Repeal of Obamacare

[Rogar]

I might be slighty slow in the savy of politics. I find it ironic that a reduction in our deficit has been identified as a top priority, yet the about first week into the new regime of the party change in the house is spent discussing and voting on an issue that has a widely known outcome and no chance of passing through the senate. A totally unproductive waste of time and salaries that wouldn't fly an inch in much of efficient private enterprise where the bottom line of profit is a survival issue. Regardless of whether one is for or against the issue.

Time to move forward, not sideways.

I guess Bea already said so much, just had to add another two cents.

[iris lily]

I suppose you think that their reading of the Constituion was theatrics as well.Me, I liked the idea. It was just the thing to set up the new regiem, not that I expect anything to change, they are just politicians. And anyway the new narrative of the left wing media is that The American Public does not want Obamacare to be repealed. I heard that all over the radio the past couple of days. Good luck selling that one, I'm sur eyou can do it if you repeat it enough times, in unison.

[loosechickens]

Well, many polls have shown that a minority (I seem to remember one said 18%) think the whole bill should be repealed....certainly not a majority of the American people. And many polls have shown that if people are asked questions about actual things IN the bill, most approve of them, even if then the question is asked, "are you in favor of the health reform bill?" and they say "no".

Personally, I think it's been the misleading and downright inaccurate, dare I say deliberate untruths by the Republicans, such as the nonexistent "death panels" that have been repeated over and over until people think they are true. In the same way, that although the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says this bill will save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10-20 years, AND create jobs, the Republicans are still out there doing the misleading, even calling their repeal bill the repeal of the "job killing" health care bill.

As the provisions of the bill begin to take effect.......some important ones became effective this month, more and more people will be in support of it, and by the time it is fully implemented, tens of millions of people will have coverage that don't have coverage today, and hopefully, people with insurance won't find themselves facing bankruptcy as so many are doing today.

Is it a perfect bill? Of course not. We have a very imperfect health care system that cannot just be scrapped and have us start over, although that would probably be best to do. After all, when the people selling us the insurance have a direct conflict of interest, since they are in business to make a profit and their profit is reduced every time they cover a claim, their incentive is to provide as little coverage as possible, find every loophole to get out of paying, and look to the profits of themselves and their stockholders instead.

I always laugh at the people who don't want some "government official" making a decision as to whether they will be covered, yet are willing to leave that decision up to the people whose profits will be increased if they deny the claim, and decreased if they cover it. Yep.....you can REALLY trust THOSE people to have your best interests at heart.

Besides.....this whole repeal thing IS Kabuki theater, because it's not going any further. They can't get it through the Senate, and if they did, the President will veto it. So it's a huge waste of time and taxpayer money and they should be spending their time taking care of the nation's business instead. IMHO

[Gregg]

Well, many polls have shown that a minority (I seem to remember one said 18%) think the whole bill should be repealed....certainly not a majority of the American people.

As should be expected there is a wide variance of opinion depending on where you take a poll. A recent poll here in Nebraska, a fairly conservative state, showed 61% opposed to the healthcare bill, 28% in favor and 11% undecided. There are many that would simply dismiss places like Nebraska as a political backwater with a small and "dumbed down" voter base. The Tea Party is not strong here right now, but if an opinion like that were to persist people would start looking for alternatives.

[LDAHL]

I don’t think the vote was useless at all, from either a legislative or a political standpoint. It certainly provided an indication of the sense of the new House, and required every member to make their position a matter of record. It certainly makes the way clear for piecemeal fixes aimed at making the law less costly and intrusive. There are a number of tacks they can take there, as Karl Rove enumerated in a recent Wall street Journal editorial:
“A slew of recent polls also show that Americans favor replacing ObamaCare with sensible reforms that increase competition and choice, and thereby expand access and lower cost. For example, the Resurgent Republic poll showed voters support, by 70% to 23%, the ability to buy health insurance across state lines. They back proposals that would make it possible for workers to take their health insurance from job to job by 53% to 36%. And they believe frivolous lawsuits drive up health-care costs by 53% to 38%.

Other GOP initiatives—like allowing people to save more of their paychecks tax free for out-of-pocket medical expenses, and letting small businesses pool risk to get the same discounts that big companies get—are similarly popular. President Obama said after the midterm election results that "he'd be happy to consider . . . ideas for how to improve" health care. Fortunately, Republicans have a ready agenda with widespread public backing.”

There’s a lot that can be done to fix this law short of repealing it in it’s entirety. But this first vote was useful in establishing a starting position.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I see no evidence that Obamacare was ACTUALLY good for much. When some insurance companies still propose rate increases of nearly 60% for the year, what the heck is the point??? I mean argue philosophy all you want (hey I do it too), but if this is what happens in the real world after the legislation has passed .... well you can't eat philosophy (nor can you afford to feed yourself and pay for medical care pretty soon it seems).

I mean ok maybe some people with preexisting conditions can now get insurance, but if an equal number of people are just plain priced out (and with 60% increases what other result is expected?), where is the win? Oh the win might come in 2014 or something, maybe, if it's not repealed etc. etc. - what a bunch of BS.

nearly 60% rate increases proposed:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/0...-increase.html

[loosechickens]

"As should be expected there is a wide variance of opinion depending on where you take a poll. A recent poll here in Nebraska, a fairly conservative state, showed 61% opposed to the healthcare bill, 28% in favor and 11% undecided. There are many that would simply dismiss places like Nebraska as a political backwater with a small and "dumbed down" voter base. The Tea Party is not strong here right now, but if an opinion like that were to persist people would start looking for alternatives. " (Gregg)
----------------------------------------------------------
But, Gregg.....even in places like Nebraska, when the polling companies ask people about their feelings about specific things (that happen to be INCLUDED in that bill), an overwhelming number of them will approve of each thing, even when they turn around and answer "no" to the question, "do you approve of the new health care reform law?".

To me, it reflects several things.

One, there has been a HUGE amount of misinformation, scare tactics (death panels, etc.), etc. from those opposed to the bill.

Two, the benefits of the bill were phased in over a period of four years or so in order to give health insurance providers, states, etc., time to implement changes, etc., which means that to most people, they haven't seen any benefit as yet in their own circumstances.

Three, the Obama administration and the Democrats have been ABYSMAL in publicizing the contents of the bill, while the Republicans have really done an EXCELLENT job of marketing against it. My hat is off to the Republicans in their ability to market ideas in short, concise ways, to the American people. It's a skill badly needed by Democrats, who seem clueless in that ability.

and Fourth, most people don't realize what an absolute trajectory toward disaster our present health care system is on. Costs are rising at an astronomical rate, whether we have a health care reform law or not. This bill has made an attempt to bend the cost curve, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it will save hundreds of billions of dollars over time.

But the biggest of all of these things, to me, is that rather than just make a huge, unfunded giveaway, as the Bush administration did with the prescription drug plan, the Obama administration really took a "good government" stance on both cost savings and slow implementation for a better, more sustainable system, but get no credit for that. Because their abilities to market even a good thing are seriously lacking.

I don't think it's a great bill, and there are probably things in it that should be changed, and things that were necessary to have in it to get support from insurance companies, etc., but it's not the evil "march toward socialism" or any of the other things it's been painted, and I think that as people really come to understand the values of such things as not allowing insurance companies to drop you when you get sick, figuring out a way to cover the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions who cannot now get private insurance, allowing young people to remain on their parents' insurance until an older age, seeing that most every child in the U.S. is covered, giving assistance to small business in providing insurance for their employees, etc., it will have much more support.

I don't think we should make the perfect the enemy of the good, as the President is wont to say. This bill marked a major milestone in accomplishing something that no President had been able to do for half a century, actually make some changes that would help patients, managed to get support from health insurance companies, and actually got passed.

The thing that is funniest to me is that this health reform act, which is characterized by many Republicans today as a "march toward socialism", is LESS overreaching and very similar to plans put forth by Republicans in the past. Remember, even President Nixon was for having a program of universal health care.

[loosechickens]

That getting people to want to "buy insurance across state lines" is just one example, to me, of the Republicans tremendous ability to sell anything, because that one is truly "lipstick on a pig".

If we become able to "buy insurance across state lines", all the states who have instituted good consumer protection laws will be powerless to prevent the system from spiraling down to the lower common denominator, as insurance companies will cluster to headquarter in whatever states offer them the fewest consumer protections, the most lenient of regulation, etc.

People really don't even understand the first thing about this....it SOUNDS good to them, "increasing competition", "giving you more choices", etc.

Being sold down the river is a far more accurate description. The lobbyists for the health insurance companies practically salivate as they contemplate managing to get this through. JMHO

And "frivolous lawsuits" are a tiny, tiny almost invisible fraction of health care costs, and most states already have fairly stringent regulation of frivolous lawsuits already. What this REALLY is is an attempt to make sure that providers have a very low amount that is the maximum someone can get, regardless of how egregious the malpractice might be.

It's one more way they prey on peoples' fear of "somebody else getting something for nothing", but they don't realize that what they'd be "for" would be handing the companies and providers a whole LOT of something for nothing, giving them caps on damages, and eliminating any incentive to increase accuracy and care.

[Alan]

That getting people to want to "buy insurance across state lines" is just one example, to me, of the Republicans tremendous ability to sell anything, because that one is truly "lipstick on a pig".

If we become able to "buy insurance across state lines", all the states who have instituted good consumer protection laws will be powerless to prevent the system from spiraling down to the lower common denominator, as insurance companies will cluster to headquarter in whatever states offer them the fewest consumer protections, the most lenient of regulation, etc.

Since there are small variations in laws and governance between the states, should we just abolish the states to ensure that all things are equal?

[Dharma Bum]

Besides.....this whole repeal thing IS Kabuki theater, because it's not going any further. They can't get it through the Senate, and if they did, the President will veto it. So it's a huge waste of time and taxpayer money and they should be spending their time taking care of the nation's business instead. IMHO

IMHO being the key, right? If 5 years ago Dems had taken any symbolic action to oppose the war in Iraq, I think some would have supported the symbolic action even if it had little chance of becoming policy. People simply view symbolic actions through their own biased prisms- ours are principled stands, theirs are kabuki theater.

If we become able to "buy insurance across state lines", all the states who have instituted good consumer protection laws will be powerless to prevent the system from spiraling down to the lower common denominator, as insurance companies will cluster to headquarter in whatever states offer them the fewest consumer protections, the most lenient of regulation, etc.

Why would that happen? Would policies that are not subject to such laws be cheaper? So would you be giving people a choice as to whether they want to bear the costs of that regulation? So what are you assuming by claiming companies in the low regulation states would be the winners?