Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
WASHINGTON -- The Republican in line to lead the House Budget Committee acknowledged Sunday that the GOP is unlikely to get a repeal of a Democratic-backed health care law because President Obama can veto it, but said House Republicans will move forward on a vote anyway.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said Republicans have some opportunities to slow the advance of the Democratic
plan by defunding actual rollouts, but acknowledged the president would have to sign that legislation.

Cognizant of missing a presidential signature, Republicans are still looking at court challenges and other congressional maneuvers to stop enactment of elements of the law.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who appeared with Ryan on "Fox News Sunday," said in his capacity as the next House oversight committee chairman he is looking at alternative ways to stop the health care law, including preventing "administration earmarks."

"They call them "competitive grants," Issa said, likening it to a "slush fund" that Cabinet officials are granted for their departments because Congress doesn't require the departments to designate "where you're going to put the money."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said if Congress fails to get a veto, "then we're willing to look at all the varying pieces of this."

He added that it will be difficult to repeal the law "with the president there. We know he feels this is his signature accomplishment." But, he said, "we will be revisiting this time after time."

Ryan said that Tuesday's elections were "an electoral repudiation" of the Democratic agenda, but said it will take another election in 2012 before the health care law can be fully stopped. That's when voters can move to reject a second term for the president.

Sen.-elect Rand Paul, R-Ky., said 70 percent of people in his state want to repeal the health care law or have the state attorney general challenge the constitutionality of it.

"I think there are some real constitutional questions. It's going forward. A federal judge in both Florida and Virginia have said, yes, we're going to go forward with this. So I think you will see that go forward and we will challenge it in the courts. And also we should try to repeal it," Paul said on ABC's "This Week."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11 … ealth-law/

They tried doing the same thing to Social Security and Medicare and it ended up costing us trillions in debt. Morons.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
So essentially, they're cutting off funding but not stopping the spending.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6415|The Land of Scott Walker
This is why we warned people not to vote for Obama.  It will be very difficult to reverse national healthcare because of veto power, even though the vast majority of the country now oppose the plan.  Not to mention all the executive orders and czars making an end around the Constitution. Obama doesn't care about re-election, he's ideologue who is going to carry through his agenda no matter what the people say.  After all, we are unintelligent boobs who need his guidance.  We were intelligent enough to elect him of course, but now we don't know what's good for us.  That's why he's able to dismiss a historic election so easily.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6440
the hegelian dialectic of american political stupidity
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
mr.hrundi
Wurstwassereis
+68|6407|Germany
Well, there's nothing else they can do. To make laws, they need a president from their party. They don't have one, so all they can do is block the president's politics. And blocking the health care reform is what they were elected for by many people. If they woudn't do it, their voters would get angry and they can't risk that, even if it costs money and doesn't change anything.

Oh, and Stingray, I think trying to work for your conviction and not for being reelected is a positive thing and something politics need.
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6666|NJ

Stingray24 wrote:

This is why we warned people not to vote for Obama.  It will be very difficult to reverse national healthcare because of veto power, even though the vast majority of the country now oppose the plan.  Not to mention all the executive orders and czars making an end around the Constitution. Obama doesn't care about re-election, he's ideologue who is going to carry through his agenda no matter what the people say.  After all, we are unintelligent boobs who need his guidance.  We were intelligent enough to elect him of course, but now we don't know what's good for us.  That's why he's able to dismiss a historic election so easily.
I still don't know what is wrong with National Health care. We pay taxes and our soldiers, politicians and civil servants are guaranteed it, so why can't I get hospital/doctor care if I need it?

It just needs a cry wolf rule put in place. Also the amount of medical care and aid we donate to other countries is crazy.

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-11-07 17:01:36)

jsnipy
...
+3,276|6492|...

I think it would nice as well. But you have to convince those corporations who stand to lose billions.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

This is why we warned people not to vote for Obama.  It will be very difficult to reverse national healthcare because of veto power, even though the vast majority of the country now oppose the plan.  Not to mention all the executive orders and czars making an end around the Constitution. Obama doesn't care about re-election, he's ideologue who is going to carry through his agenda no matter what the people say.  After all, we are unintelligent boobs who need his guidance.  We were intelligent enough to elect him of course, but now we don't know what's good for us.  That's why he's able to dismiss a historic election so easily.
I still don't know what is wrong with National Health care. We pay taxes and our soldiers, politicians and civil servants are guaranteed it, so why can't I get hospital/doctor care if I need it?

It just needs a cry wolf rule put in place. Also the amount of medical care and aid we donate to other countries is crazy.
Because the quality of care would suffer tremendously. It would also kill the biochemical industry and most new research on drugs. What's the difference between you paying for insurance yourself or it coming out of your taxes? Does everything you have in life need to be subsidized by some rich guy?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6666|NJ

JohnG@lt wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

This is why we warned people not to vote for Obama.  It will be very difficult to reverse national healthcare because of veto power, even though the vast majority of the country now oppose the plan.  Not to mention all the executive orders and czars making an end around the Constitution. Obama doesn't care about re-election, he's ideologue who is going to carry through his agenda no matter what the people say.  After all, we are unintelligent boobs who need his guidance.  We were intelligent enough to elect him of course, but now we don't know what's good for us.  That's why he's able to dismiss a historic election so easily.
I still don't know what is wrong with National Health care. We pay taxes and our soldiers, politicians and civil servants are guaranteed it, so why can't I get hospital/doctor care if I need it?

It just needs a cry wolf rule put in place. Also the amount of medical care and aid we donate to other countries is crazy.
Because the quality of care would suffer tremendously. It would also kill the biochemical industry and most new research on drugs. What's the difference between you paying for insurance yourself or it coming out of your taxes? Does everything you have in life need to be subsidized by some rich guy?
Actually it would help the rich too, by keeping medical costs for company's down. So you're being subsidized by a rich guy argument is out the window.

I'm down with my taxes going towards things that do good for the people. This is one of those things, I'd rather have health care then a giant useless standing army. How do you figure health care would go down?

Doctors use to make house calls and pretty much give loans out for care. Majority of your health care cost that you pay for are going towards paperwork monkeys and not the care portion of it.


The Medical field in this country gets huge government grants and subsidies..

Oh and news flash the care isn't the best in the world anyway.

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-11-07 18:15:58)

Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6415|The Land of Scott Walker

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I still don't know what is wrong with National Health care. We pay taxes and our soldiers, politicians and civil servants are guaranteed it, so why can't I get hospital/doctor care if I need it?

It just needs a cry wolf rule put in place. Also the amount of medical care and aid we donate to other countries is crazy.
You can get hospital/doctor care if you need it.  No one can be denied care that is truly necessary in this country.  We just don't like to pay for it for some strange reason.  Seems that one's health would be valuable enough to pony up, but we have this puzzling idea among some in this country that health care at little or no cost is a "right". 

The solution to the issues that need to be addressed in this nation's health care system is NOT to give it to the politicians.  National health care was sold to the public as "free" during the elections, not allowing rejection for pre-existing conditions, etc etc. ... but none of that is realistically possible even in national health care.  The fact is, the plans that the health care bill have mandated which do not allow rejection for pre-existing conditions would still be prohibitively expensive because there is a smaller pool of citizens in those circumstances.  What's the solution?  People with more detailed knowledge of the industry will have to answer that.  But I know beyond a doubt that the politicians will royally mess up anything they come up with to gain a feather in their cap at election time.
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6666|NJ
Well what's wrong with having the protection of health?

Also the cost of Auto Insurance should go down with Nationalized healthcare. Then people would have more money.

If your mom had cancer and no health insurance would you not want her covered?

Medical Insurance companies have been dropping the ball and raising premiums constantly, where is that coming from?

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-11-07 18:51:04)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Stingray24 wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I still don't know what is wrong with National Health care. We pay taxes and our soldiers, politicians and civil servants are guaranteed it, so why can't I get hospital/doctor care if I need it?

It just needs a cry wolf rule put in place. Also the amount of medical care and aid we donate to other countries is crazy.
You can get hospital/doctor care if you need it.  No one can be denied care that is truly necessary in this country.  We just don't like to pay for it for some strange reason.  Seems that one's health would be valuable enough to pony up, but we have this puzzling idea among some in this country that health care at little or no cost is a "right". 

The solution to the issues that need to be addressed in this nation's health care system is NOT to give it to the politicians.  National health care was sold to the public as "free" during the elections, not allowing rejection for pre-existing conditions, etc etc. ... but none of that is realistically possible even in national health care.  The fact is, the plans that the health care bill have mandated which do not allow rejection for pre-existing conditions would still be prohibitively expensive because there is a smaller pool of citizens in those circumstances.  What's the solution?  People with more detailed knowledge of the industry will have to answer that.  But I know beyond a doubt that the politicians will royally mess up anything they come up with to gain a feather in their cap at election time.
It's funny that a bill sold as a way to keep insurance costs in check has instead caused insurance bills to go up by 50% into next year.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
An NHS works in many countries.  I'm not so sure it would work in this one though.  There are a lot of things that probably wouldn't work here, partially because of our size, partially because of our corruption, and partially because we really can't seem to agree on anything as a society.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard