Obamacare is "repealed" in the House

[AznAnarchy99]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/19/health.care/index.html?hpt=T2

I dont know if Im for it or against it. I like the idea that everyone should have health benefits, whether they are poor and whether they have or dont have jobs but I feel that the dealing that Obama had to go through with the various insurance and pharma companies to get it passed in the first place ruined the "good" of it.

 

[boomerang]

So, would you have any thoughts in regard to this?

 

[matt0611]

Good, obamacare is not good and IMO unconstitutional. Obama will never sign it though, but it sends a message to him about what people think of the bill.

 

[MovingTarget]

Purely symbolic votes are FAIL in general. This has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. "Obamacare"* is here to stay. It will not pass the Senate, nor stand up to a veto that is 100% assured even if it did. If the current batch of House newcomers were worth their salt, they wouldn't have even bothered.

*On another note, it really irks me that it is called that. More sloganeering to harken people back to "Hillarycare" and all the FUD surrounding it. This was more of a congressionally constructed bill that had less executive influence than the last attempt at healthcare reform.

 

[Kadarin]

The purpose behind this vote was strictly political grandstanding, Republicans showing off for their base.

 

[JS80]

great step towards making obama a 1 term president

 

[Fern]

Purely symbolic votes are FAIL in general. -snip-

The purpose behind this vote was strictly political grandstanding, Republicans showing off for their base.

It's called 'keeping a campaign promise'.

I don't see how they couldn't have the vote.

Fern

 

[Patranus]

How about the 400 peaces of legislation that Nancy Pelosi sent to the Senate that didn't have a chance of passing?

Was that all grandstanding?

Was cap & tax all grandstanding?

 

[boomerang]

As Fern has pointed out, this vote was the fulfillment of campaign promises. It also passed with a larger majority than the original bill.

Should the Senate take it up and vote on it? Or, should the wishes of one man, Harry Reid be given precedence and it never be brought up and subsequently buried? Which course serves the needs and desires of the electorate as a whole?

 

[Blackjack200]

It's called 'keeping a campaign promise'.

I don't see how they couldn't have the vote.

Fern

Well, if they were interested in serving their consituents instead of serving themselves they could have done what happens on pretty much all other legislation: compromised with the other pary to deliver some of what they promised even if all of it was impossible.

Instead they decided to grandstand. What's next? Vote to ban abortion? Go back to the gold standard? Flat tax?

Go for it tea bagger GOPs, the stage is yours. Make sure you read the constitution before everything you do too.

 

[MovingTarget]

It's called 'keeping a campaign promise'.

I don't see how they couldn't have the vote.

Fern

It is a promise that shouldn't have been made in the first place. It is not a case of fullfilling a campaign promise, but another case of politicians overpromising and giving lip-service to their real "promise" which will never happen.

HR. 2, but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a bill
Voted for by idiots, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

 

[pcgeek11]

There is a point to this. Sending the bill to the Senate and have them vote it down it will expose the Senators that vote the will of the people down so they know who to to cast out in 2012.

Simple and effective.

 

[Blackjack200]

How about the 400 peaces of legislation that Nancy Pelosi sent to the Senate that didn't have a chance of passing?

Was that all grandstanding?

Was cap & tax all grandstanding?

b-b-but Pelosi!

There is a point to this. Sending the bill to the Senate and have them vote it down it will expose the Senators that vote the will of the people down so they know who to to cast out in 2012.

Simple and effective.

The Senate won't even vote on it. Sorry, this is completely pointless.

 

[boomerang]

Well, if they were interested in serving their consituents instead of serving themselves they could have done what happens on pretty much all other legislation: compromised with the other pary to deliver some of what they promised even if all of it was impossible.

Instead they decided to grandstand. What's next? Vote to ban abortion? Go back to the gold standard? Flat tax?

Go for it tea bagger GOPs, the stage is yours. Make sure you read the constitution before everything you do too.

So, would you say that the bill as adopted was so good as to only need a little tweaking?

My point is that if a bill, for example is 50% good, is it worth saving the good half and amending the rest? What if it's 20% good? Where is the line drawn that makes a bill so bad that the best course is to throw it on the scrap heap and start over?

 

[SparkyJJO]

b-b-but Pelosi!



The Senate won't even vote on it. Sorry, this is completely pointless.

Still has the effect. If the senate won't even bother with it that is even more of a reason for the people to oust a bunch of them.

By the way, going back to a gold standard would be a good thing. We'd have a dollar based on something again, and make it 100x harder to just deficit spend and print money like a maniac as they do now.

 

[feralkid]

There is a point to this. Sending the bill to the Senate and have them vote it down it will expose the Senators that vote the will of the people down so they know who to to cast out in 2012.

Simple and effective.

Except that the "will of the people" supports Obamacare.

 

[Deeko]

It's called 'keeping a campaign promise'.

I don't see how they couldn't have the vote.

Fern

Oh? So the campaign promise was "hold a useless vote to repeal a bill that we know won't make a difference other than a political statement"? What kind of idiot would vote for a politician that promised something so worthless?

I'm sure the actual campaign promise was "We'll repeal Obamacare!" and now, they can say that as the House, they've done that...dust their hands and move on. However, anyone with even 1/4 of a functioning brain knows that that's a load of crap. Keeping your campaign promise would mean actually getting the bill repealed altogether - or working with the Senate to find an alternate bill that gets through both houses/the President. Repealing a bill from the House, when they know there is a 0% chance it passes the Senate, and then a 0% chance of being signed, is a weaselly way to cover up your failure to make a difference.

 

[feralkid]

Still has the effect. If the senate won't even bother with it that is even more of a reason for the people to oust a bunch of them.

By the way, going back to a gold standard would be a good thing. We'd have a dollar based on something again, and make it 100x harder to just deficit spend and print money like a maniac as they do now.

Except where do we get all the gold?

 

[matt0611]

Except where do we get all the gold?

Fort Knox...if its still really there

 

[wirednuts]

"obamacare" is awesome. it is something every other civilized nation has, and it works great. im just pissed the republicans made obama water it down so much that it wont really effect much.

which is also why i dont understand the repeal. what a waste of time. please house, focus on shit that matters.

 

[Fern]

There is a point to this. Sending the bill to the Senate and have them vote it down it will expose the Senators that vote the will of the people down so they know who to to cast out in 2012.

Simple and effective.

Yes, there is a point to it. (Aside from being a campaign promise which they damned well needed to keep.)

Reid may well refuse to bring to a vote in the Senate to avoid the senario you describe. But Reps had to vote (or be absent etc), it remains to be seen if any Dem (or RINO) Rep gets in trouble over their Obamacare vote

The House is all the Repubs control. They are demonstrating to those who voted them in that they keep their campaign promises on Obamacare AND the need for them to control the Senate and the Exec branch to actually get their platform into law. I.e., voters we will do what you want, but you've gota stick with us and give us more power in the next election.

So yes, this was more than mere grandstanding in several ways.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

Still has the effect. If the senate won't even bother with it that is even more of a reason for the people to oust a bunch of them.

By the way, going back to a gold standard would be a good thing. We'd have a dollar based on something again, and make it 100x harder to just deficit spend and print money like a maniac as they do now.

Its not such a good thing when that "something" is mostly produced outside of our country. That would make the major gold producers the new "Fed". Oh yeah, some of the major gold producing countries are pretty much shitholes, is that really who you want to put in charge of our money?

 

[Deeko]

Yes, there is a point to it. (Aside from being a campaign promise which they damned well needed to keep.)

Reid may well refuse to bring to a vote in the Senate to avoid the senario you describe. But Reps had to vote (or be absent etc), it remains to be seen if any Dem (or RINO) Rep gets in trouble over their Obamacare vote

The House is all the Repubs control. They are demonstrating to those who voted them in that they keep their campaign promises on Obamacare AND the need for them to control the Senate and the Exec branch to actually get their platform into law. I.e., voters we will do what you want, but you've gota stick with us and give us more power in the next election.

So yes, this was more than mere grandstanding in several ways.

Fern

Come on. Everything you just described IS grandstanding.

 

[boomerang]

"obamacare" is awesome. it is something every other civilized nation has, and it works great. im just pissed the republicans made obama water it down so much that it wont really effect much.

which is also why i dont understand the repeal. what a waste of time. please house, focus on shit that matters.

What would you say is the greatest part of it? Which part is working the best? Could you then point out some stats to back that up?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Except that the "will of the people" supports Obamacare.

Still drinking pelosi's kool-aid? If that was so, why did the democrats lose 60+ seats in the house?

Except where do we get all the gold?

That's the crux of the problem - nowhere. The morons have way overprinted and overspent. It isn't possible to at this point. They (and the idiots voting them in) have taken us pretty much to the point of no return, and odds are great that it's gonna come back and bite us, hard.

"obamacare" is awesome. it is something every other civilized nation has, and it works great. im just pissed the republicans made obama water it down so much that it wont really effect much.

which is also why i dont understand the repeal. what a waste of time. please house, focus on shit that matters.

"Everybody else has it we should too!!! Works great!"
O rly. Sure wasn't gonna save any money for anyone except maybe those who already mooch off the government (and our hard earned money to begin with).