Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 02, 2014, 11:38:05 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  should the republicans try to repeal HCR
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: should the republicans try to repeal HCR  (Read 2264 times)
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2296
United States


View Profile
« on: January 13, 2011, 07:26:02 pm »
Ignore

I think the democrats should do what they did in texas back in '03 which is to get 145-150 house democrats (which shouldn't be hard) and to get on a secret bus to Canada. That way they can break quorum and there wouldn't be enough people present. If they could successfully stall repeal it might actually be worth it.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2011, 07:52:51 pm »
Ignore

Why wouldnt they?  Its not like its actually going to go anywhere with Democrats holding the Senate and White House. 
Logged
Invisible Obama
DrScholl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3548
United States



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2011, 09:12:56 pm »
Ignore

They don't have to do that, repeal isn't going anywhere after it passes the House.
Logged
Grumps
GM3PRP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33928
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan
View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2011, 09:25:44 pm »
Ignore

Logged

Either my uncle or I helps by putting the ice in the glasses and pouring the tea.
SvenssonRS
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3603
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.39, S: -4.35

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2011, 09:43:08 pm »
Ignore



Ah, memories of one of the most massive douchebags of the 2010 cycle...
Logged

In Wyoming, there are two seasons.
Winter and July.
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14331


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2011, 10:07:37 pm »
Ignore

No need.  So what if a repeal passes the House, it has no chance of passing the Senate.
Logged

Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35772
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2011, 11:18:15 pm »
Ignore

No need.  So what if a repeal passes the House, it has no chance of passing the Senate.

And even if by some miracle it does (which it won't), it'd NEVER pass a veto override.
Logged
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2548
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2011, 11:23:11 pm »
Ignore

Any word on whether Republicans in the House may try to cut off funding for it via committees?
Logged

"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized." ~ Nelson Mandela
fezzyfestoon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8287
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2011, 02:10:12 am »
Ignore

Should they in the grand scheme of things?  Of course not.  Should they in terms of the now insane Republican Party?  Absolutely.
Logged
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14884


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -3.83


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2011, 11:11:18 am »
Ignore

If they want to waste their time in the majority on an issue that will never become law, that's their choice. If I were them, I'd be trying to do something more productive.
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I will get up and move around every now and then so I reduce the chances to get hit with another Grade 8 headache in the morning.
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14971
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2011, 12:03:27 pm »
Ignore

I think the democrats should do what they did in texas back in '03 which is to get 145-150 house democrats (which shouldn't be hard) and to get on a secret bus to Canada. That way they can break quorum and there wouldn't be enough people present. If they could successfully stall repeal it might actually be worth it.

Different situation.  The "Killer Ds" were in the minority in both houses of the Texas legislature in 2003, and the executive branch was also controlled by the Republicans.  Denial of a quorum might have actually made a difference there.  Here and now, the US Senate and the Presidency is controlled by Democrats not likely to support repeal, so it would make no sense.

I think the best option for the GOP is not to waste time trying to repeal, but rather to use the power of the purse to force mitigation of the more controversial aspects of the law.  I also think that it is unrealistic to expect much of a change in tone, from either Democrats or Republicans, especially on something as divisive as the medical insurance bill. 
Logged
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15180
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2011, 01:30:07 pm »
Ignore

From what I've heard, a better strategy is withholding funding when the time for the budget comes around.
Logged

Senator JCL and the geologist
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4404
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2011, 11:55:11 pm »
Ignore

From what I've heard, a better strategy is withholding funding when the time for the budget comes around.

That's our plan B.
Logged

Congressional Races
Jackie Walorski (R/IN-2)
Marlin Stutzman (R/IN-3)
Todd Rokita (R/IN-4)
Chard Reid (Lib/IN-5)
Luke Messer (R/IN-6)
Tom Massie (R/KY-4)
David Brat (R/VA-7)
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14331


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2011, 02:29:33 am »
Ignore

From what I've heard, a better strategy is withholding funding when the time for the budget comes around.

That's our plan B.

Have to look for the article, but from a NPR article I read with how the healthcare bill was passed it would be near impossible to simply withhold the funding.  The only way they could truly block the spending, other than repeal (which has no chance in hell of passing) is a complete government shut down.
Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2011, 02:55:52 pm »
Ignore

I think the democrats should do what they did in texas back in '03 which is to get 145-150 house democrats (which shouldn't be hard) and to get on a secret bus to Canada. That way they can break quorum and there wouldn't be enough people present.
Wouldn't it make more sense to get 145-150 house republicans on a secret boat to Gitmo? Just kidding, folks.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47609


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2011, 03:53:21 pm »
Ignore

Its funny, but I think its an electoral loser to attack it effectively.  It only feeds the base, who are signed on anyway, but it drives away the middle who will be fleeing back to the Dems en masse soon anyway with stabilizing economy.

They should probably just vote for repeal to feed the base, let that be vetoed or overridden by the Senate, and then just let it go.  Messing around with funding interminably will progressively make them look more and more extreme and less and less appealing to the middle.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14971
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2011, 05:11:35 pm »
Ignore

Its funny, but I think its an electoral loser to attack it effectively.  It only feeds the base, who are signed on anyway, but it drives away the middle who will be fleeing back to the Dems en masse soon anyway with stabilizing economy.

They should probably just vote for repeal to feed the base, let that be vetoed or overridden by the Senate, and then just let it go.  Messing around with funding interminably will progressively make them look more and more extreme and less and less appealing to the middle.


all of that would make perfect sense if the middle actually supported the bill, wouldn't it.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47609


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2011, 05:37:19 pm »
Ignore

all of that would make perfect sense if the middle actually supported the bill, wouldn't it.

They don't?

They used to.. then as it progressed towards passage and then into law, support slipped.  I suspect that it will act that way in reverse as well.  Once the Republicans get really ugly in their attempts to kill it, more and more people will think 'hey wait a minute, they're really going to take this away from me'..
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 05:38:59 pm by opebo »Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

morays or demon
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3674


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: 5.91

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2011, 11:43:49 pm »
Ignore

Yes and replace it with single payer since that has an equal chance of happening under them (hint).
Logged


That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.

Don't worry, I'm sure more will crop up shortly.
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5808


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2011, 10:17:04 am »
Ignore

If they want to waste their time in the majority on an issue that will never become law, that's their choice. If I were them, I'd be trying to do something more productive.

Welcome to 2009 and cap and trade.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14971
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2011, 09:12:14 pm »
Ignore

all of that would make perfect sense if the middle actually supported the bill, wouldn't it.

They don't?

They used to.. then as it progressed towards passage and then into law, support slipped.  I suspect that it will act that way in reverse as well.  Once the Republicans get really ugly in their attempts to kill it, more and more people will think 'hey wait a minute, they're really going to take this away from me'..

Just now noticed your response.

I don't know, man.  I'm against it generally, but so far I don't think there has been any negative effects on me or my family.  Since its passage, I have taken my son to the pediatrician twice.  Once for a well visit and once for a cold.  And I haven't noticed that we had to put up with any more of the unwashed masses freeloading than we had before.  My son's pediatrician is still as accessible as before.  He doesn't seem any more or less flustered than before.  (He's the chief of pediatrics at a local hospital, and a Republican.  He's a nice guy.  We have had him over for dinner and he and I discuss politics regularly, and he doesn't seem too concerned about changes to his lifestyle.  Not yet anyway, although he recognizes the possibility.)  Our insurance policy hasn't changed.  We still have no co-payment.  No extra-long lines.  We never have to wait more than about 30 minutes for a regular, scheduled well visit.  Still receive excellent service.  And, in spite of all the talk of Americans spending 16% of their aggregate GDP on "health care" I have noticed that we still spend about 8%, just like last year, of our combined gross income on medical stuff.  And I"m including everything I can think of.  Bandaids, vitamins, fish oil, insurance premia, etc., etc.  Anyway, if it continues like this, then I guess none of it really bothers me.  Yes, on some level the Big Brother aspect bothers me, but I'm an old, boring married guy and far past the disillusionment of youth and ideology.  On a practical level, as long as I don't end up having to pay somebody else's bills, and as long as the quality of service doesn't change, and so long as we don't end up with some British level of choices in providers, or some Canadian-style waiting rooms, then I guess I've got better things to worry about.  On some level, though, I can't help but think that something's going to give, and in the not-too-distant future I'll see bigger premia or a diminution in either service or choice of providers.  That's just a gut feeling though.  Hopefully I'm wrong.
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22171
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2011, 09:16:53 pm »
Ignore

You already pay the bills for lots of people, Angus....through free emergency room treatment for the uninsured.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14971
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2011, 09:34:20 pm »
Ignore

You already pay the bills for lots of people, Angus....through free emergency room treatment for the uninsured.

I recognize that.  It gets so complicated, doesn't it.  Does it have to?

I was thinking about all this one day in China, about two years ago, when my son got a little cough.  We walked into a clinic, and thirty minutes later we walked out with a prescription and only fifty yuan poorer.  A very modest sum we paid.  The prescription was provided to us by a very young man, far too young to have completed medical school.  My wife, who speaks Chinese, tried to explain his title to me but there was nothing quite comparable in the English language.  Anyway, the prescription was for a particular mixture of compounds that could have been purchased at any local apothecary without a prescription, such being the laws in China.  But it was really the advice I was paying for, not the prescription.  We followed that advice, and within two days he was right as rain.

No irony.  No paradox in collectivism and its benefits to an erstwhile libertarian.  No admonitions about ancient rhythms and ancient knowledge.  No digression into statism or rhetorical arguments asking to what degree, stereotypes aside, does communism really involve the state in personal matters compared to the great and burdensome degree that our own capitalistic society involves a bureaucracy to dispense even the simplest of elixirs.  Just, a question.  Can you make the boy well? 

He is well today.  This is all that matters.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47609


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2011, 04:13:36 am »
Ignore

But angus, you aren't 'paying for' the health care of poors - they are paying for yours.  To take away some of your privilege to pay for basic care for them is a returning of the fruits of their labor to them, not taking yours.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14971
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2011, 09:45:52 am »
Ignore

But angus, you aren't 'paying for' the health care of poors - they are paying for yours.  To take away some of your privilege to pay for basic care for them is a returning of the fruits of their labor to them, not taking yours.


I never know when you're serious.  Let's assume for a moment that you are.  And furthermore that I'm privileged.  (That's quite an assumption.  My wife and I both work.  I expect we'll need to work for many years to come.  I worked full-time as an undergraduate student to pay my own way through university as my mother couldn't afford to and my father died when I was in the eighth grade, and I have maintained gainful employment, out of necessity, for my entire adult life.  Granted, during the time I was completing my graduate degrees it took the form of government stipends, but work I did.  If I have enough money saved to enjoy the occasional luxury or trip abroad with my family, then it is the fruit of my labor and wise investments, but, for the sake of this argument, let's accept your assumptions that the Worker supports the Privileged.)

The worker toils and builds.  He lays the bricks to build the hospital, shovels the coal to power the lights in the infirmary, and cleans the shit and vomit off the bodies of the sick and the dying.  All this is true.  But for this he receives a compensation.  His compensation may include medical and dental benefits, or it may not.  This is a matter for him to work out with his employer.  If he does receives these benefits, then he is like me:  he toils, he is compensated, and he has recourse in the event of illness or the pregnancy of his wife.  If he does not receive medical insurance, then he certainly has a little more to worry about.  Having a baby in a proper hospital with an experienced obstetrician making the regular inspections in the months prior to, and following, the delivery costs about ten thousand dollars.  Most workers cannot afford such expenses out of pocket.  this, in fact, is why the insurance market exists.  If his employer does not provide him with insurance, he may elect to purchase it privately.  We have done this, in fact.  For a while, I worked for an employer whose insurance for the three of us would have been quite high.  About six hundred dollars per month, and the deductible was quite high as well.  We did some internet research and found that we could buy a policy to cover us more cheaply with equal, or slightly better, benefits and lower deductibles.  So we elected to do this.  All without the assistance of any legislation, I"m afraid.  And worker can elect to do this.  Also, before I was married, I didn't even have insurance.  From 33 to 37 I had a serious position in California that compensated me handsomely and offered what I understood to be excellent medical insurance.  I would have been charged about a hundred dollars a month, pre-tax, for the policy.  I elected not to accept that insurance, thinking at the time that I would rather have that hundred dollars per month in my pocket.  I imagine that millions of workers, just like me, made the same decision, and this subset accounts for a large number of the uninsured.  This is a choice we make.  And it does not seem to me that it is in the spirit of American law and tradition to take away that choice.  More importantly, I do not think the anti-choice legislation will solve the underlying economic problem.

I guess if I ever saw a sound economic argument against it, I'd let it go.  As I said, I'm old enough not to be blinded by ideology, but as yet I do not think forcing everyone to purchase something will have the effect of decreasing the amount we spend on medical care.  We spend 16% of our aggregate GDP on medical care, and it's a great amount compared to other industrial societies.  But no legislation is going to change that.  You can force everyone to buy insurance, but unless you deal with the underlying causes--obesity, stress, ignorance, willfulness, and our reticence to let the dying die without first spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend their existences by a few months--then we will continue to spend a large fraction of our aggregate GDP on medical care.  I wish our politicians would simply admit the truth us and stop the wasteful legislation.  They are smarter than they're letting on, I'm afraid.  And they play up our fears and pass such monstrosities as "Health Care Reform" not because of any humanitarian reasons, but because they like their jobs, and the compensation--including the medical insurance--that those elected offices provide. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines