Sign in to follow this  
wiegie

Obamacare is upheld

Recommended Posts

Limiting principle anyone?

 

Very depressing. Enjoy your day Libs. Hopefully my side of the aisle will find a way to win a bunch of upcoming elections and repeal this mess. Ugh. :(

 

 

Sounds like that will be an extremely tough hall:

 

 

“We have to repeal Obamacare, and I will do that on Day 2 with a reconciliation bill,” Romney

said. “Because, as you know, it was passed by reconciliation, 51 votes. We can get rid of it with 51 votes.”

 

 

 

 

It makes for a good campaign promise, but does Senate procedure allow it to happen? I spent yesterday afternoon putting the question to congressional procedure experts and the short answer is: probably not.

 

 

 

 

Budget reconciliation is a Senate procedure meant to make passing budgets easier. Any budget reconciliation bill only needs a simple majority to pass, meaning they can head off possible filibusters. The legislative procedure came to fame during the health reform debate, when Democrats used a reconciliation bill to tweak the Affordable Care Act after losing its 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority.

 

 

 

 

But what reconciliation boosts in ease, it lacks in scope: Reconciliation bills can only touch provisions that are primarily financial in nature. And that, in the view of congressional scholars, creates two hurdles that make it near impossible to use the legislative vehicle to repeal health reform.

 

 

 

 

To start, the reconciliation process can only affect provisions that have a direct impact on the deficit. Many of the key health reform pillars, like reforms to the insurance industry or the mandated purchase of insurance, just don’t fall into this category. “As a yardstick, you have to ask: Is it purely or primarily fiscal in nature?” says Martin Gold, a partner at law firm Covington and Burling, who has served as U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s floor adviser. “If the answer is no, then reconciliation cannot be used to remove it.”

 

 

 

 

Even for a provision that does pass that hurdle, and has a primary fiscal impact, there’s one other hurdle: Repeal must reduce, rather than increase, the deficit. And it’s what Steve Smith, a congressional scholar at Washington University in St. Louis, calls “the most obvious obstacle” given that the Congressional Budget Office says the health reform law will, in total, save the government money.

 

 

 

 

“The health care bill is judged by the CBO to reduce the deficit,” he writes in an e-mail. “Repeal surely would mean increasing the deficit.”

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/repealing-health-reform-via-reconciliation-not-so-fast/2011/10/14/gIQAkoYljL_blog.html

Edited by bushwacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was born with a gigantic hole in her heart.

 

 

While I am sorry for her/your situation, I would have to assume then that she will be eligible for government mandated disability benefits like access etc through the supplemental security income program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am sorry for her/your situation, I would have to assume then that she will be eligible for government mandated disability benefits like access etc through the supplemental security income program?

 

 

That would be an incorrect assumption.

 

She is not disabled depite the eventuality of at least 1 more surgery. In theory she is going to grow up to be a productive member of society, except she wil be on expensive medication and will require at a minimum yearly monitoring via echocardiogram (she gets them every 6months now). Her condition would certainly be considered pre-existing.

Edited by Clubfoothead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. " Rand Paul.

 

Wow.

 

Okay, you don't like the Constitutional argument, then try his full argument on for size:

 

 

Edited by delusions of grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really sad that if some of republictards don't get their way, then they want to pick up their ball and go home. Four more years!!!!

 

You were probably in favor of what the Wisconsin senators did when they actually did take the ball and go to Illinois?? but now you use those terms for republicans - wow the hypocrisy is thick in your world huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, you don't like the Constitutional argument, then try his full argument on for size:

 

 

 

 

Sorry, Rand Paul is a POS, who clearly thinks his opinion on the way things ought to be is of greater importance than the Constitutional process. Arguing against the law on principle is one thing, saying that the Supreme Court decision doesn't mean squat is preposterous.

Edited by bushwacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limiting principle anyone?

 

Very depressing. Enjoy your day Libs. Hopefully my side of the aisle will find a way to win a bunch of upcoming elections and repeal this mess. Ugh. :(

 

 

You could always try modifying it or building on it instead of repealing it, especially as you have f all to put in it's place. You know, that ol' constructive thing. I guess the base won't like it but maybe there's an original thought still lurking out there in rightwingland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be an incorrect assumption.

 

She is not disabled depite the eventuality of at least 1 more surgery. In theory she is going to grow up to be a productive member of society, except she wil be on expensive medication and will require at a minimum yearly monitoring via echocardiogram (she gets them every 6months now). Her condition would certainly be considered pre-existing.

 

Well, Club, as you well know: Freedom isn't free. If your daughter has to die to preserve the right for the rest of us to not have to purchase insurance, so be it.

 

:usa:

 

(And for the record, I am being facetious.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will this do for preventative healthcare? like childhood obesity paving the way for later health issues like diabetes, smokers and drug users and drinkers, poor parenting etc.? do they get a free ride to be unhealthy and cost taxpayers more?

 

do all doctors have to take medicare and other govt backed plans? and will there be enough doctors who want to care for the poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be an incorrect assumption.

 

She is not disabled depite the eventuality of at least 1 more surgery. In theory she is going to grow up to be a productive member of society, except she wil be on expensive medication and will require at a minimum yearly monitoring via echocardiogram (she gets them every 6months now). Her condition would certainly be considered pre-existing.

 

Your daughter doesn't need Obamacare. A free market solution should trickle down any day now.

 

(For the record, I too am being facetious)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be an incorrect assumption.

 

She is not disabled depite the eventuality of at least 1 more surgery. In theory she is going to grow up to be a productive member of society, except she wil be on expensive medication and will require at a minimum yearly monitoring via echocardiogram (she gets them every 6months now). Her condition would certainly be considered pre-existing.

 

 

even if she were to get employer sponsored health coverage they could exclude that? I have lucky to been healthy so I dont recall if my companies health care carrier had a pre ex clause. Also if she wopuld be pre ex - isnt there a limiting period on how long they can exclude a condition - like for example they wouldnt cover it for 12 months but after that they would have to pick it up??

Edited by frenzal rhomb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Rand Paul is a POS, who clearly thinks his opinion on the way things ought to be is of greater importance than the Constitutional process. Arguing against the law on principle is one thing, saying that the Supreme Court decision doesn't mean squat is preposterous.

 

Typical that you go straight to attacking the source, but like I said, put the Constitutional argument aside, because even if it is constitutional does not mean it won't have a ton of unintended consequences...

 

What about the fact that some states already can't pay for all the Medicare, that are about to be overwhelmed by this?

 

Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical that you go straight to attacking the source,

 

 

Whatever, what Paul said was ridiculous and you apparently feel the need to defend the guy by ignoring it and making a feeble attempt to change the subject. Sorry. If the decision went the other way and Obama said the same thing I can only imagine what your reaction would have been.

Edited by bushwacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if she were to get employer sponsored health coverage they could exclude that? I have lucky to been healthy so I dont recall if my companies health care carrier had a pre ex clause

 

They would have to take her. However, this basically means that Club's daughter would (in any real sense of the word) not have the freedom to go work for a small firm that doesn't provide health care insurance or perhaps start her own firm.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever, what Paul said was ridiculous and you apparently feel the need to defend the guy by ignoring it and making a feeble attempt to change the subject. Sorry. If the decision went the other way and Obama said the same thing I can only imagine what your reaction would have been.

 

I would disagree, but care far more about the effects of the law, as I'm not a constitutional lawyer that can make the call if he's right or the 5 SCOTUS are. I mean, the fact that they could only get is passed by calling it a tax on not doing something, does seem a bit counterintuitive, but agian I'm not a constitutional lawyer or anything...

 

Doesn't change the rest of his argument, that as a doctor he might just have a little bit of insight into how the healthcare system works, or his argument that this is only going to overwhelm medicare that is already becoming unsustainable.

Edited by delusions of grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limiting principle anyone?

 

Very depressing. Enjoy your day Libs. Hopefully my side of the aisle will find a way to win a bunch of upcoming elections and repeal this mess. Ugh. :(

 

 

I look at this way, This is 2010 all over again, The Courts may have just handed the Presidency to Romney. Today, Obama has to justify paying for a program that is now deemed a tax regardless. Further the Government was forcing this via massive medicaid expansion with a funding hammer. That was the actual funding vehicle and that has been struck down.

 

Given so many hate this bill we could see the democrats base with independents erode very quickly. As far as dismantlement of the bill, it is tied to taxes as the real only funding vehicle.

 

I would guess the 26 states that won today's decision will not expand the under 65 medicaid expansion now that the Federal government can't force this.

 

Christie in NJ looks like the smartest guy in the room as he vetoed state legislation to enact these expansions until the court ruled.

 

Federal spending will certainly go way way up now that they can't force states to comply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't change the rest of his argument, that as a doctor he might just have a little bit of insight into how the healthcare system works, or his argument that this is only going to overwhelm medicare that is already becoming unsustainable.

 

 

Well I'm sure there are a wide variety of opinions amongst doctors and those in the medical industry. This thread is about the supreme court decision and so was the quote by Paul. I'm sure this thread will likely veer off topic like many before it; but the ruling and Paul's comment had nothing to do with discussion on policy. Not really sure where you are coming up with the rationale of me "attacking the source" with your attempt to change the subject (frankly it seems like you are reaching in an attempt to take me to task).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(And for the record, I am being facetious.)

 

Stevegrab is on vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm uneasy that the economics of the solution won't be understood for years to come. Perhaps the nation as a whole will be better off, or perhaps we're just trading one problem for another. No one really knows and anyone who says otherwise is merely speculating.

 

 

Federal spending will certainly go way way up now that they can't force states to comply.

 

 

Ice1 knows, for certain! :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny to look at the front page of foxnews.com and cnn.com right now. Gloomy, ominous, black and white block print "Obamacare survives" vs. happy protesters "Upheld"

 

 

Fox News home page has Guess What's Now a TAX; in huuuuugh font with a pic of Obama signing the bill. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm sure there are a wide variety of opinions amongst doctors and those in the medical industry. This thread is about the supreme court decision and so was the quote by Paul. I'm sure this thread will likely veer off topic like many before it; but the ruling and Paul's comment had nothing to do with discussion on policy. Not really sure where you are coming up with the rationale of me "attacking the source" with your attempt to change the subject (frankly it seems like you are reaching in an attempt to take me to task).

 

No worries, I'll make sure to not quote or respond to you in the future, so I don't give you the idea that I'm trying to rebut what you say. I thought I made it abundantly clear that I didn't care about discussing the constitutionality that none of us are qualified to discuss, but the law like everyone else is, but maybe I wasn't clear... I'll just go back to laughing at your petty non-substantive partisanship so there's no further confusion.

 

I'm truly sorry to try to change the subject back to the subject people are talking about.

Edited by delusions of grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given so many hate this bill we could see the democrats base with independents erode very quickly.

 

 

How much you wanna bet their is a significant uptick in positive opinion now that the thing is actually law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given so many hate this bill we could see the democrats base with independents erode very quickly.

 

 

 

This has always been a funny point to me. Americans don't like the ACA (or maybe specifically the individual mandate), but they like a lot of what's in it. If you take away polarizing terms like Obamacare, polls show that the public supports the guts of the bill - pre-existing conditions, coverage at larger employers, coverage for young adults... Just makes me wonder how educated the public is on the benefits found in the bill and what a poor job POTUS has done to champion them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.