Republicans to vote to repeal Obama's Health Care Reform in Jan 11 - Polidicks

[B]Republican leaders have begun a bid to overturn the healthcare law signed by US President Barack Obama in 2010.[/B] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12113273"]Source[/URL] [quote=BBC News]A [B][URL="http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/HR__-Repeal.pdf"]bill to repeal the landmark law[/URL][/B] was formally unveiled on Monday evening, two days before Republicans assume control of the lower house of Congress. It is set to be voted on by the House of Representatives on 12 January. But he vote is expected to be largely symbolic as Democrats retain a Senate majority and can block the move and the president could ultimately veto it. 'Jewel in crown' The Republicans won sweeping gains in November's mid-term congressional elections in part by attacking what they portrayed as a costly and job-killing healthcare law. The BBC's Steve Kingstone, in Washington, says healthcare reform is so far the legislative jewel in the crown of President Obama's administration. What remains to be seen is whether this is simply a symbolic flexing of muscles by the Republicans, or whether it sets the tone for two years of party-political acrimony, our correspondent says. With power in Congress divided, Democrats and Republicans must work together if new laws are to be passed. On Tuesday Mr Obama appealed to Republican congressional leaders on to put partisan politics aside to rebuild the US economy. Speaking on board Air Force One as he travelled back to Washington from a holiday in Hawaii, Mr Obama said: "You know, I think that there's going to be politics. That's what happens in Washington - that they [Republicans] are going to play to their base for a certain period of time. "But I'm pretty confident that they're going to recognise that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that we're creating a competitive economy for the 21st Century, not just for this generation but for the next one." The US healthcare reform law was approved in March last year, making it compulsory for Americans to buy medical insurance and illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to customers with pre-existing conditions. If, as expected, the attempted repeal fails, the Republicans will attack the law through other means, specifically by using congressional committees to cut off relevant funds, our correspondent says.[/quote] This must be a joke

Idiots. We need a universal healthcare system, Poor people are dying for no reason, Just because they don't have the money to go to the doctor, I know this because my parents are some of those people.

And then they'll run on the platform that Obama's done nothing

Great going US 2 years of grandstanding and stagnation wooh yeah!

Thanks to this law, my father's company's health insurance went up 106%. Thanks Obama!

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;27194802]Thanks to this law, my father's company's health insurance went up 106%. Thanks Obama![/QUOTE] Thanks to this law I am a criminal for not being able to afford health care. Thanks Obama! [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;27194739]Idiots. We need a universal healthcare system, Poor people are dying for no reason, Just because they don't have the money to go to the doctor, I know this because my parents are some of those people.[/QUOTE] If you want UHC then you want this law repealed. I just wish the turnover would go through. This health care law is a fucking abomination. The old system was fucking better than the reform and that's saying a lot. It's sort of funny though considering Republicans are partially to blame for why the reform was so awful in the first place.

Yeah well it's not working cause it's a half measure.

That's the gist of his.

It won't happen, I mean the Republicans can pass the bill, but the President has to sign it, and most likely, he will veto it. And in order to override it, congress needs a 2/3 majority. Although, some Democrats may help vote for the override to spite the President.

[QUOTE=ForcedDj;27196332]It won't happen, I mean the Republicans can pass the bill, but the President has to sign it, and most likely, he will veto it. And in order to override it, congress needs a 2/3 majority. Although, some Democrats may help vote for the override to spite the President.[/QUOTE] This is the Republicans way of voicing opposition to the law. They are saying "Hey, this shit aint cool man," It's also a publicity stunt, it gets Republicans in a new outrage about the reform. It's like poking shit instead of letting it dry so you keep letting the stink out. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] I mean, no republican in his right mind would even believe for a second that it would work unless they controlled both the house and 2/3 of the senate.

At least by doing this, they wouldn't be seen as just a lite version of the Democrats. Like a certain 7 Republicans.

Whoa starpluck got banana? [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] Or is he an imposter.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27196538]At least by doing this, they wouldn't be seen as just a lite version of the Democrats. Like a certain 7 Republicans.[/QUOTE] That's already been made perfectly clear by the transition between the two Presidents.

I'm referring to the congress, not the president.

Ah, the fundamentals of democracy fails again. It really is depressing to see such a lack of progress on so many levels. Crap like this is the reason the reform wasn't as good as it should have/was going to be.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27196616]I'm referring to the congress, not the president.[/QUOTE] I know that.

Once again the republicans prove that they are whiny dicks who simply [b]cannot[/b] let someone else have it their way.

Oh politics, you're so fine and dandy.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27196627]Ah, the fundamentals of democracy fails again. It really is depressing to see such a lack of progress on so many levels. Crap like this is the reason the reform wasn't as good as it should have/was going to be.[/QUOTE] Our Republic wasn't designed for progress. In fact I am starting to think it was designed with the opposite in mind. Unchecked progress leads to tyranny. It's bad and good at the same time. [QUOTE=Phycosymo;27196679]Once again the republicans prove that they are whiny dicks who simply [b]cannot[/b] let someone else have it their way.[/QUOTE] That's the way politics work. Both sides think they are right and the other side is wrong.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;27196722] That's the way politics work. Both sides think they are right and the other side is wrong.[/QUOTE] It's not how politics should work though, you're supposed to compromise, not fight a losing battle and make slanderous remarks about your opponents.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27196743]It's not how politics should work though, you're supposed to compromise, not fight a losing battle and make slanderous remarks about your opponents.[/QUOTE] Of course, but most politicians that get into office aren't known for their compromise and understanding. In fact in elections compromise is easily spun to mean weak. These people have to be hardliners because they are supposed to be standing up for what's right, which in an ideal world would mean they don't have to compromise.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;27194739]Idiots. We need a universal healthcare system, Poor people are dying for no reason, Just because they don't have the money to go to the doctor, I know this because my parents are some of those people.[/QUOTE] My mother has cancer, and I have about $300 a month in prescriptions. We don't have any form of health insurance at all, nor the income to buy health insurance. Plenty of organizations exist to help people in our position, we don't need the government sticking their hands in our pants to support ourselves. I'm against this purely from the standpoint that the government needs to downsize drastically if we ever hope to recover from this economic collapse. More spending, more programs, continuing wars overseas... How does anyone in their right mind think this country is going to survive another 5 or even 10 years on its current path?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;27196779]Of course, but most politicians that get into office aren't known for their compromise and understanding. [/quote] What's going on this this thread? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Sir_Wilfrid_Laurier_-_Bain.jpg/461px-Sir_Wilfrid_Laurier_-_Bain.jpg[/img] Just because a lot of politicians are dick bags doesn't mean they all are. Some of the best politicians came up with some of the best compromises. [quote]In fact in elections compromise is easily spun to mean weak. These people have to be hardliners because they are supposed to be standing up for what's right, which in an ideal world would mean they don't have to compromise.[/QUOTE] What's right for their voter base, which doesn't mean it's right for the entire country. You can't win an election by having everyone voting for you, not everyone agrees about every policy so by simply talking a political stance, you are basically having a part of the country disagree with you.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;27196793]My mother has cancer, and I have about $300 a month in prescriptions. We don't have any form of health insurance at all, nor the income to buy health insurance. Plenty of organizations exist to help people in our position, we don't need the government sticking their hands in our pants to support ourselves. I'm against this purely from the standpoint that the government needs to downsize drastically if we ever hope to recover from this economic collapse. More spending, more programs, continuing wars overseas... How does anyone in their right mind think this country is going to survive another 5 or even 10 years on its current path?[/QUOTE] I agree, but I don't think cutting health care is the answer. I think cutting defense spending and ending the war on drugs would be a good start at controlling spending. As well as downsizing unnecessary or inefficient programs already in place(hasn't Obama said he was going to do this? Like drastically cut the DoA or something?) and raising upper income taxes. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27196859] What's right for their voter base, which doesn't mean it's right for the entire country. You can't win an election by having everyone voting for you, not everyone agrees about every policy so by simply talking a political stance, you are basically having a part of the country disagree with you.[/QUOTE] Very good point.

I hope they do it, and then next time the Democrats have a majority let's dismantle the entire health insurance industry and make it all UHC. In this new bill, have it written so that it takes place one year after it is implemented, thus removing the power of the next legislature to repeal it before it comes into force.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;27197009]I hope they do it, and then next time the Democrats have a majority let's dismantle the entire health insurance industry and make it all UHC. In this new bill, have it written so that it takes place one year after it is implemented, thus removing the power of the next legislature to repeal it before it comes into force.[/QUOTE] The reason it's scheduled for 2014 is that it takes a long time to set this stuff up. Full universal health care would take even longer

This country is going to become more of a shit hole if republicans are reelected in 2012.

[QUOTE=smurfy;27197190]The reason it's scheduled for 2014 is that it takes a long time to set this stuff up. Full universal health care would take even longer[/QUOTE] Yea, you can say "full universal healthcare tomorrow!" but that doesn't mean that tomorrow you're insured. You gotta you know, do shit to get it working.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;27196722]Unchecked progress leads to tyranny. [/QUOTE] No, it leads to control, not necessarily tyranny. varying governmental systems have no real flaws, only the people propagate the minor flaws that are there; and this is what happens when petty, incompetent people govern other people. As far as government structure and society goes, you can't have the good without the bad. if you want to see societal progress you'll need to forfeit some of your rights, but those rights may be replaced by excellent privileges. Bad things always need to happen to somebody/something. In this case the bad thing is a somewhat shoddy healthcare reform that is the product of overzealous "compromise," and that compromise is a product of a two party system where two opposing sides bicker and shoot down the other side's ideas; but hey at least you get to vote for the lesser of two evils. If a true, balanced, and efficient healthcare system had been implemented at the expense of the right wing's freedom of opinion, then everybody in the country would likely have reliable, cheap healthcare. cheap to the individual; as a whole the entire country would be paying more in taxes, but each person would only have to contribute a modest sum of money for healthcare that is better for everybody on average. Unfortunately a GOOD healthcare system cannot be implemented if the republicans keep sabotaging the plan. Sure, some people who don't have money for healtcare may be "coddled" and receive that healthcare at the expense of a few dollars of each taxpayers money instead of dying on a roadside, and some extravagantly rich people may not be able to choose to pay for the best service in the world, but everybody in the country would be able to afford an acceptable and reliable healthcare plan. When it comes down to really crude logic, when choosing between a socio-capitalist state, and a pure laissez-faire style captalism, you may have more "freedom" in the laissez-faire fere style where everybody has control over everything in their lives, wheras in a socio capitalist state you are forced to pay for social services that benefit everybody and improve your quality of life. The problem with this whole thing is some people tried to implement an idea that is the product of socio-capitalism into a very laissez-faire style society, and the outcome that you see before you now is basically what you'd expect from that, and frankly its just depressing.

[QUOTE=smurfy;27197190]The reason it's scheduled for 2014 is that it takes a long time to set this stuff up. Full universal health care would take even longer[/QUOTE] That's why for the interim period you could just have the government absorb the companies, slowly getting rid of them. But that initial step of absorption could be done quite quickly, and wouldn't really be able to be undone.