AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → U.S. House of Representatives Passes Bill to Repeal the New Healthcare Law

157 20536
Maverick4
offline
Maverick4
6,800 posts
Peasant

On Wednesday, January 19th, the house voted 245-189 (all Republicans, and 3 Democrats) to repeal the Healthcare Law. I was curious as to what AG's response would be to this.

Some sources:

The Hill

The Huffington Post

FOX News

CNN

  • 157 Replies
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

If it passes the Senate (which it won't), the President will kill it - it's probably more of a political statement than an actual "trying-to-actually-repeal-the-law" type of thing.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

The legislation is unlikely to make it past the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he won't bring it to the floor for a vote.

-CNN Website

What a pathetic man. Won't even bring it to the floor for a vote? This bill is a tremendously big deal, and the size of the bill should go through another vote if deemed necessary. Harry Reid, the stupid bloke, should not consider himself the authority on declaring the bill unworthy.

Of course, I may be biased, as I am completely 100% against the bill. I'm glad the house is trying to repeal the new healthcare law.
valkery
offline
valkery
1,255 posts
Nomad

Of course, I may be biased, as I am completely 100% against the bill. I'm glad the house is trying to repeal the new healthcare law


Why exactly? I don't think that it has been in effect long enough for it to have been deemed a threat to the American public. The republicans are way to angry over a bill that they deemed "Obamacare" even though it was the senate, I believe was the one, that came up with the bill in the first place.

Now, I am not condoning the bill in anyway, I to think it would have been much better for smaller bussiness if they had lowered the price of health care, rather than just forcing it upon the employer. That was bad, and probably will ruin the economy worse.

Who knows! It may well turn out to be a great thing for the unemployment rate. To avoid having to give health care, employers may just hire a ton of part-time employee's which will put more people into the workplace. Granted, it will be for less time than is normal, but it may still boost the economy and turn out to be a terrific thing for America.

So all I am saying is, give it a chance. If it fails after a year, repeal it. Don't get all up in arms over a bill that you came up with, and then decide to repeal it. Life just shouldn't work that way.

I think that part of the reason that the Republicans are angry is because they aren't known as the Grand OLD Party for nothing. Honestly, I have yet to meet, in person, more than a handful of die-hard Republicans that aren't either extremely swayed by their parents views, and to young to vote anyway, or ancient, tottering old crones. I have been to several conventions, and so far, I have yet to be impressed by them. At the last one I went to, the opening joke was "It is recession when your neighbor looses his job, it is depression when you lose your job, and it is Recovery when Barrack Obama is kicked out of office."

That is the type of people that the president is trying to be nice to and work with. He got many opinions from Republicans when originally writing the bill, but it got butchered when it hit the Democratic Majority of the Senate.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Why exactly?


The Health Care Bill will put the US in even more debt. Bush got us in debt, and we elected Obama to get us out of debt. Health care is going to create more debt and higher taxes. There are many reasons why people like me don't want to pay more taxes or health care.

1. Health care entitlement programs in the past have always been more costly than predicted.

2. Regular insurance companies must refuse people so they can make a profit. Oh no, I said profit, such a dirty word! Let me rephrase. Insurance companies must refuse people so they don't go into debt which results in them going out of business.

3. You are being forced to pay for health care at risk of becoming a federal criminal.

So these are 3 of many reasons why not to support health care.

I don't think that it has been in effect long enough for it to have been deemed a threat to the American public.


Here's the problem with test driving the bill. You can't wait too long to repeal the bill. When it starts to fail, you can't simply get rid of it. The bill will force people to become dependent on the state. This makes it nearly impossibly hard to repeal the bill, even if the bill is proven to be failing.

I think that part of the reason that the Republicans are angry is because they aren't known as the Grand OLD Party for nothing.


I hate referring to republicans as the Grand Old Party because it implies that old ideas are faulty purely because of their age. This is flawed thinking. You must look at the content of the ideas before determining if they are outdated or not, and you determine if they are outdated by comparing it today's technology and social norms, not through assumption.

"It is recession when your neighbor looses his job, it is depression when you lose your job, and it is Recovery when Barrack Obama is kicked out of office."


I actually found that to be quite funny.

That is the type of people that the president is trying to be nice to and work with. He got many opinions from Republicans when originally writing the bill, but it got butchered when it hit the Democratic Majority of the Senate.


Lying is nothing knew when it comes to politics, but Obama is a ridiculously huge liar and he's constantly soft soap talking his audiences down with promises of hope and change to hide his real agenda to create a more state dependent nation.

I remember when Obama was running for president. He became popular because he claimed that he would not pick sides as president. As soon as he became president he has actually shrugged off most of what many republicans have said.

The money we pay into National Health Care will literally be a tax. However, Obama does not consider it a tax. Why? This way, he can tell everyone that he is going to decrease taxes while increasing the amount of money they end up paying. When someone says "I thought you weren't going to increase taxes," he will reply "I didn't, that extra money you're paying is health care."

Obama was being interviewed and he claimed National Health Care is not a tax increase.

Interviewer: I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax, a charge usually of money and posed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.
Obama: *laughs* George, the fact you looked up Merriam Webster's dictionary, that the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little."

In a professional debate, this reply would be completely unacceptable. Obama is manipulative and the whole "trying to help people" is nothing more than a front. I mean, he might honestly be trying to help people, but I can say the same for Bush and every other president.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

The people who are usually against it either A. Are rich enough not to worry about it B. Have congressional insurance for free C. Generally don't understand what is actually in the bill.


I'm neither A, B, nor C. In fact, most of the people against the health care bill are neither A or B. C is difficult as there will be people out there that don't support the bill who don't understand what's in the bill, those who only understand some aspects of the bill and don't support it, and there will be experts who understand the bill fully and still don't support it even though they aren't rich and they don't have free insurance already.

I like the bill, as a full time student, being on my parent's insurance for the next 5 years means I don't have to fear another medical crisis.

I can't be booted from insurance for &quotre-existing" conditions.


I wish I believed in "free money". Everyone who pays taxes are now paying for you. Those taxes are being taken from everyone by force.

If everyone puts 10 dollars into the pot (National Health Care), they will expect 20. In reality, most will only receive maybe 7, while others receive 13, and any additional costs will be owed by the government and in effect increase the nation's debt and devalue the dollar.
thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

1. Health care entitlement programs in the past have always been more costly than predicted.

Nope! Health care costs in the industrial world were relatively the same in 1945. Now the US has the highest cost of health care in the world.

2. Regular insurance companies must refuse people so they can make a profit. Oh no, I said profit, such a dirty word! Let me rephrase. Insurance companies must refuse people so they don't go into debt which results in them going out of business.

Oh no! People are now allowed get the healthcare they need? What a horrible problem!

3. You are being forced to pay for health care at risk of becoming a federal criminal.

Not buying health insurance won't be a federal crime. It will be punishable by a fine though. Those who can't afford it will get heavy discounts through federal subsidies.

So everyone gets insurance regardless of health history and income. Insurance industries get compensated well for participating in the program and make huge profits. With a loarger pool of people, those with pre-existing conditions can be covered. Even the health insurance companies are expecting to make bigger profits once all of the laws kick in.

thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

Sorry for the double post. But the president of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Andrew Dreyfus, was one of the biggest campaigners for the Massachusetts health care bill which was nearly identical to the Health Care law that is now in place.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Nope! Health care costs in the industrial world were relatively the same in 1945. Now the US has the highest cost of health care in the world.


This doesn't change the fact that health entitlement programs are more expensive than predicted. Regardless, the high costs for medical care in America are a result of insurance companies and entitlement programs paying for health programs without comparing prices.

Oh no! People are now allowed get the healthcare they need? What a horrible problem!


If the cost of saving lives is to steal money from those who work, then yes, it is a problem. There's a gun waiting to be pointed at my head if I refuse to pay for health care, a program that will eat up money and due to lack of supply to meet demand that has no worry for costs, we will also fall victim to rationing.

Not buying health insurance won't be a federal crime. It will be punishable by a fine though. Those who can't afford it will get heavy discounts through federal subsidies.


Yeah, and if I don't pay that fine, they will point a gun at my head. What if I feel like spending that money on a sick family member instead? What if I want to be a selfish mo fo and keep the money for myself? What if I want to use that money to buy booz or to pay for my own or my children's education? What if I want to invest that money to start a business?

So everyone gets insurance regardless of health history and income. Insurance industries get compensated well for participating in the program and make huge profits.


This is not true at all! Insurance industries are going to be killed. Obama said he wants a single payer system but he will give the people what they want and allow them to have a choice. That sly mother ****er is forcing these companies to cover people that will result in them going in debt, therefore putting them out of business. Why would Obama do this? It's because he wants a state controlled monopoly!

With a loarger pool of people, those with pre-existing conditions can be covered.


It's not like a product where the more people that buy your product the more money you make. Insurance companies have people who eat up more money than they put in, while others get less money than what they put in. With the new laws, insurance companies are being forced to give back more money than they are making. This sounds noble and moral and all, but you forget that this will cause them to go out of business so the state can create a monopoly that they control.

Clearly insurance companies are accepting the bill with open arms... oh wait.

Even the health insurance companies are expecting to make bigger profits once all of the laws kick in.


Big insurance companies bribe politicians so that they can become immune to these laws. This way, their competition is weeded out, thy make a profit, and the politicians they pay make a profit.

We shouldn't be forced to care for the sick and unfortunate. If you want to help the sick so much, YOU can send them money. But stop telling me that I'm being immoral and that I deserve not to have a choice.

Let's assume you have a sister who needs money for medical treatment. Is it okay to point a gun at someone's head and take their money to save her life? No, that's still wrong. But why does everyone have this mentality, that it's okay to have someone else (the state) point a gun at someone's head, and for them to take their money so that your sister gets money?
skarl
offline
skarl
250 posts
Nomad

I'm getting in trouble for this post. I'll post it anyway.

I don't know that much about your healthcare system, my dear americans, but if what I have heard of it is true, it's probably the worst one I've ever heard of in a first world country.

doctors are afraid of getting accused and punished if they make a mistake, or cure someone who doesn't want to be cured, because it is to expensive for those people.

many people are in deep trouble because they had dangourous illnesses, like cancer, and can't pay the bills.

some people actually DIE beacause they can't pay their medicine.

insurance companies try to get someone who is ill out of their insurance. (that's illigal in my country!)

and that's not the end. in the US, you are free.

free to get a rich if your craddle stands in the right part of the city, free to die poor and alone if you are born in the wrong part, or if you get ill.

jroyster22
offline
jroyster22
755 posts
Peasant

@einfach I agree with you kinda in a way. (If that makes any sense)

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

doctors are afraid of getting accused and punished if they make a mistake, or cure someone who doesn't want to be cured, because it is to expensive for those people.


This is due to lawsuits, not the price of medical operations. Doctors are afraid of being sued. Our court system is pretty screwed up.

free to get a rich if your craddle stands in the right part of the city, free to die poor and alone if you are born in the wrong part, or if you get ill.


I can take dogs from the rich and I can take in the starving dogs and fence them in my yard. I can make sure they are fed and watered. I can take care of them. However, they are fenced in, and as such they are not free.

To live in a free nation, you have opportunities to pick your own path. If you're rich, you can keep your wealth by being smart. If you're poor, you can work your way up through the system. Each human being is born with their own talents and though it may sound heartless, each human being is born with inheritance. We can not expect everyone to be born into this world with the same starting position. We can not expect children to all be born into wealth. This is unfortunate, but it's the price of freedom.

However, if we can break away from our dependency on the state, we can lift more and more people out of poverty. We can focus on helping each other through neutral agreement rather than depend on a state that forces everyone to share their earnings. When the state gets involved, they create poverty, then they blame big businesses when really the state is at fault.

I would rather work my way up a beaten stray than be taken care of by a master.

American health care is actually pretty good. The only reason it's considered "bad" is because not everyone is covered by it. But the quality of care itself is still quite good. Medical care would be cheaper if we didn't rely so heavily on insurance in the first place.

Prices are not set in stone, they are determined by supply and demand. When the government offers to pay for medical care, demand goes up because everyone is under the illusion that their care is free. However, the more they demand from such an illusion, the more they pay in taxes. Those who are wise to be cautious with what they pay for also have to pay more taxes. Talk about being fair.

There's more behind National Health Care and why people don't support it than just its effectiveness. Politically speaking, it gives the state more power. Those who do not trust the state and those who are unhappy with how their money is being spent do not trust the government to control health care.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

I would rather work my way up a beaten stray than be taken care of by a master.


I would rather we have free health care, it's not a big deal what either of us would rather do. What is a big deal is what is best for our nation.

However, if we can break away from our dependency on the state, we can lift more and more people out of poverty.


I seem to recall that before FDR Hoover's policy of leaving the depression alone made things worse.

But the quality of care itself is still quite good.


I agree (I'm quite familiar with orthopedic surgery and the details it entails); however, until more Americans can be covered it is not good enough.

Those who are wise to be cautious with what they pay for also have to pay more taxes.


15 minutes away from my house is a College full of individuals from the East Coast that with plenty of money that they didn't earn; most of their parents didn't earn it either. America is a country full of old money, to many people have money simply because they're grandparents did for me to buy that simply being wise is the reason for economic disparity. America has some of the lowest income tax rates of developed countries and yet we're not the happiest country in the world, Denmark is, a country with an income tax rate above 40% and the 16th highest GDP in the world. What about there health care?

The Danish health care system is not cheap. According to OECD's Health Data 2009, Denmark's health cost per person, public and private, was $3,512. But in the US the cost is more than double at $7,290!
In addition, Danish health care covers everybody - 100 percent of the population-while in the U.S. fewer than 80 percent of citizens are covered, and often only partially.
So basically the U.S. system costs more than twice as much and still leaves nearly a quarter of the population in the lurch if they need any medical care.

Denver Post

Weird, they pay less and everyone is covered? I'm not saying the US bill will do this but it shows that there's a great possibility that this wouldn't have that much of an effect on pricing and may make it cheaper.

[just realized that you weren't referring the the rich paying higher taxes. My apologies but my point still stands]

Those who do not trust the state


The state is, or at least should be ours. The problem is the average American doesn't know anything about politics and half of them don't even know what's good for them. I would like to see more democracy brought into out country but only after we ramp up the political/economic education.

I can take dogs from the rich and I can take in the starving dogs and fence them in my yard. I can make sure they are fed and watered. I can take care of them. However, they are fenced in, and as such they are not free.


I could let them run free but provide them with food and water whenever they needed it; this isn't an issue of freedom don't make it one.

In reference to the vote I'm slightly annoyed that I'm paying them to debate and vote on an issue that will go no where, want to complain about a waste of money there's one right there. If they want to take away American's government healthcare I say we take away their private healthcare; they are civil servants correct? Imagine if Gabby Giffords had no healthcare, that would have made the Tuscon shooting a much larger tragedy.

2. Regular insurance companies must refuse people so they can make a profit. Oh no, I said profit, such a dirty word! Let me rephrase. Insurance companies must refuse people so they don't go into debt which results in them going out of business.


Assassins have to kill people so they make a profit or else they go broke, money isn't an excuse to ignore other human's survival. This is why the government has to step in, so people with diabetes can get the insulin they need and so everyone with a pre-existing condition can survive. American nationalism is alive and well but only if it includes killing Muslims, you would think we would have some pride in how we take care of our old, sick, and less fortunate.

This way, he can tell everyone that he is going to decrease taxes while increasing the amount of money they end up paying.


Newsflash, Obama has cut taxes. The thing that people don't get is to cut taxes we have to cut government programs; you know the teaparty doesn't really gasp that concept. This will increase taxes *gasp* but so what? I'm no longer paying for medical insurance, calculate the net loss of money don't just look at the taxes and cry foul.

If the cost of saving lives is to steal money from those who work, then yes, it is a problem.


Haha, oh no wait you're being serious. Human life is worth more than anything.

What if I want to invest that money to start a business?


As long as it's not insurance go for it.

It's because he wants a state controlled monopoly!


So after his term he gets to control it all? Conspiracy theories that have no motive are so yesterday.

But stop telling me that I'm being immoral and that I deserve not to have a choice.


Morality is subjective; you don't deserve a choice.

No, that's still wrong. But why does everyone have this mentality, that it's okay to have someone else (the state) point a gun at someone's head, and for them to take their money so that your sister gets money?


Probably so my sister doesn't die. I'm assuming here that the gun is similar to the one in Arizona and the victim represents someone with government healthcare that's going to get the best medical care possible?
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

There is something innately wrong with the idea of the bill. Instead of tackling specifics about the bill, I will attack the idea behind the bill - that of universal healthcare.

The idea of universal healthcare is that everyone should be insured, and therefore the government should provide health care to people or should force everyone to buy healthcare. Why do people not have healthcare in the first place?

Proponents of such an idea would say that it is because companies will not let them. Because companies want to make a profit, and only operate on mutually beneficial trades (it will not make itself lose money or capital on transactions - it consents to its deals, basically).

But the truth is it also deals with individual choice - we can spend our money on a number of things, not just healthcare, so for the government to force someone to acquire healthcare, they are imposing upon that person ideals which are not necessarily their own - they are running their life for them. They are telling them what they should value - how they should use their capital.

Thus arises the fundamental problem with the idea of universal healthcare - you are not "creating" anything in the process - you have diminished overall good; not improved it. You have simply shifted the capital in the world, and in an inefficient way.

samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

But the truth is it also deals with individual choice - we can spend our money on a number of things, not just healthcare, so for the government to force someone to acquire healthcare, they are imposing upon that person ideals which are not necessarily their own


The idea is similar to that of social security, you pay into a system and for the majority of individuals what you pay is what you get back out (excluding the impoverished and wealthy). Will some individuals be paying for something they don't want? Potentially but I would be willing to bet those individuals will be in a very small minority.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

The idea is similar to that of social security, you pay into a system and for the majority of individuals what you pay is what you get back out (excluding the impoverished and wealthy). Will some individuals be paying for something they don't want? Potentially but I would be willing to bet those individuals will be in a very small minority.


No - that's not the point. The point is that it's economically inefficient whatever that minority is. It's the principle of it - that you will have inefficiency; thus by doing this, the government is recognizing that X (healthcare) is an absolute good, and that they should decide for the entire population what they should get (healthcare), which could prevent them from getting something else they want by choice (a new computer, or whatever they value - whatever they see that will make them "happy" (here, hapinness is defined simply as "what people pursue&quot). Thus there is no "gain" at all by using universal healthcare - there is only an inefficiency. You can no longer argue for it as a good system, because of this idea (and if you were to say that it is a form of redistribution, then it would not be the ideal, still, since money itself is more handy for that purpose, as it has a wider variety of uses and is a standard unit. We can debate redistribution another time...
Showing 1-15 of 157