House votes to repeal health care

[Aggie_engr]

The 245-189 vote was largely along party lines, and cleared the way for the second phase of the "repeal and replace" promise that victorious Republicans made to the voters last fall. GOP officials said that in the coming months, congressional committees will propose changes to the existing legislation, calling for elimination of a requirement for individuals to purchase coverage, for example, and recommending curbs on medical malpractice lawsuits. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_repeal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even though it is not expected to survive a Senate vote, it's still a notion worth acknowledging.

[OldSchool]

The Senate does not intend to do anything about it. Boehner said that, at most, any changes will be "incremental." Looks as if we've lost the Senate Republicans (again).

And, the House vote was not nearly enough to override the certain Presidential veto if it ever got that far.

Color this situation normal.

[baldeagle]

The Senate does not intend to do anything about it. Boehner said that, at most, any changes will be "incremental." Looks as if we've lost the Senate Republicans (again).

And, the House vote was not nearly enough to override the certain Presidential veto if it ever got that far.

Color this situation normal.

What does Boehner have to do with the Senate vote? George Mitchell said today that there will be a vote in the Senate. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen. It would be interesting to see Senators having to vote on the record to no repeal the monstrosity. Excellent fodder against those who are up for re-election in 2012. That could sway enough votes to make the Senate vote very interesting.

[Bullwhip]

Looks as if we've lost the Senate Republicans (again).

Like Scott "ignore that little bitty letter r" Brown, (R)ino, MA?

[whodat1]

The Senate does not intend to do anything about it. Boehner said that, at most, any changes will be "incremental." Looks as if we've lost the Senate Republicans (again).

And, the House vote was not nearly enough to override the certain Presidential veto if it ever got that far.

Color this situation normal.

I think everyone knows that this will not make it all the way through the repeal process, but it will force Senators to say Yea or Nay, thus putting them on the line for 2012. In the meantime, the House could have some success at defunding portions of the bill.

[i8godzilla]

I listened to a sound bite yesterday from the former Speaker of the House. When asked about the fact the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, she stated, what the polls fail to report is that a lot of those unhappy with Obamacare, are so because the law does not go far enough! REALLY?

I would say that someone needs to knock some sense into her, but that might be considered a threat. So, however true it may be, I will refrain from saying so.........

[rm9792]

The Senate does not intend to do anything about it. Boehner said that, at most, any changes will be "incremental." Looks as if we've lost the Senate Republicans (again).

And, the House vote was not nearly enough to override the certain Presidential veto if it ever got that far.

Color this situation normal.

I think everyone knows that this will not make it all the way through the repeal process, but it will force Senators to say Yea or Nay, thus putting them on the line for 2012. In the meantime, the House could have some success at defunding portions of the bill.

Or the classic Obama vote of "Present". I personally believe all votes should be yes or no, no cop outs.

[Oldgringo]

In this, the richest country on earth, there are millions of American citizens of all races, creeds and ages, without affordable healthcare. Somebody jump up and tell us that's the way it should be.

Who's first?

[cbr600]

deleted

[baldeagle]

In this, the richest country on earth, there are millions of American citizens of all races, creeds and ages, without affordable healthcare. Somebody jump up and tell us that's the way it should be.

Who's first?

First you have to prove that those millions haven't chosen not to have healthcare. Then you have to prove that they have made a good faith effort to find affordable healthcare and have failed to do so. Finally, you have to prove that the present government regulations on healthcare are not the principal or at least a major cause of the healthcare prices that have supposedly made healthcare unaffordable to those millions.

Then we can talk about what American citizens ought to have and why the government should be the one to provide it to them.

Here's some of what you have to deal with. According to the government there are somewhere between 40 and 46 million uninsured in America. Of those, almost 10 million are in the country illegally. Should they be provided with health insurance? If so, why?

In addition to that, more than 17 million uninsured earned $50,000 or more, indicating that they have chosen to go without insurance rather than being priced out of the market. A 2003 Blue Cross/Blue Shield study found that there were approximately 8.2 million "chronically" uninsured, meaning that they couldn't afford insurance but made too much money to qualify for any of the government insurance programs.

After all that, you then have to explain why it's the obligation of the government to provide those people with insurance rather than the charity of willing Americans.

[The Annoyed Man]

In this, the richest country on earth, there are millions of American citizens of all races, creeds and ages, without affordable healthcare. Somebody jump up and tell us that's the way it should be.

Who's first?

First of all, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the government to mandate that citizens have to purchase a commercial product or face fines - and don't bother flogging the auto insurance mule. You don't get fined for not buying it if you don't drive. But the current plan will fine you if you don't buy health insurance... unless your'e not breathing of course. 26 states have joined the lawsuit against the federal gummint on this, and they ARE going to win, because it IS a constitutional argument.

Secondly, millions of Americans are without health insurance by choice. That's a fact.

Third, nobody dies for lack of availability of healthcare in this country, regardless of whether or not they can afford insurance. Many people die from lack of healthcare because they don't take care of themselves, and they don't use the resources already available. At what point does one's personal responsibility for one's own welfare become the state's responsibility? I argue: "Almost never."

Fourth, I am facing the probability of considerable healthcare costs in the next few weeks myself. I realize that I am blessed enough to be in a position where I can afford to pay cash for my care. But if I were not that blessed, hospitals DO work things out with indigent people, and they do it all the time.

A government takeover of 1/6 of the nation's economy AND tossing the Constitution out the window are NOT the right way to address this issue. An issue which, by the way, is largely a product of liberal hyperventilation.

[OldSchool]

In this, the richest country on earth, there are millions of American citizens of all races, creeds and ages, without affordable healthcare. Somebody jump up and tell us that's the way it should be.

Who's first?

It's easy.
1) If that's not the way it should be, then mankind has no business being alive, since "affordable healthcare" is a new paradigm. There is no magic potion to keep people alive. Did all generations before us die off because there was no "affordable healthcare?"
2) The choice is up to us individually; however, there are plenty of people who want us to go on paying. I personally liked it far better when we paid the family doctor cash to come out and do what was needed, from money we saved out of our income. We weren't rich; indeed we were on the other end of the income spectrum. Personal preference; it's pretty much what we do now with Blue Cross and FSA. Of course, there aren't enough doctors to perform house calls anymore. 3) Remember the price tag on ObamaCare, and remember who pays for it? Those who talk about the "richest country on earth" forget from where the money comes. On average, people pay more for health care by going through the insurance companies than we would without them -- remember, the insurance companies don't go broke.
4) There must be limits, which is why ObamaCare will have an independent group decide how much to pay, who pays what, and possibly who gets what amount of care (the latter is still in the argument stage). Does anyone really want to have their health care decided by a Fed- or FICA- or FCC-type board?
5) There are already entitlement programs galore for those who are destitute. Where does it end?

We can't afford multi-million dollar medical bills for anyone. That's the reality. The US is already bankrupt, by definition. And soon, the smaller part of the population will pay all of the US bills.

[Poldark]

In this, the richest country on earth, there are millions of American citizens of all races, creeds and ages, without affordable healthcare. Somebody jump up and tell us that's the way it should be.

Who's first?

How can we be the richest country in the world when we owe $14 + trillion to the China and others with pension commitments of many trillions more ? The country is nearly or is bankrupt and yet the President needs to extend his credit card limit once again. Where is the money going to come from and please don't say increase taxes;enough is enough!

[cbr600]

deleted

[Purplehood]

I realize that is should be obvious, but does that chart indicate that the PRC has no debt?