot from person to person, the CBO concluded that, once you account for the subsidies, reform will mean lower average premiums for people with private insurance. Repeal reform and these people are stuck paying more (unless Republicans are willing to let benefits get a lot more skimpy). The official projections also suggest that, ten years from now, government spending on health care will be lower than it might otherwise be. Repeal reform and the deficits go back up -- by more than $100 billion over ten years. And while the nation as a whole will pay slightly more for health care over the next ten years, the rate of growth -- which is the figure we care about most -- will be lower. Take away reform and, according to the projections, health care costs will rise at a higher rate.

He's only talking about the repeal with no mention at all of the replacement. He simply assumes the Republican plan involves no other actions that might decrease the growth in healthcare costs. Thus his argument is simply attacking a straw man, namely, the idea of repeal without any replacement. Its not a worthwhile argument regardless of the actual merits or demerits of the Republican plan.

 

[Deuce]

The republicans may not have to do anything about the healthcare bill. It will fail all on it's own if the mandates aren't there.
The bill depends on people buying a product they may not want. I never said the mandate required funding, it is the funding that the bill is counting on. Without it, the bill is pretty much dead in my opinion.
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888


"But because President Obama is likely to veto any Congressional efforts to repeal the health care plan, I am highly encouraged that Alaska has chosen to join 19 other states to challenge the Constitutionality of this law."
The Alaska Journal of Commerce - Alaska joins 19 states suing ...
The Alaska Journal of Commerce - Alaska joins 19 states suing federal government over health insurance reform 04/20/10

Yes, if the mandate gets overturned that makes the pre-existing conditions exclusion unsustainable. But that's a court issue, not a GOP issue. And it's also not what we were discussing. It's impossible for the GOP to pick up enough seats to actually repeal the bill, they could mess with its funding with 51 Senate seats via reconciliation, but anything else is going to get vetoed or filibustered. It's impossible for the GOP to pick up enough seats to override a veto, and you'd never get enough Democrats to vote to override their own president's veto. So, like I said, the individual mandate is not something that needs to be funded, per se. It generates funds. You could theoretically defund the credits that the bill creates for people in the lower income range, but have fun with the political backlash when you leave people with a mandate to purchase health insurance they can't afford.

edit: actually you can veto a reconciliation bill apparently so this whole discussion becomes moot until after the 2012 election cycle anyway.

 

[Donc]

I breathlessly await what the lobbyist come up with next month.:roll:

 

[Deuce]

I breathlessly await what the lobbyist come up with next month.:roll:

Which is really the crux of the issue. The insurance industry crafted this bill. Anyone who thinks its going to destroy them is nuts,

 

[Ockham]

Which is really the crux of the issue. The insurance industry crafted this bill. Anyone who thinks its going to destroy them is nuts,

And by any measure, such a move led by, condoned by and signed off by Pelosi and Reid with Obama's blessing is a failure. Such a bill deserved failure, not passage - which is why the years worth of rhetoric by the White House stating the American people are uneducated about the bill didn't resonate either.

 

[mertex]

Mertx@ More likely than a shut-down would be delaying or stopping funding for contentious provisions, such as the individual mandate.

Delaying or stopping funding will cause a shut-down, which might not work to the Reps favor.

There are 20 some states suing over the mandate. If the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, I don't see how the rest of the bill can stand. Forcing people to buy a product they don't want was how they planned on paying for it.

I guess Reps keep forgetting that Obama taught Constitutional law. Of course he would know if something was unconstitutional. I think those states are just going to waste their taxpayer's money.

Congress's powers to impose an income tax, a penalty tax, or an excise tax are unproblematic. The House and Senate versions of the individual mandate are clearly within Congress's powers to tax and spend for the general welfare. Nor are they direct taxes that must be apportioned by state. Under the 16th Amendment taxes on income need not be apportioned no matter what the source of the income; excise and penalty taxes are not taxes on real estate and they are not capitation or "head" taxes, taxes that are levied on the population no matter what they do. Therefore they are not direct taxes within the meaning of the Constitution and existing precedents.

Either the House or the Senate version of the tax is clearly constitutional under existing law. It is not even a close question.

The reason why Senator Hatch does not tell you what is in the bill in his op-ed is because once you read it, you will see that what he says is not true. The individual mandate is structured as a tax. And the tax is perfectly constitutional under Congress's powers to tax and spend for the general welfare.

That doesn't make the individual mandate, absent the choice of an alternative public option so that people aren't forced to send their money to private insurers who have been abusing their trust with the American people for all these decades for what will amount for many to little more than junk insurance, either a good political or policy solution. But it's not unconstitutional.
Daily Kos: State of the Nation