House passes bill overturning Obamacare

[mudwhistle]

Just heard it on CNN.

Funny.......Harry Reid prevented Obama's idea to tax the rich from coming to a vote.

Did you hear that???

Probably not. Senate Dems Kill Obama

 

[Claudette]

Looks like a lot of democratics in districts that aren't blood-shooting-out-the-eyes liberoidal are in save-my-ass mode.

The vote Wednesday was 244-185. By the Republican count, it was the 33rd time in 18 months that the tea party-infused GOP majority has tried to scrap, defund or scale back the law since grabbing the majority.

The Associated Press: GOP-controlled House votes to repeal health law

from your link.
Polls show public reaction to the law has been consistently negative. Republicans say voters in November will have the final say.

democrats just ignore that one little fact.

Bingo.

 

[Stephanie]

Just heard it on CNN.

Funny.......Harry Reid prevented Obama's idea to tax the rich from coming to a vote.

Did you hear that???

Probably not. Senate Dems Kill Obama

they don't care about that..

 

[Claudette]

House votes to repeal Obama healthcare law, again | Reuters

Good news for the public at large for this nation.

It does three things.

1. Puts everyone on record in an election year.
2. Makes this a massive wedge issue.
3. Puts pressure on Obama on making a decision to keep it against the popular will or get rid of it which will end a weapon that can be used against him and his supporters in congress.

Yup. Obamacare was unpopular when they passed it and its just as unpopular now. The only real winners are those without HC. If they can't pay then the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

I had hoped the SC would kick the whole clusterfuck to the curb but they said its constitutional as a tax.

They handed Romney and the GOP a gift and Barry a big headach.

I'm glad the House voted to repeal and now the ball is in Reids court. If he brings it to a vote it could pass. There are Dems looking at re-election in Nov. The bill is unpopular and a tax. Who's gonna vote for a tax??

Good question.

How will they get health care when the Republican states are rejecting money for medicaid just because they hate Democrats.

Your entire post is way off.

You seem to think that every taxpayer or person with HC is obligated to provide for those without.

Thats their resonsibility. Not mine.

If you want to make it yours then feel free just leave the rest of us out of your grand plan.

 

[Si modo]

House votes to repeal Obama healthcare law, again | Reuters

Good news for the public at large for this nation.

It does three things.

1. Puts everyone on record in an election year.
2. Makes this a massive wedge issue.
3. Puts pressure on Obama on making a decision to keep it against the popular will or get rid of it which will end a weapon that can be used against him and his supporters in congress.

Yup. Obamacare was unpopular when they passed it and its just as unpopular now. The only real winners are those without HC. If they can't pay then the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

I had hoped the SC would kick the whole clusterfuck to the curb but they said its constitutional as a tax.

They handed Romney and the GOP a gift and Barry a big headach.

I'm glad the House voted to repeal and now the ball is in Reids court. If he brings it to a vote it could pass. There are Dems looking at re-election in Nov. The bill is unpopular and a tax. Who's gonna vote for a tax??

Good question.

How will they get health care when the Republican states are rejecting money for medicaid just because they hate Democrats.

Your entire post is way off.

Only, that's not what is happening. The states are refusing to expand the system and half of that expansion they would be required to pay. The states are choosing not to spend more. Good decision most of the time, too.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Nooooooooooo, they're forcing your Dems to vote against repealing a tax. It's good to point out who wants to raise your taxes/penalties.

Whose taxes will the penality raise?

The penalty is just one tax.

20 million new freeloaders get dumped on the States Medicaid systems.

Who pays that tax?

Not you freeloaders, of course.

all 20 million are freeloaders?......then you wonder why people with your mindset are just so respected today....ANYBODY today can have something happen and lose their job and Ins and become one of those 20 million....if it was you.....would you consider yourself a freeloader?.....

 

[Stephanie]

Don't you love working all your life, paying taxes that go to help others already and now being called a freeloader by YOUR masters in Government

and then being told we aren't paying ENOUGH in taxes..

what a spit in our faces

 

[Indofred]

I find this really odd.
The same arguments were used when the British NHS was created just after WWII.
The NHS may not be great but knowing you have medical attention based on need is rather nice.

As a conservative (Right of centre), I should be against it.
As someone with a heart, I have to support it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

So many of these Republicans say, "I'm covered". Then you ask them, "Did you know that the number one cause of bankruptcy are medical bills?" And they say, "Oh, I have insurance, it doesn't affect me". Then I say, "Wow, that's fantastic. 100% of your insurance is paid". And they say, "Well, I have to make a small "copay" but they cover 60%". Then I say, "Wow! That means if you have a medical bill that's $100,000.00, then they pay $60,000.00 and you only pay $40,000.00. And they say, "FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS????? I can't pay $40,000.00!!!! Where would I get that kind of money????" But then, being Republican and not wanting to be a burden, they just die.

really?.....my wife had abdominal surgery,a weeks stay in the Hospital.....my part....a 250.00 dollar co-pay......the guy must have had shitty ins......or of course its just another Dean tale....

 

[Claudette]

Yup. Obamacare was unpopular when they passed it and its just as unpopular now. The only real winners are those without HC. If they can't pay then the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

I had hoped the SC would kick the whole clusterfuck to the curb but they said its constitutional as a tax.

They handed Romney and the GOP a gift and Barry a big headach.

I'm glad the House voted to repeal and now the ball is in Reids court. If he brings it to a vote it could pass. There are Dems looking at re-election in Nov. The bill is unpopular and a tax. Who's gonna vote for a tax??

Good question.

How will they get health care when the Republican states are rejecting money for medicaid just because they hate Democrats.

Your entire post is way off.

Only, that's not what is happening. The states are refusing to expand the system and half of that expansion they would be required to pay. The states are choosing not to spend more. Good decision most of the time, too.

The SC kicked the Medicaid expantion to the curb. A big part of the funding for Obamacare.

Obamacare can't force States to pick up the tab for the expansion.

Who do you think will end up paying for it all??

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:

Home » News

Democratic Leader Explains Obamacare: 'There's No Tax on Anybody Unless They Refuse'

By Patrick Burke

July 11, 2012


(CNSNews.com) – Assistant House Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Wednesday that the Obamacare mandate does involve a tax--but explained that "there's no tax on anybody unless they refuse to buy insurance."
On Capitol Hill, Wednesday, CNSNews.com asked Clyburn: “In voting to uphold the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, are you voting for a tax?”

The number three Democrat in the House replied, “Am I voting for a tax? Only on those freeloaders who don't purchase insurance.”

CNSNews.com followed up with the question: “So is [Supreme Court Chief Justice] John Roberts wrong in calling it a tax?”

“No,” Clyburn replied. “Roberts said, I cannot find a way to uphold this under the Commerce Clause but I can find it under the taxing authority of the Congress,” replied Clyburn.

all of it here
Democratic Leader Explains Obamacare: 'There's No Tax on Anybody Unless They Refuse' | CNSNews.com

 

[Si modo]

I find this really odd.
The same arguments were used when the British NHS was created just after WWII.
The NHS may not be great but knowing you have medical attention based on need is rather nice.

As a conservative (Right of centre), I should be against it.
As someone with a heart, I have to support it.

EVERYONE has ALWAYS gotten medical attention when they need it. THAT is not and never has been an issue.

 

[Greenbeard]

The SC kicked the Medicaid expantion to the curb. A big part of the funding for Obamacare.

That was the spending, not the funding. Less Medicaid coverage means less federal Medicaid spending.

 

[Care4all]

I find this really odd.
The same arguments were used when the British NHS was created just after WWII.
The NHS may not be great but knowing you have medical attention based on need is rather nice.

As a conservative (Right of centre), I should be against it.
As someone with a heart, I have to support it.

EVERYONE has ALWAYS gotten medical attention when they need it. THAT is not and never has been an issue.

What does "Gotten medical attention when they need it" mean to you?

 

[Si modo]

The SC kicked the Medicaid expantion to the curb. A big part of the funding for Obamacare.

That was the spending, not the funding. Less Medicaid coverage means less federal Medicaid spending.

There isn't any decrease in Medicaid funding. States are refusing to EXPAND it and foot half the bill to do so.

 

[Greenbeard]

The SC kicked the Medicaid expantion to the curb. A big part of the funding for Obamacare.

That was the spending, not the funding. Less Medicaid coverage means less federal Medicaid spending.

There isn't any decrease in Medicaid funding. States are refusing to EXPAND it and foot half the bill to do so.

Somes states are refusing to expand it and foot <10% of the bill for doing so. The vast majority of the costs of the expansion were always going to be paid for by the feds (including all of the expansion costs for the first few years).

And obviously those states that refuse to do so don't generate the new Obamacare Medicaid spending. Meaning some of the law's projected spending (half of which was on the Medicaid expansion) doesn't materialize.

 

[Si modo]

That was the spending, not the funding. Less Medicaid coverage means less federal Medicaid spending.

There isn't any decrease in Medicaid funding. States are refusing to EXPAND it and foot half the bill to do so.

Somes states are refusing to expand it and foot <10% of the bill for doing so. The vast majority of the costs of the expansion were always going to be paid for by the feds (including all of the expansion costs for the first few years).

And obviously those states that refuse to do so don't generate the new Obamacare Medicaid spending. Meaning some of the law's projected spending (half of which was on the Medicaid expansion) doesn't materialize.

Not what the bill said. Before the SCOTUS told the constitutional scholar in office that he could not infringe so egregiously on the sovereignty of states - a constitutional thing - the feds were going to cut ALL Medicaid funding if states refused to EXPAND it and foot half the bill. Now, states have that option without the Feds cutting off already existing funding of Medicaid.

 

[Si modo]

I find this really odd.
The same arguments were used when the British NHS was created just after WWII.
The NHS may not be great but knowing you have medical attention based on need is rather nice.

As a conservative (Right of centre), I should be against it.
As someone with a heart, I have to support it.

EVERYONE has ALWAYS gotten medical attention when they need it. THAT is not and never has been an issue.

What does "Gotten medical attention when they need it" mean to you?

When someone needs medical attention they get it?

 

[DiamondDave]

I find this really odd.
The same arguments were used when the British NHS was created just after WWII.
The NHS may not be great but knowing you have medical attention based on need is rather nice.

As a conservative (Right of centre), I should be against it.
As someone with a heart, I have to support it.

EVERYONE has ALWAYS gotten medical attention when they need it. THAT is not and never has been an issue.

What does "Gotten medical attention when they need it" mean to you?

What it should mean...

You get emergency life saving care... and you get a bill afterwards

It does not and should not mean others paying for your upkeep through government taxation/confiscation... that upkeep is a little something called personal responsibility

 

[Greenbeard]

Not what the bill said. Before the SCOTUS told the constitutional scholar in office that he could not infringe so egregiously on the sovereignty of states - a constitutional thing - the feds were going to cut ALL Medicaid funding if states refused to EXPAND it and foot half the bill. Now, states have that option without the Feds cutting off already existing funding of Medicaid.

None of the fiscal projections had anyone losing any funding because no state would've withdrawn from Medicaid to avoid the expansion. The projections were about additional federal spending resulting from the Medicaid expansions.

If the expansions don't take place, that new Medicaid spending doesn't materialize. Which is why the CBO is working furiously right now to revise its projections.