• Senate rejects bid to repeal healthcare law
    44 replies, posted
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/us-usa-healthcare-congress-idUSTRE70O62D20110203[/url] [release]President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats in the Senate blocked a Republican bid on Wednesday to repeal his healthcare overhaul, a year-old law whose ultimate fate likely rests with the U.S. Supreme Court. On a party-line vote of 51-47, the Senate rejected a Republican measure to rescind the law that aims to provide more than 30 million uninsured Americans with medical coverage while requiring nearly all to be insured or pay a fine. Sixty votes were needed to clear a procedural hurdle against repeal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scoffed at Republican efforts, saying: "They want to replace patients' rights with insurance companies' power. They want to replace health with sickness. They want to replace the promise of tomorrow with the pain of yesterday." Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell countered: "The case against this bill is more compelling every day. Everything we learn tells us it was a bad idea. That it should be repealed and replaced. The courts say so. The American people say so." The Senate voted two days after a federal judge struck down the 2010 law as unconstitutional, a ruling the Obama administration promptly announced it would appeal. The Republican-led House of Representatives, in keeping a campaign vow, voted to repeal the healthcare law last month. Senate rejection of the repeal effort means the law's fate will likely be decided by court challenges and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court, a process that could extend into next year. A federal judge in Florida on Monday ruled that Congress overstepped its authority in requiring that nearly all Americans obtain insurance or pay a fine. Ramifications of the new law for the health sector have been widespread, affecting Aetna Inc , WellPoint Inc and other health insurers as well as drugmakers, device companies and hospitals. States, struggling to balance their books in the aftermath of the recent economic downturn, also face higher costs for the Medicaid health program for the poor. Democrats say the law benefits people who had been unable to obtain coverage and ought to be maintained and improved. HEARING HELD ON LAW'S CONSTITUTIONALITY The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday held the first congressional hearing on the constitutionality of the law. Republican Senator Charles Grassley, a one-time participant in drafting the law who later withdrew from negotiations, said it was unclear what the Supreme Court may decide. "What is clear is that if this law is constitutional, Congress can make Americans buy anything that Congress wants," Grassley said. Democrats say they believe the Supreme Court will ultimately decide in favor of the law. Assistant Senate Democratic leader Dick Durbin said a number of landmark laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1935 Social Security retirement program, ran into trouble in lower courts before being upheld by the Supreme Court. "I believe the same will happen with the Affordable Care Act," Durbin said of the law being challenged in many courts. "For those keeping score, 12 federal district court judges have dismissed challenges to the law, two have found the law to be constitutional and two have found the opposite," Durbin said. While the Senate blocked appeal, it approved a measure to rescind a provision that Democrats and Republicans agreed saddled small businesses with excessive paperwork. Republicans vowed to keep pushing to roll back other provisions. McConnell said: "We think this is just the beginning. This issue is still ahead of us and we will be going back at it in a variety of different ways."[/release] Did anyone really think that the Senate would repeal this? Republicans should be putting their effort into actually accomplishing something.
[quote]"We think this is just the beginning. This issue is still ahead of us and we will be going back at it in a variety of different ways."[/quote] Persistence isn't always an admirable trait McConnell.
Doesn't really suprise me, it was a publicity stunt on the republican's part more than an actual attempt. I'm a bit torn on the issue, on one hand we do need healthcare reform and a cheaper way of getting healthcare, on the other hand anything that requires a US citizen to buy something from a government mandate I find entirely made of bullshit. Not to mention that most government programs are done with horrifying inefficiency. I'm leaning towards for it, but I can't help but feel wary about a government running the cheaper healthcare industry. And the fact that senators and congressmen are excluded from it just makes it more fishy, they should have included congressmen and the senate to insure good quality healthcare.
Healthdontcare more like
It's going to get shot down in the courts anyways. The vote is already even in the Supreme court.
[QUOTE=Bepo5;27824510]I'm a bit torn on the issue, on one hand we do need healthcare reform and a cheaper way of getting healthcare, on the other hand anything that requires a US citizen to buy something from a government mandate I find entirely made of bullshit. [/QUOTE] Aren't you kinda stuck, I mean you seem to have this option (which I think is a bit dumb, no person should be forced to buy something, if your government wants to go the way of everyone having insurance you should all be "given" it) which seems to be hated or you have the option of publicly funded healthcare (which IMO every country should have) which by the looks of the limited news coverage of this entire thing I have seen is evil and makes you one step closer to a bunch of communists or something equally insane. Is there actually a proposal that everyone likes? Or does everyone hate all of the options available?
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;27824931]It's going to get shot down in the courts anyways. The vote is already even in the Supreme court.[/QUOTE] What? No one's brought it before the Supreme Court yet.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27824963]What? No one's brought it before the Supreme Court yet.[/QUOTE] I think he's going by what we know about the current Justices' political beliefs, not saying it's in front of the court right now. At the moment it's dead even conservative/liberal with one swing vote. Personally, I think they'd accomplish more if they could try and amend it first, but looking back at the huge size of the bill and how little anyone really understands its intricacies, it's probably not feasible to do anything but start over new.
[QUOTE=Jsm;27824954]Aren't you kinda stuck, I mean you seem to have this option (which I think is a bit dumb, no person should be forced to buy something, if your government wants to go the way of everyone having insurance you should all be "given" it) which seems to be hated or you have the option of publicly funded healthcare (which IMO every country should have) which by the looks of the limited news coverage of this entire thing I have seen is evil and makes you one step closer to a bunch of communists or something equally insane. Is there actually a proposal that everyone likes? Or does everyone hate all of the options available?[/QUOTE] That's sadly how it goes. Either you take a blind leap of faith in hoping the government turns out competent, or you keep it all privatized where good healthcare is expensive. The most galling part to me is the fact that it gives both parties power, it wouldn't suprise me at all if republicans want the bill to pass simply because it gives them control over the healthcare industry all while under the guise of getting it killed and thus more votes for (Or against) their party. Urgh I hate both parties, but well, better than a dictatorship with a civil war every five years. Democracy is flawed yet it is still the best system so far.
Part of me hopes it is declared unconstitutional if only we get a public option as well.
Plan B?
oh thank god. nice to see that regressivism doesn't hold complete sway
Reagan's Solicitor General says it's constitutional why can't you [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UGQIkYEBPo&feature=player_embedded[/media]
Because not buying a product is something that can't be regulated. The Commerce clause only works when you are buying something, not to force you to buy something. If it could, they could force everybody to buy every model Xbox360 Microsoft came out with or those electric cars that preform worse in the snow than their gas drinking brothers.
The bill actually specifically forbids any sort of penalties for not buying health insurance. Essentially, the fine is toothless. Fuck knows why they bothered to put it in the bill in the first place, probably the end result of the messy partisan editing of the bill.
[QUOTE=Bepo5;27824510]Doesn't really suprise me, it was a publicity stunt on the republican's part more than an actual attempt. I'm a bit torn on the issue, on one hand we do need healthcare reform and a cheaper way of getting healthcare, on the other hand anything that requires a US citizen to buy something from a government mandate I find entirely made of bullshit. Not to mention that most government programs are done with horrifying inefficiency. I'm leaning towards for it, but I can't help but feel wary about a government running the cheaper healthcare industry. And the fact that senators and congressmen are excluded from it just makes it more fishy, they should have included congressmen and the senate to insure good quality healthcare.[/QUOTE] You really need a change in your perception of politics in the US. I know you want your individuality, choices and stuff, but in a welfare state like Denmark, our parliment can make lightning changes to make the system more efficiant, compared to the years it take to do it in the USA. Stop all the ways to stop laws, fillibusters and stuff like that. It destroys the speed of decision-making.
[QUOTE=Beafman;27829735]You really need a change in your perception of politics in the US. I know you want your individuality, choices and stuff, but in a welfare state like Denmark, our parliment can make lightning changes to make the system more efficiant, compared to the years it take to do it in the USA. Stop all the ways to stop laws, fillibusters and stuff like that. It destroys the speed of decision-making.[/QUOTE]Not as simple as that. Requires a great change in how politics is done in the US. Those blocks, vetos and filibusters allow the stopping of some really stupid/far right-wing/insane legislature. Nor does a welfare state compromise individuality or choices (with the possible exception of the choice to let poor people die), what the hell were you thinking? Scandinavia isn't full of the Borg collective (even though there are probably people with Borg in their surname)
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27824469]Did anyone really think that the Senate would repeal this? Republicans should be putting their effort into actually accomplishing something.[/QUOTE] It was just a symbolic move.
A symbolic move which will bite Democrats in the butt come 2012.
[QUOTE=Glaber;27829788]A symbolic move which will bite Democrats in the butt come 2012.[/QUOTE] Who do you honestly think is going to win against Obama?
[QUOTE=Glaber;27829788]A symbolic move which will bite Democrats in the butt come 2012.[/QUOTE] lol who's gonna be the republican nominee for president
[QUOTE=thisispain;27829853]lol who's gonna be the republican nominee for president[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://woodhull.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/sarah-palin.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=thisispain;27829853]lol who's gonna be the republican nominee for president[/QUOTE] Obviously a white christian.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27829871][img_thumb]http://woodhull.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/sarah-palin.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] yes! MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE AMERICA
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;27829904]yes! MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE AMERICA[/QUOTE] comon sense conservatism!!!1!!1
[QUOTE=Starpluck;27829871][img_thumb]http://woodhull.tv/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/sarah-palin.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] oh your picture is out of date here i got you a more recent one[U] [U][img]http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4816/qrwewqe.jpg[/img][/U][/U]
[QUOTE=thisispain;27829948]oh your picture is out of date here i got you a more recent one[U] [U][img_thumb]http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4816/qrwewqe.jpg[/img_thumb][/U][/U][/QUOTE] you see the liberals fear a beautiful intelligent woman like mrs. palin
yeah like ann coulter hehhe (BARF)
[QUOTE=thisispain;27829948]oh your picture is out of date here i got you a more recent one[U] [U][img_thumb]http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4816/qrwewqe.jpg[/img_thumb][/U][/U][/QUOTE] It's like Cerberus, but guarding the gates of idiotland.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;27824469] Did anyone really think that the Senate would repeal this? Republicans should be putting their effort into actually accomplishing something.[/QUOTE] Because then they'd be accomplishing something and thats just simply unheard of
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.