Just A Simple Question...

[Guest]

During the debate prior to the passage of what is now called "Obamacare", it was often said, by members of both political parties, that everyone could agree on about 80% of the bill's content. The differences of opinion was reported to be on only 20% of the bill's content.

If that's the case, why has the House scheduled a vote to repeal the entire bill?

If this step is supposed to precede the crafting of new legislation to address the very real and well-known problem of unsustainable escalation of health care costs, I haven't heard the sponsors of the "repeal bill" say so.

It kind of leaves the question open, doesn't it...is this proposed bill just more political posturing and bickering or is it a serious attempt at governance?

[Guest]

It's posturing and grandstanding. Never mind the parts that everyone agreed on, just say "no" to everything - all while knowing full well the measure will NEVER pass (we have this thing called The Senate that is still in Democrat hands, to say nothing of the President) and you can make noise for the nightly news cycle.

[Guest]

I believe the last poll was 70% wanted all or most repealed. I've never seen or heard that everyone agreed on 80% of the bill... never. In fact that one bill is probability one of the main reasons why the democrats took such a pounding in Nov all the way from congress down to local city and state legislatures.

Obamacare is one of the worst most damaging and dishonest bills ever passed or should I say rammed through against the will of the people via back ally deals, bribes and payoffs.

It's posturing and grandstanding

Give me a break.

[Guest]

Oh I'll agree that there wasn't exactly much (or ANY) public support of the insurance mandate. But there was, for example, quite a bit of support for covering kids to age 26 (since it became impossible to have health insurance for your kids when they were in college since they couldn't get a job with insurance benefits during that time)

In fact, I'm willing to bet that, had the public option stuck, there would be far more support than what came out afterwards.

Instead, we get a mandate for a giveaway to the very "profits over people" companies.

[Guest]

the bill in no way addresses health care cost..not in any way


I wonder if we can get back the payoffs that the WH paid if this is repealed ?

And to address the question directly, I hope as many have said, that if we can get this repealed we can actually talk about health care costs !!

The lastest Gallup poll shows the majority of Americans want this bill repealed.

I am also curious to have links the quotes that show Republicans saying they agree with 80% of the bill, especially since you say it happened during the debate and even the speaker admits to not reading it before the vote....not saying you are incorrect VK, but would love some links to validate your statement that is the basis of your post !

Thanks

[Guest]

Some very simple truths:
1. The more people government agrees to cover, the more it will cost. The price per person may decrease some because of bigger risk pools, but only if the people who join or are forced into the risk pool, have lower risks that the others in the pool.
2. To decrease the cost of health care other than forcing lower risk people into the government risk pool, it would require less money paid to those who provide health care, health equipment, or drugs, or rationing of some type. The government when it controls all health care will set salaries and profits for doctors, nurses, drug companies, hosptials, equipment manufacturers, everyone. Is that what you really want?
3. Those who say we can save money by including the uninsured because they get more expensive health care anyway in emergency rooms are forgetting the only reason they can get free health care in emergency rooms is because the government has ordered that that they get free health care in emergency rooms.
4. Those who support the health care law always point to the GREAT provisions in it like a ban on pre existing conditions, no lifetime caps, and children up to 26 year old children converage. They act like thos are free. They are not. Insurance companies have to raise premiums to cover those issues and they will and ARE. It is really that great that the government requires coverages that NECESSARILY raises premiums for everyone? It is like everything else the government does that are not basic necessary services like national defense... wealth redistribution.
5. Why should the government require me to purchase insurance for things I do not have risk for such as pregnancy? It is merely a form of taxation.
6. Who says everyone has a right to health care? It is a noble goal but is it a right?
7. Do those in favor of national health care have any objection to illegal aliens getting it free?
Here is the answer: rationing whether you like it or not.

[Guest]

...I've never seen or heard that everyone agreed on 80% of the bill... never....

You must not have been paying attention. The leaders of both parties said that many times during the weeks preceding the final vote.

But the fact that you refused to pay attention to what was being said in favor of simply accepting and embracing a "simpler" point-of-view doesn't come as any great surprise.

[Guest]

You must not have been paying attention. The leaders of both parties said that many times during the weeks preceding the final vote.

But the fact that you refused to pay attention to what was being said in favor of simply accepting and embracing a "simpler" point-of-view doesn't come as any great surprise.

VK...I honestly have never heard an opponent of the bill say that and in fact during the weeks preceeding the final vote, it was in flux and it seemed as if nobody knew what was in it.

Not saying you are incorrect, but I can honestly state I never heard any opponent say that...I DID hear that there were some parts of the bill that were acceptable...I DID hear that it did nothing to address costs ! BUT never heard say that 80% number

[Guest]

...I wonder if we can get back the payoffs that the WH paid if this is repealed?...The latest Gallup poll shows the majority of Americans want this bill repealed...

Who writes and passes these bills anyway, the House and Senate or the White House? So far at least, I haven't heard of the lobbyists actually being able to get appointments with the President--this one or any other.

As far as the public is concerned, how many do you think actually know what's in the bill that was passed? Or are they just responding negatively to any legislation that's passed by any Congress that they're told they shouldn't trust?

I might observe that last point is true, it's a pretty sad indictment of what our democratic system of government has become.

[Guest]

..I DID hear that it did nothing to address costs !...

Ummm, the Congressional Budget Office "scored" the Obamacare legislation and estimated it's savings over the next ten years. I thought it was in the range of a little less than a trillion dollars.

Anyone can argue that they're wrong of course, but they're the best we have and so far at least, no one has accused the CBO as being politically-driven.

[Guest]

Repealing this abominable bill is merely to satisfy a campaign promise, as it will never get through the Democrat controlled Senate and will face a Presidential veto never the less.

What Congress must do is what it CAN do. That is to systematically DEFUND THE BILL. Eliminate the funding and the bill is a dead issue. Promises to the American People who voted for this could be kept in this manner.

[Guest]

A repeal of the heathcare legislation cannot happen! It might pass the House, but it will certainly not pass the Senate, nor can any such Congressional vote survive a Presidential veto. That much is as close to a certainty as the sun rising tomorrow morning.

So it's clear that our elected representatives are once again posturing and acting in ways they think will improve their individual political futures with an uninformed and only occasionally interested electorate.

As RichieLion points out above, the Congress would have a much better chance of reducing the impact of the legislation called "Obamacare" if they took action to reduce or eliminate it's funding when they consider changes to the authorized federal debt ceiling and federal budget in a couple of months. But that kind of thinking isn't very sexy and doesn't create good sound bites to impress the gullible public. That kind of thinking would also place at risk various federal spending that the Congress thinks is viewed favorably by the public. Good Lord, that kind of thinking might actually result in a reduction in federal spending and maybe some baby steps towards resolving out-of-control federal spending! Will it happen? Sadly, probably not. That kind of thinking has as much a chance for success as repaealing Obamacare.

So what's going to happen regarding any attempt to improve upon the existing Obamacare legislation? Nothing! And that will be a shame because there are certainly many ways that it could be improved upon.

[Guest]

I made a prediction months ago what was going to happen in Nov. Let me give you another. 2012 the Senate will change hands and so will the Presidency. Goodbye Obamacare.

Until then repeal votes will be counted and duly noted not to mention the various states suing the feds over Obamacare. Lots more Senators up for reelection in 2012 too.

It can be defunded anyway possible and I hope they keep bringing votes to the floor so no one forgets who was responsible (D) for this travesty.

It was never about healthcare.

[Guest]

A new associated press poll finds that finds that 25% of Americans advocate a wholesale repeal of health-care reform. Among republicans support for repeal has dropped from 61% to 49%. Overall a small plurality of respondants 41% still oppose the law but strong opposition 30% has fallen to its lowest since September 2009. and finally fewer than 1 in 5 recommend leaving the law as is.

[Guest]

Just keeping it real.

"AP Erroneously Reports that 'Opposition' to Obamacare is Easing"


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ap-erroneously-reports-opposition-obamacare-easing_533774.html

[Guest]

I made a prediction months ago what was going to happen in Nov. Let me give you another. 2012 the Senate will change hands and so will the Presidency. Goodbye Obamacare.

Until then repeal votes will be counted and duly noted not to mention the various states suing the feds over Obamacare. Lots more Senators up for reelection in 2012 too.

It can be defunded anyway possible and I hope they keep bringing votes to the floor so no one forgets who was responsible (D) for this travesty.

It was never about healthcare.

"It was never about healthcare."


This is so true and still have not heard where VK got the number of 80% of the bill being ok with the opposition to it !!!!

VK is correct....this is probably not going to be repealed right away, but it has to be asap !

[Guest]

It’s beyond me why more people just don’t get it.

It’s about central government command and control over as much as they can get their hands on. It’s no more difficult than that. POWER. The Constitution “was” there to limit the governments power expressly for that reason Democrat or Republication. I guess for some, being managed and regulated cradle to grave is their comfort zone. Not mine. Obamacare, Cap-n-tax, etc, etc, etc are just more measures to achieve that goal.

That’s why the ones who do get it want it repealed.

[Guest]

Why is it so difficult for progressive, intellectual elites, mostly Democrats, to understand the travesty of the contemptuous belief in their own superior "thinking". They assume their supercilious intellect is best, for an only occasionally interested majority of the electorate. Why do they cavalierly dismiss the wishes of the majority of the electorate? It is arrogant for them to assume they are smarter, ergo, they should speak for all the people even if a majority of the country disagrees with them. Talking down to the majority of voters, belittling their intelligence and degree of interest smacks of conceit and brings to mind the "Let them eat cake" metaphor and mentality.

Notwithstanding the politically skewed and corrupt AP poll cited by Waynet, a number of legitimate polls have consistently indicated that the majority of voters do not want Obamacare. Perhaps because they know the liberals and democrats who support it are "redistributing the wealth" while taking away from hardworking Americans and adding "free" access to those who make a living gaming the system while creating a growing dependant entitlement class. The image of that woman who, while grinning ear to ear, praises the windfall "free" Obama money she is getting, comes to mind. To keep the record straight, I understand there are circumstances where assistance is warranted. Unfortunately, greed, political pandering, the exploitation and growing of the entitlement masses to broaden political bases have corrupted good intentions.

A classic example of great liberal elite and progressive thinking that brought us Obamacare is the accounting stunt the Democratic majority own. It takes $500 billion from Medicare thereby greatly reducing the benefits the elderly worked for and contributed to most of their lives. How can these "thinking" ethically challenged, robber baron members of Congress keep a straight face when they redistribute the $500 billion they just pilfered from the elderly who need it most and use it to shore up Medicaid while increasing the rolls and traditional Democratic power bases. It is a trillion dollar ponzi scheme given to us by liberal thinking elites who think the electorate is ignorant or not paying attention. It is a sell out of the elderly. Say it ain't so.

[Guest]

...It is a trillion dollar ponzi scheme given to us by liberal thinking elites who think the electorate is ignorant or not paying attention....

Well and thoughtfully written, Cabo. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but a lot of it for sure. What I can't embrace is the idea that Obamacare was the product of only the progressive Democratic elite.

The way I recall the process of the development of this legislation, the POTUS began with a central and relatively simple objective...to achieve health insurance for 30-40 million Americans who were uninsured and whose use of ER's as their primary care was a big chunk of the escalating healthcare expenses which the country clearly couldn't afford. That and steps to begin to tilt our national healthcare from reactive to preventive.

From that point the lobbyists and the members of Congress from both sides of the aisle who were beholden to special interests took over. Yes, it was a Democratic-controlled Congress, but not by enough of a plurality to jam thru any legislation they desired. In the last weeks and days, the special interests--the insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, trial lawyers, virtually everyone except the public--got what they wanted in this bill. The stuff that was added that is so objectionable to all of us was put there by both Democrats and Republicans in the last ditch effort to keep all the special interests satisfied.

The POTUS got what he wanted as well--insurance for a lot of uninsured Americans. If he is to be criticized, it would be for not vetoing such a Rube Goldberg of a bill.

But now the country is left with what to do about it. Yes, the 2010 elections sent a statement to the Congress. While lots of change was accomplished, not enough to reasonably expect that the legislation in it's entirety can be repealed. The question, it seems to me, is should the Congress waste a lot of time debating something that clearly cannot be accomplished until after the 2012 elections at the earliest--and maybe not even then if the same POTUS is in place to veto a repeal. Or should Congress try to amend the act to correct the most objectionable parts? Or should they attack the funding of the government, effectively strangling the implementation of the legislation which was passed?

All I'd suggest is that there probably are parts of the act that are very desirable--insuring the uninsured is one as far as I'm concerned. So why not work on what can be changed and not waste time trying to play political one-upsmanship when no purpose can reasonably be served?

[Guest]

Why is it that the big Medicare "cut" is decried as a huge cut when, in fact, it is a reduction in the increase? When it comes to OTHER social spending, conservatives usually SCREAM about the only-in-Washington definition of a cut (Spend $1B, next year plan to spend $2B, reduce that pland to $1.5B and you have a $500M "cut")

[Guest]

Why is it that the big Medicare "cut" is decried as a huge cut when, in fact, it is a reduction in the increase? When it comes to OTHER social spending, conservatives usually SCREAM about the only-in-Washington definition of a cut (Spend $1B, next year plan to spend $2B, reduce that pland to $1.5B and you have a $500M "cut")

Perhaps it is because that cut comes concurrent with an equally huge reduction in benefits for those who have earned Medicare by virtue of their contributions over a lifetime of deductions and taxation. It is not a pure reduction in the increase. It is a budget stunt to get around CBO numbers and is defacto, consistent with the left's wealth redistribution agenda. The pilfered funds are being shifted to Medicaid to cover an assortment of new entitlement constituencies who will overwhelmingly enhance the democratic base....at the cold, calculated disadvantage of those of advanced years who need it the most. Do I need to draw a picture of how "death panels" by any euphemistic terms might play in this equation?

On another note, as of today, 26 states have joined in Florida's fight against Obama care as unconstitutional based on the mandate to purchase insurance. If they prevail, the Obamacare house of cards will collapse because of insurmountable funding shortfalls. Imagine, more than half, unless you use Obama's 57 state formula, more than half the states are fighting Obamacare with more lining up in the wings.

Do you believe that the actual agenda of Team Obama and the left is just to get their foot in the door and temporarily avoid repeal so they can advance the real goal of a single payer, budget busting, business killing, country dividing, debt crippling and nation bankrupting system? If I have to explain the Cloward-Piven plan I've wasted my time. Did I mention the growth and increased power of government that expands with each step along the path to single payer care. As a limited government advocate, that is what concerns me the most. This agenda is about much more than health care.

[Guest]

Cabo - I believe it is the agenda of the Democratic Party to eventually have EITHER a single payer system like Canada & the UK OR a public/private system like you'll find in France and Switzerland.

That being said, I want to ask you about your use of the term "single payer, budget busting, business killing, country dividing, debt crippling and nation bankrupting system"

All those countries that have public options? Guess what - they pay less than we do. Per capita, sometimes it's less than HALF what we pay ($5700 as of 2008).

This is the personal conundrum I have. As much as I don't like the idea of a National Health Care System like Canada or the UK, they pay SO MUCH LESS than we do and have so much more to show for it. For the complaints I've heard regarding the Canadian system (and having travelled frequently to Canada and reading a Montreal paper on an almost daily basis, I hear a good deal of debate on the subject) we could take their system, fund it a little better to compensate for some of the long waiting lists for certain procedures and STILL save hundreds of billions of dollars.

There isn't a Canadian (or European) citizen that has been kicked off their health insurance because they came down with leukemia. Not a one. Yeah, the UK tends to let older men with prostate cancer go with less treatment (since it's such a slow moving cancer - with my grandfather the 'cure' killed him faster than the disease would have) but they spend about $3000 per capita on health care. We could take their number, spend 1/3 more than they do per capita and STILL save over $1000 per capita.

[Guest]

Cabo - I believe it is the agenda of the Democratic Party to eventually have EITHER a single payer system like Canada & the UK OR a public/private system like you'll find in France and Switzerland.

That being said, I want to ask you about your use of the term "single payer, budget busting, business killing, country dividing, debt crippling and nation bankrupting system"

All those countries that have public options? Guess what - they pay less than we do. Per capita, sometimes it's less than HALF what we pay ($5700 as of 2008).

This is the personal conundrum I have. As much as I don't like the idea of a National Health Care System like Canada or the UK, they pay SO MUCH LESS than we do and have so much more to show for it. For the complaints I've heard regarding the Canadian system (and having travelled frequently to Canada and reading a Montreal paper on an almost daily basis, I hear a good deal of debate on the subject) we could take their system, fund it a little better to compensate for some of the long waiting lists for certain procedures and STILL save hundreds of billions of dollars.

There isn't a Canadian (or European) citizen that has been kicked off their health insurance because they came down with leukemia. Not a one. Yeah, the UK tends to let older men with prostate cancer go with less treatment (since it's such a slow moving cancer - with my grandfather the 'cure' killed him faster than the disease would have) but they spend about $3000 per capita on health care. We could take their number, spend 1/3 more than they do per capita and STILL save over $1000 per capita.

I think you might need to do a little more researching before you make blanket statements on cost and quality of UK Healthcare.

If what you're saying is true, why is the UK proposing eliminating bureaucratic control of parts of their unwieldy systems and switch administrative control by to the PRIVATE SECTOR?

More control is being given over to GPs to SAVE MONEY.

Patients will be able to choose doctors and care and hospitals and be in control of their own health care.

This is being done to REDUCE COSTS.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/12/ministers-give-gps-more-power

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/uk-government-to-introduce-massive-health-care-reform.html

[Guest]

I just want that open debate that the President promised to get votes and then conveniently forgot..... to discuss the rising costs of health care (OH...he forgot about THAT also while nursing this bill through congress).

I want all of it on the table....what the bill has done to costs...what it will do to taxes in years to come, etc. While they are at it, they might talk a bit about all the backroom deals that got it to pass. Just have an open discussion, and no more of the closed door deals.

[Guest]

Richie: No doubt about it - you bring up a good point and I'm glad you did - no, I'm NOT being sarcastic.

You're right, the UK *is* worried about costs. They spend between $2500 and $3000 per capita on health care depending on how you tally the numbers (I've seen some as low as $2300 but I think those were old numbers). On the same site where the $2300 number was (possibly lowballing the estimate), the US is reported to spend $5,700 per capita.

As a percentage of GDP, the US is around 15% while the UK is under 8%.

Think about that for a minute. Their government, which covers all their citizens (and there's a HUGE undercurrent of unrest about covering illegals - something I picked up from talking to the locals while I was in London a few months ago) spend something like HALF what we spend and they think THAT is too much!

And I know I sound like a broken record on this, but WHY, if we're supposedly trying to contain costs, are we putting the system (except for those under Medicare) in the hands of people who's first loyalty is FOR THE FINANCIAL GAIN OF THEIR SHAREHOLDERS and who's long-term planning consists of MAKING THE NUMBERS FOR THE NEXT QUARTER? AND - on top of that - FORCING our population to buy from them?????:

[Guest]

...I just want that open debate that the President promised to get votes and then conveniently forgot..... to discuss the rising costs of health care (OH...he forgot about THAT also while nursing this bill through congress)....

With all due respect, Bucco, are you suggesting that there wasn't enough debate prior to the passage of Obamacare? Wow! If all the weeks of town hall meetings, hearings, media interviews, debate on the floor of the House and Senate, wasn't debate, then what was it?

Are you saying that neither the Congress or the public had enough information with which to make an informed decision on whether to be for or against the proposed bill? And as far as costs are concerned, what was the purpose of the multiple "scorings" of various iterations of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office? Are you saying we didn't know what the costs might be? And the trend of rising healthcare costs, we didn't know about that either?

Now you're blaming the President for not arranging for enough debate or information on the bill? Or worse yet, that he actually inhibited the dissemination of information for the purpose of just getting the bill passed?

Ahh, I forgot. According to you President Obama has the omnipotent power to control all information and communication from all sources, public or private. And further, it's up to him to explain it all to you. But you don't want to listen to him because he's a Marxist-socialist-far left leaning progressive whose statements can't be trusted. That's a bit of a conundrum for you, isn't it?

[Guest]

With all due respect, Bucco, are you suggesting that there wasn't enough debate prior to the passage of Obamacare? Wow! If all the weeks of town hall meetings, hearings, media interviews, debate on the floor of the House and Senate, wasn't debate, then what was it?

Are you saying that neither the Congress or the public had enough information with which to make an informed decision on whether to be for or against the proposed bill? And as far as costs are concerned, what was the purpose of the multiple "scorings" of various iterations of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office? Are you saying we didn't know what the costs might be? And the trend of rising healthcare costs, we didn't know about that either?

Now you're blaming the President for not arranging for enough debate or information on the bill? Or worse yet, that he actually inhibited the dissemination of information for the purpose of just getting the bill passed?

Ahh, I forgot. According to you President Obama has the omnipotent power to control all information and communication from all sources, public or private. And further, it's up to him to explain it all to you. But you don't want to listen to him because he's a Marxist-socialist-far left leaning progressive whose statements can't be trusted. That's a bit of a conundrum for you, isn't it?

Town hall meetings with selected audiences is NOT debate. I would like WHAT HE PROMISED THE PEOPLE WHEN HE RAN..on public tv with both pro and con available to discuss, of course with some set of rules.

The meetings you allude to, and you know this, were set ups. Even the speaker of the house admitted she knew not what was in it.

I am sure there are good things in this bill, but it was done in backrooms...and each day I find some little nuance that we were never told.

And for the record...NEVER, NOT ONCE, EVER did I refer to the President using the terms you loosely threw out there. That is a typical response if you dont agree with this President..you are calling him names.....you know very well I never called him any of those things. I, only, during the campaign talked about his mentors and specifically shyed away from that game of calling him names....It NEVER happened and you do exactly what has happened to anyone who opposes this man...you are calling him something or another,,,and I never have, nor will I !!!