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?

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.

I believe the last poll was 70% wanted all or most repealed.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.

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.

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I wonder if we can get back the payoffs that the WH paid if this is repealed ?

And to address the question directly, I hope as many have said, that if we can get this repealed we can actually talk about health care costs !!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

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.

Originally Posted by dklassen

...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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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

Originally Posted by Bucco

...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.

Originally Posted by Bucco

..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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just keeping it real.

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


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ng_533774.html