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?
mertex said:Do they really care for America if they stoop to the point of shutting down government?
mertex said: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.
mertex" said: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.
mertex said: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.
Maybe, but there's a better chance, post mid term election, to defund it.
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.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 was part of the article, they were not defined. I would imagine the experts are economists.What experts? Link?
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 the party of "NO" rhetoric becomes the Democrats. :lol:
Public opinion shows that more people are getting on the "favor" side of HCR than there were before.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.
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.
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.
. I would hope they are that reckless and certainly I would support it. 100% yes.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?
. 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 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.
. 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.
. Then your obviously hyper partisan because Democrats do it all the time when their reelection is on the line.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.
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 individual mandate requires funding? For what?
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.
.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.
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.
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
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,
Delaying or stopping funding will cause a shut-down, which might not work to the Reps favor.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?