U.S. House of Representatives votes 245 - 189 to repeal Obama healthcare law!!!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]And Harry Reid says he is going to block a vote on the bill. Now I fully expect every democrat on this forum to be up in arms about this. You guys just expressed your anger about how rude the GOP was for blocking all your bills over the past year or so. Surely you wouldn't want your party to be full of hypocrites? Right? Right? O who am I kidding. No one will care. Hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand.scorch-62It's one thing to defend a bill you passed in the previous session. It's another to throw a hissy-fit by shooting down anything and everything coming at you from the opposing party.
Pretty much.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]And Harry Reid says he is going to block a vote on the bill. Now I fully expect every democrat on this forum to be up in arms about this. You guys just expressed your anger about how rude the GOP was for blocking all your bills over the past year or so. Surely you wouldn't want your party to be full of hypocrites? Right? Right? O who am I kidding. No one will care. Hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand.limpbizkit818It's one thing to defend a bill you passed in the previous session. It's another to throw a hissy-fit by shooting down anything and everything coming at you from the opposing party. You defend the bill by voting it down. You do not do EXACTLY what the Republicans have been lambasted for. Reid is throwing the same hissy-fit as the GOP. I would suspect this to be the first of many blocked bills coming over from the house.
The difference being that the republicans abused the filibuster, which requires a 60% majority to overcome whereas the dems have a greater than 50 majority in the senate. If they had 41 seats and filibustered the bill to repeal, then that would be hypocrisy but this is not.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]And Harry Reid says he is going to block a vote on the bill. Now I fully expect every democrat on this forum to be up in arms about this. You guys just expressed your anger about how rude the GOP was for blocking all your bills over the past year or so. Surely you wouldn't want your party to be full of hypocrites? Right? Right? O who am I kidding. No one will care. Hypocrisy and politics go hand in hand.limpbizkit818It's one thing to defend a bill you passed in the previous session. It's another to throw a hissy-fit by shooting down anything and everything coming at you from the opposing party. You defend the bill by voting it down. You do not do EXACTLY what the Republicans have been lambasted for. Reid is throwing the same hissy-fit as the GOP. I would suspect this to be the first of many blocked bills coming over from the house.
Harry Reid has not required 60 votes for a bill to pass, so, no, it's not the same thing as what the Republicans did.
You defend the bill by voting it down. You do not do EXACTLY what the Republicans have been lambasted for. Reid is throwing the same hissy-fit as the GOP. I would suspect this to be the first of many blocked bills coming over from the house.[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="scorch-62"] It's one thing to defend a bill you passed in the previous session. It's another to throw a hissy-fit by shooting down anything and everything coming at you from the opposing party.GabuEx
Harry Reid has not required 60 votes for a bill to pass, so, no, it's not the same thing as what the Republicans did.
The method is not what is important, but the result. Not allowing the senate to vote on a bill is what the Republicans did (or tried to do). Reid has vowed to not allow the senate to vote on this bill. So, yes, it's the same thing.[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] You defend the bill by voting it down. You do not do EXACTLY what the Republicans have been lambasted for. Reid is throwing the same hissy-fit as the GOP. I would suspect this to be the first of many blocked bills coming over from the house.limpbizkit818
Harry Reid has not required 60 votes for a bill to pass, so, no, it's not the same thing as what the Republicans did.
The method is not what is important, but the result. Not allowing the senate to vote on a bill is what the Republicans did (or tried to do). Reid has vowed to not allow the senate to vote on this bill. So, yes, it's the same thing.Of course the method is important. The shenanigans the GOP pulled with their flagrant abuse of the filibuster was basically rewriting the rules of the Senate to require a three-fifths supermajority to pass any bill, which is ridiculously undemocratic. This is just the majority party in a chamber of Congress deciding what that chamber's agenda is going to be, which is exactly what they're supposed to be able to do.
The method is not what is important, but the result. Not allowing the senate to vote on a bill is what the Republicans did (or tried to do). Reid has vowed to not allow the senate to vote on this bill. So, yes, it's the same thing.[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Harry Reid has not required 60 votes for a bill to pass, so, no, it's not the same thing as what the Republicans did.
GabuEx
Of course the method is important. The shenanigans the GOP pulled with their flagrant abuse of the filibuster was basically rewriting the rules of the Senate to require a three-fifths supermajority to pass any bill, which is ridiculously undemocratic. This is just the majority party in a chamber of Congress deciding what that chamber's agenda is going to be, which is exactly what they're supposed to be able to do.
And their agenda is to block the first (or one of the first) bills sent over from the Republican controlled house. I said it's hypocritical because a new session has begun and the second the Democrats see a bill they don't like it gets blocked. It was just a month ago that they were the ones complaining about their bills being blocked. I understand the powers of the majority party but the irony here is too much for me. Like I said before, I would not be surprised if this happens quite a bit in the next few years.And if over-using the filibuster is undemocratic, how is this not? At least the Democrats had a super majority and were able to override a record amount of filibusters. If Reid blocks this bill I don't believe there is a thing the Republicans can do about it. Why would you support this? Put it up for a vote, let it fail and move on. If anything this keeps the issue in the news and people bitter. To me this is a simple case of the shoe being on the other foot.
I don't understand why any conservatives/Republicans are excited about this. The Democrats still hold the power positions. This was a complete exercise in ineptitude.
The real battle is spending bills when they try to defund the Affordable Care Act.
But what's crazy is that the electedRepublicans (yes I'm speaking generally) are playing politics. They aren't honestly trying to legislate. They did nothing during the 111th Congress and are now trying to ruin all Democratic accomplishments and return to square one (or much worse) in the 112th.
I say whatever. Their dilly-dallying will play into a downfall in 2012 when many Democrats are swept back into the houseriding Barack'scoattails. When you look at it, all the nonsense the Freshmen Republicans are spewing right now will be ammo for moderate Republican contenders and Democrats waiting in the wings.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] The method is not what is important, but the result. Not allowing the senate to vote on a bill is what the Republicans did (or tried to do). Reid has vowed to not allow the senate to vote on this bill. So, yes, it's the same thing.
limpbizkit818
Of course the method is important. The shenanigans the GOP pulled with their flagrant abuse of the filibuster was basically rewriting the rules of the Senate to require a three-fifths supermajority to pass any bill, which is ridiculously undemocratic. This is just the majority party in a chamber of Congress deciding what that chamber's agenda is going to be, which is exactly what they're supposed to be able to do.
And their agenda is to block the first (or one of the first) bills sent over from the Republican controlled house. I said it's hypocritical because a new session has begun and the second the Democrats see a bill they don't like it gets blocked. It was just a month ago that they were the ones complaining about their bills being blocked. I understand the powers of the majority party but the irony here is too much for me. Like I said before, I would not be surprised if this happens quite a bit in the next few years.And if over-using the filibuster is undemocratic, how is this not? At least the Democrats had a super majority and were able to override a record amount of filibusters. If Reid blocks this bill I don't believe there is a thing the Republicans can do about it. Why would you support this? Put it up for a vote, let it fail and move on. If anything this keeps the issue in the news and people bitter. To me this is a simple case of the shoe being on the other foot.
lol so now the Democrats are guilty of blocking an attempt to block the healthcare bill. Ah you'd make a fine politician, my friend. The GOP have been doing nothing but blocking bills that actually create something. How is a country going to move forward, or at all, if everything gets blocked? Does the GOP think America has reached its peak and can not improve in any way? Or are they simply wasting away Obama's last 2 years, at the expense of the rest of the country?[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"] You can crab walk to work too. You might not get there very fast, though. Excellent to put on your resume if you're a contortionist.ColonelWilks
Just pointing out why comparing mandatory auto insurance to mandatory health insurance is not the same.
Except for those who work (and live) in a metropolis, some form of automobile transportation is a general necessity. Suburbia exists solely because of cars. What you're suggesting is the exception, not the rule.So you really equate a car to living? Because I sure don't.
You MUST get this health insurance. Spin it anyway you want it but you do not have to buy auto insurance. I haven't, and I'm not in prison.
And their agenda is to block the first (or one of the first) bills sent over from the Republican controlled house. I said it's hypocritical because a new session has begun and the second the Democrats see a bill they don't like it gets blocked. It was just a month ago that they were the ones complaining about their bills being blocked. I understand the powers of the majority party but the irony here is too much for me. Like I said before, I would not be surprised if this happens quite a bit in the next few years.
And if over-using the filibuster is undemocratic, how is this not? At least the Democrats had a super majority and were able to override a record amount of filibusters. If Reid blocks this bill I don't believe there is a thing the Republicans can do about it. Why would you support this? Put it up for a vote, let it fail and move on. If anything this keeps the issue in the news and people bitter. To me this is a simple case of the shoe being on the other foot.
limpbizkit818
What exactly is the purpose of putting something up for a vote when it's obviously going to fail? That's the difference between the Republicans' filibuster and this. The Republicans blocked votes on legislation that would've passed in a vote. The Democrats are just not wasting the time required for bringing something up for a vote that is destined to fail.
If you honestly cannot see any difference between the minority party requiring a three-fifths vote on all major legislation and the majority party choosing what legistlation to consider during its session, I really don't even know what to say. You might as well call voting "nay" on a bill obstructionism. It would make as much sense.
I don't know if repealing the reform is such a good idea, seeing as it is projected to cost $230 billion by the year 2021 to repeal. But who knows how much the reform will cost by then if it isn't repealed...
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]And their agenda is to block the first (or one of the first) bills sent over from the Republican controlled house. I said it's hypocritical because a new session has begun and the second the Democrats see a bill they don't like it gets blocked. It was just a month ago that they were the ones complaining about their bills being blocked. I understand the powers of the majority party but the irony here is too much for me. Like I said before, I would not be surprised if this happens quite a bit in the next few years.[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Of course the method is important. The shenanigans the GOP pulled with their flagrant abuse of the filibuster was basically rewriting the rules of the Senate to require a three-fifths supermajority to pass any bill, which is ridiculously undemocratic. This is just the majority party in a chamber of Congress deciding what that chamber's agenda is going to be, which is exactly what they're supposed to be able to do.
F1_2004
And if over-using the filibuster is undemocratic, how is this not? At least the Democrats had a super majority and were able to override a record amount of filibusters. If Reid blocks this bill I don't believe there is a thing the Republicans can do about it. Why would you support this? Put it up for a vote, let it fail and move on. If anything this keeps the issue in the news and people bitter. To me this is a simple case of the shoe being on the other foot.
lol so now the Democrats are guilty of blocking an attempt to block the healthcare bill. Ah you'd make a fine politician, my friend. The GOP have been doing nothing but blocking bills that actually create something. How is a country going to move forward, or at all, if everything gets blocked? Does the GOP think America has reached its peak and can not improve in any way? Or are they simply wasting away Obama's last 2 years, at the expense of the rest of the country? 1. This bill does not block the healthcare bill, it repeals it. 2. I am not a politician. I do not claim to be a politician. I do not want to be a politician. I do not understand your joke. 3. I don't think anyone in the GOP believes America can not improve. I am not part of the GOP so do not take my word for theirs: from what I gather they believe many of the bills the Democrats wanted to pass were harmful to the nation and thus blocked them.
do I have to pay these guys who focus their efforts on issues they know won't end up mattering?
Except for those who work (and live) in a metropolis, some form of automobile transportation is a general necessity. Suburbia exists solely because of cars. What you're suggesting is the exception, not the rule.[QUOTE="ColonelWilks"]
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
Just pointing out why comparing mandatory auto insurance to mandatory health insurance is not the same.
Pixel-Pirate
So you really equate a car to living? Because I sure don't.
You MUST get this health insurance. Spin it anyway you want it but you do not have to buy auto insurance. I haven't, and I'm not in prison.
Legally, in most states, you are required to have bare minimum liability insurance. That's not debatable. Whether you get away with breaking the law is irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation. And you wouldn't go to prison for not having insurance, you'd be fined. PS: If you wreck someone's car, God have mercy on them.[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]
And their agenda is to block the first (or one of the first) bills sent over from the Republican controlled house. I said it's hypocritical because a new session has begun and the second the Democrats see a bill they don't like it gets blocked. It was just a month ago that they were the ones complaining about their bills being blocked. I understand the powers of the majority party but the irony here is too much for me. Like I said before, I would not be surprised if this happens quite a bit in the next few years.
And if over-using the filibuster is undemocratic, how is this not? At least the Democrats had a super majority and were able to override a record amount of filibusters. If Reid blocks this bill I don't believe there is a thing the Republicans can do about it. Why would you support this? Put it up for a vote, let it fail and move on. If anything this keeps the issue in the news and people bitter. To me this is a simple case of the shoe being on the other foot.
GabuEx
What exactly is the purpose of putting something up for a vote when it's obviously going to fail? That's the difference between the Republicans' filibuster and this. The Republicans blocked votes on legislation that would've passed in a vote. The Democrats are just not wasting the time required for bringing something up for a vote that is destined to fail.
If you honestly cannot see any difference between the minority party requiring a three-fifths vote on all major legislation and the majority party choosing what legistlation to consider during its session, I really don't even know what to say. You might as well call voting "nay" on a bill obstructionism. It would make as much sense.
Calling a "nay" on a bill obstruction makes no sense. No where did I lead you to believe such a thing. Harry Reid not allowing this bill to be voted on is the definition of obstruction.I believe it will fail, but there is at least 47 people in that chamber who would like to debate and vote on it. Maybe they believe they can get some turncoats? Is that not a good enough reason to let the bill go? I clearly can see the difference in procedure, so don't get smart. But to restate I believe that the end result is far more important than the means, something you continue to point out. Reid is being a hypocrite for blocking a vote when he himself was an outspoken critic, just last month, of the GOP blocking votes. But it's ok because he doesn't like the bill. I get it. And wasting time? The Democrats spent how long on this bill? Almost 2 years? And now they don't want to waste time? Not buying it.
This thing passed the house. The Senate should vote on it and move on. That's the only course of action that makes sense to me. Instead this is going to be an issue for months.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]
And their agenda is to block the first (or one of the first) bills sent over from the Republican controlled house. I said it's hypocritical because a new session has begun and the second the Democrats see a bill they don't like it gets blocked. It was just a month ago that they were the ones complaining about their bills being blocked. I understand the powers of the majority party but the irony here is too much for me. Like I said before, I would not be surprised if this happens quite a bit in the next few years.
And if over-using the filibuster is undemocratic, how is this not? At least the Democrats had a super majority and were able to override a record amount of filibusters. If Reid blocks this bill I don't believe there is a thing the Republicans can do about it. Why would you support this? Put it up for a vote, let it fail and move on. If anything this keeps the issue in the news and people bitter. To me this is a simple case of the shoe being on the other foot.
limpbizkit818
What exactly is the purpose of putting something up for a vote when it's obviously going to fail? That's the difference between the Republicans' filibuster and this. The Republicans blocked votes on legislation that would've passed in a vote. The Democrats are just not wasting the time required for bringing something up for a vote that is destined to fail.
If you honestly cannot see any difference between the minority party requiring a three-fifths vote on all major legislation and the majority party choosing what legistlation to consider during its session, I really don't even know what to say. You might as well call voting "nay" on a bill obstructionism. It would make as much sense.
Calling a "nay" on a bill obstruction makes no sense. No where did I lead you to believe such a thing. Harry Reid not allowing this bill to be voted on is the definition of obstruction.I believe it will fail, but there is at least 47 people in that chamber who would like to debate and vote on it. Maybe they believe they can get some turncoats? Is that not a good enough reason to let the bill go? I clearly can see the difference in procedure, so don't get smart. But to restate I believe that the end result is far more important than the means, something you continue to point out. Reid is being a hypocrite for blocking a vote when he himself was an outspoken critic, just last month, of the GOP blocking votes. But it's ok because he doesn't like the bill. I get it. And wasting time? The Democrats spent how long on this bill? Almost 2 years? And now they don't want to waste time? Not buying it.
This thing passed the house. The Senate should vote on it and move on. That's the only course of action that makes sense to me. Instead this is going to be an issue for months.
Not really when they know that if even by some miracle it passes in the Senate Obama will just veto it. They might get some "turncoats" in the Senate, but Reid certainly knows they won't get Obama to turncoat on himself.
Calling a "nay" on a bill obstruction makes no sense. No where did I lead you to believe such a thing. Harry Reid not allowing this bill to be voted on is the definition of obstruction.[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
What exactly is the purpose of putting something up for a vote when it's obviously going to fail? That's the difference between the Republicans' filibuster and this. The Republicans blocked votes on legislation that would've passed in a vote. The Democrats are just not wasting the time required for bringing something up for a vote that is destined to fail.
If you honestly cannot see any difference between the minority party requiring a three-fifths vote on all major legislation and the majority party choosing what legistlation to consider during its session, I really don't even know what to say. You might as well call voting "nay" on a bill obstructionism. It would make as much sense.
Serraph105
I believe it will fail, but there is at least 47 people in that chamber who would like to debate and vote on it. Maybe they believe they can get some turncoats? Is that not a good enough reason to let the bill go? I clearly can see the difference in procedure, so don't get smart. But to restate I believe that the end result is far more important than the means, something you continue to point out. Reid is being a hypocrite for blocking a vote when he himself was an outspoken critic, just last month, of the GOP blocking votes. But it's ok because he doesn't like the bill. I get it. And wasting time? The Democrats spent how long on this bill? Almost 2 years? And now they don't want to waste time? Not buying it.
This thing passed the house. The Senate should vote on it and move on. That's the only course of action that makes sense to me. Instead this is going to be an issue for months.
Not really when they know that if even by some miracle it passes in the Senate Obama will just veto it. They might get some "turncoats" in the Senate, but Reid certainly knows they won't get Obama to turncoat on himself.
But that is not a reason to block the chance of a vote and that's what I don't like. There were bills that President Bush made clear he would veto yet the congress voted (and passed) them anyway. The president saying he is going to evoke a veto is not enough of a reason to cancel a vote.We really need a single payer system to get on track to a path of universal healtcare like every other developed country in the world. If people didn't like government healthcare then seniors wouldn't flock to Medicare and Soilders wouldn't use Tricare nearly as much.
The bill never should have passed in the first place. It was more about them and less about us. It was just too bloated. And after they failed to increase taxes on people making over $200,000 a year, they had no way to even begin to pay for it. So hopefully they can repeal this thing and pass a better, smarter bill. We still need reform just not THAT thing. And even if they don't repeal it, it'll collapse under its own weight eventually.And we'll just start from square one.
the cost of repeal would be higher than the cost of having the bill though. also there are millions of ppl that are benefiting already from the bill. why would you take those protections that the majority want to keep without having a replacement bill already to go? answer: because they don't actually plan to pass those protections if the bill gets repealed (which it won't)The bill never should have passed in the first place. It was more about them and less about us. It was just too bloated. And after they failed to increase taxes on people making over $200,000 a year, they had no way to even begin to pay for it. So hopefully they can repeal this thing and pass a better, smarter bill. We still need reform just not THAT thing. And even if they don't repeal it, it'll collapse under its own weight eventually.And we'll just start from square one.
greeneye59
yep. every nation that does single payer system pays much less than we do and covers everyone. that's the power of collective bargaining. something the republicans didn't even want Medicare to be able to do.We really need a single payer system to get on track to a path of universal healtcare like every other developed country in the world. If people didn't like government healthcare then seniors wouldn't flock to Medicare and Soilders wouldn't use Tricare nearly as much.
majrankin
[QUOTE="greeneye59"]the cost of repeal would be higher than the cost of having the bill though. also there are millions of ppl that are benefiting already from the bill. why would you take those protections that the majority want to keep without having a replacement bill already to go? answer: because they don't actually plan to pass those protections if the bill gets repealed (which it won't)The bill never should have passed in the first place. It was more about them and less about us. It was just too bloated. And after they failed to increase taxes on people making over $200,000 a year, they had no way to even begin to pay for it. So hopefully they can repeal this thing and pass a better, smarter bill. We still need reform just not THAT thing. And even if they don't repeal it, it'll collapse under its own weight eventually.And we'll just start from square one.
Ontain
Are you talking about the CBO number with regard to repeal costing more? The estimate in which the doc fix was taken out and voted on later? The one in which 10 years of taxation pays for six years of benefits? The one that double counts Medicare cuts? That one? Just curious.
the cost of repeal would be higher than the cost of having the bill though. also there are millions of ppl that are benefiting already from the bill. why would you take those protections that the majority want to keep without having a replacement bill already to go? answer: because they don't actually plan to pass those protections if the bill gets repealed (which it won't)[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="greeneye59"]
The bill never should have passed in the first place. It was more about them and less about us. It was just too bloated. And after they failed to increase taxes on people making over $200,000 a year, they had no way to even begin to pay for it. So hopefully they can repeal this thing and pass a better, smarter bill. We still need reform just not THAT thing. And even if they don't repeal it, it'll collapse under its own weight eventually.And we'll just start from square one.
aliasfreak
Are you talking about the CBO number with regard to repeal costing more? The estimate in which the doc fix was taken out and voted on later? The one in which 10 years of taxation pays for six years of benefits? The one that double counts Medicare cuts? That one? Just curious.
I have no illusions that the healthcare bill will cost something. I believe that the government estimates are optimistic but it will cost much more to repeal it. Republicans have no plans to cover that added cost.As stated (numerous) times already, it won't make much difference. Although I do believe there needs to be some overhauls to the healthcare law. particularly the part were they fine you for not having insurance. that just seems like a load of ****.
As stated (numerous) times already, it won't make much difference. Although I do believe there needs to be some overhauls to the healthcare law. particularly the part were they fine you for not having insurance. that just seems like a load of ****.
hammerofcrom
That's the provision that makes all the other major provisions possible. You can't very well not allow an insurance company to turn people away with pre-existing conditions while allowing people to get insurance whenever they feel like it. People would rather obviously clue into the fact that they can just wait until they get sick, then get "insurance" and have it covered.
[QUOTE="hammerofcrom"]
As stated (numerous) times already, it won't make much difference. Although I do believe there needs to be some overhauls to the healthcare law. particularly the part were they fine you for not having insurance. that just seems like a load of ****.
GabuEx
That's the provision that makes all the other major provisions possible. You can't very well not allow an insurance company to turn people away with pre-existing conditions while allowing people to get insurance whenever they feel like it. People would rather obviously clue into the fact that they can just wait until they get sick, then get "insurance" and have it covered.
thats crazy talk Gabu. People wouldn't be that cunning.[QUOTE="Communistik"]
It looks like our country is headed back the way it should be, rather than into the ground like it has been for the last 2 years.
metroidfood
Because the 8 years before that were just so dandy.
yes we know
but people need to really STFU about it. everyone and i mean EVERYONE was enjoying the high life and not crying about it until everything went down the drain. its almost 4 years after bush and Obama is just putting us more and more into the hole.
and im glad they are trying to overturn the Health Bill even tho it might never get over turned.
by that case i got a early message for you IRS scums GO F your selfs and your families.
Great now all of my taxes can go towards people I don't know so they can have health care while I don't get any at all.
We are the only developed industrialized country that doesn't have some form of free health care.
Thus, when people come in for emergencies and for other things they can't afford, it gets taken out of my taxes.
You know what? If my taxes go up 5% so I can have some of those health care benefits, that's a price I'm willing to pay.
I don't think people really understand where the money comes from when people go in to the hospital and can't afford it.
It's been said, but it's nice to see the republicans really step up to the plate to get our country back on track. Like working towards foolhardy goals just so they can be clear about where they stand while wasting time and money. Hooray!
[QUOTE="hammerofcrom"]
As stated (numerous) times already, it won't make much difference. Although I do believe there needs to be some overhauls to the healthcare law. particularly the part were they fine you for not having insurance. that just seems like a load of ****.
GabuEx
That's the provision that makes all the other major provisions possible. You can't very well not allow an insurance company to turn people away with pre-existing conditions while allowing people to get insurance whenever they feel like it. People would rather obviously clue into the fact that they can just wait until they get sick, then get "insurance" and have it covered.
Exactly. Everyone needs to pay into the system for it to be viable.I certainly don't like everything about this reform package. I'm not even sure I like most of it. But I certainly don't want it repealed. It took forever for any kind of reform to be passed at all, and repealing it with the intention of starting over will likely mean decades more of no reform at all. What we need to do at this point is take what we have and improve it as time goes on.[QUOTE="hammerofcrom"]
As stated (numerous) times already, it won't make much difference. Although I do believe there needs to be some overhauls to the healthcare law. particularly the part were they fine you for not having insurance. that just seems like a load of ****.
GabuEx
That's the provision that makes all the other major provisions possible. You can't very well not allow an insurance company to turn people away with pre-existing conditions while allowing people to get insurance whenever they feel like it. People would rather obviously clue into the fact that they can just wait until they get sick, then get "insurance" and have it covered.
the problem is it's incredibly unfair. A lot of jobs, that don't offer a benefits package, also have stupid low pay (I was a temp that made 9.50 an hour till I got my own company up and running). There's plenty of people, stuck in a rut with a job that only pays $10 an hour (or less), that can barely make ends meet as it is. Now they're FORCED to buy insurance, or get fined by the government for not doing so. it just makes their life harder. Like I said, it's unfair.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="hammerofcrom"]
As stated (numerous) times already, it won't make much difference. Although I do believe there needs to be some overhauls to the healthcare law. particularly the part were they fine you for not having insurance. that just seems like a load of ****.
hammerofcrom
That's the provision that makes all the other major provisions possible. You can't very well not allow an insurance company to turn people away with pre-existing conditions while allowing people to get insurance whenever they feel like it. People would rather obviously clue into the fact that they can just wait until they get sick, then get "insurance" and have it covered.
the problem is it's incredibly unfair. A lot of jobs, that don't offer a benefits package, also have stupid low pay (I was a temp that made 9.50 an hour till I got my own company up and running). There's plenty of people, stuck in a rut with a job that only pays $10 an hour (or less), that can barely make ends meet as it is. Now they're FORCED to buy insurance, or get fined by the government for not doing so. it just makes their life harder. Like I said, it's unfair.
That is why the government subsidizes people with low or no income in order to ensure that one's financial burden to get health care will not be greater than a certain percentage of their annual income.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="hammerofcrom"]
As stated (numerous) times already, it won't make much difference. Although I do believe there needs to be some overhauls to the healthcare law. particularly the part were they fine you for not having insurance. that just seems like a load of ****.
hammerofcrom
That's the provision that makes all the other major provisions possible. You can't very well not allow an insurance company to turn people away with pre-existing conditions while allowing people to get insurance whenever they feel like it. People would rather obviously clue into the fact that they can just wait until they get sick, then get "insurance" and have it covered.
the problem is it's incredibly unfair. A lot of jobs, that don't offer a benefits package, also have stupid low pay (I was a temp that made 9.50 an hour till I got my own company up and running). There's plenty of people, stuck in a rut with a job that only pays $10 an hour (or less), that can barely make ends meet as it is. Now they're FORCED to buy insurance, or get fined by the government for not doing so. it just makes their life harder. Like I said, it's unfair.
they're not forced. Certain incomes in the lower bracket are immune to the tax fine.[QUOTE="metroidfood"]
[QUOTE="Communistik"]
It looks like our country is headed back the way it should be, rather than into the ground like it has been for the last 2 years.
acsam12304
Because the 8 years before that were just so dandy.
yes we know
but people need to really STFU about it. everyone and i mean EVERYONE was enjoying the high life and not crying about it until everything went down the drain. its almost 4 years after bush and Obama is just putting us more and more into the hole.
and im glad they are trying to overturn the Health Bill even tho it might never get over turned.
by that case i got a early message for you IRS scums GO F your selfs and your families.
IRS are people toowell, well color me surprised...i'm extremely glad they decided to take on such an important agenda..instead of trying to fix the economy:|
The republicans are right in that it should be repealed, but it should be replaced with a single payer system.
[QUOTE="acsam12304"][QUOTE="metroidfood"]
Because the 8 years before that were just so dandy.
Serraph105
yes we know
but people need to really STFU about it. everyone and i mean EVERYONE was enjoying the high life and not crying about it until everything went down the drain. its almost 4 years after bush and Obama is just putting us more and more into the hole.
and im glad they are trying to overturn the Health Bill even tho it might never get over turned.
by that case i got a early message for you IRS scums GO F your selfs and your families.
IRS are people toothey are government dogs period, looking to screw everyone who they know they can screw. this health bill gives them more power to do so.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment