Obamacare is "repealed" in the House

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Hey guys, I found where the constitution authorizes Obamacare, apparently its the pursuit of happiness clause and the 14th amendment :D

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-john-lewis-pursuit-happiness-and-14t

Actually, we can't repeal Obamacare because that action iteself would be unconstitutional :D
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/18/sheila-jackson-lee-repealing-obamacare-is-unconstitutional/

Yes yes, the evil individual mandate. Not a part of the bill I particularly like either. So, how can we eliminate pre-existing conditions and not destroy private industry without it? This is where the "replace" part comes in...and most conservatives start sputtering.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Yes yes, the evil individual mandate. Not a part of the bill I particularly like either. So, how can we eliminate pre-existing conditions and not destroy private industry without it? This is where the "replace" part comes in...and most conservatives start sputtering.

You don't eliminate preexisting conditions. Theres your answer.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Exactly, Conservatives gotta put up a replacement or shut up. As far as individual mandate, if Obamacare is overturned by a USSC ruling that individual mandate is unconstitutional, I will accept that, sit back and watch status quo deteriorate further with GOP to blame, and next time we inevitably get back to reforming health care, the only options left on the table will be single payer, which is my end goal.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
I hope that's in the Republican "replacement" bill. We'll see how that polls :D

Lol it doesn't need to be in the replacement bill. Its called reality. You can't legislate it out of existence. Something liberals try to do with everything they don't like.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
If I can interject, I think matt is just saying that he's cool with more dead people.

I hope it's cool if we leave them in his water supply. With no EPA or other regulatory body wasting resources keeping people alive the country can save billions. Of dollars. Not lives. Those people are as good as dead under the Republican plans.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
I am upset that I am forced to subsidize your decision to breed

Yeah you are! Pst, he's was getting Medicaid here in Michigan and had a bridge card before getting put onto MY insurance the 1st of the year and moving to AZ.(Which btw MY hospital provides ME for a nice price I pay for 26x a year). You've got even less to do with it now than you did December 31st.
 
Last edited:

Generator

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
793
0
0
Exactly, Conservatives gotta put up a replacement or shut up. As far as individual mandate, if Obamacare is overturned by a USSC ruling that individual mandate is unconstitutional, I will accept that, sit back and watch status quo deteriorate further with GOP to blame, and next time we inevitably get back to reforming health care, the only options left on the table will be single payer, which is my end goal.

The only hope of that happening is that Winston Churchil quote about Americans doing the right thing.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
Yeah you are! Pst, he's was getting Medicaid here in Michigan and had a bridge card before getting put onto MY insurance the 1st of the year and moving to AZ.(Which btw MY hospital provides ME for a nice price I pay for 26x a year). You've got even less to do with it now than you did December 31st.

Im not sure if the last line was serious or not but just because he's leeching off one area less does not mean I am all happy pants over it :p
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Dude, I wrote a response regarding the health care stuff, but I think you are just messing with me. Find me a single time when I've linked from DailyKOS. I don't even visit that website, so I can't imagine it's ever happened. I will say that I consider the Democrats reform plan a damn sight better than anything the GOP proposed, and I read them all. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it good? I think it does more good than harm, but it's far from ideal. From my perspective, the GOP made the health care debate into a political game. Their proposals were gimmicky, vague, and weak. I read every single one of them and was constantly infuriated by what I saw. Why? Because this is an area that has severely impacted me on a personal level and not a god damn game. I actually care about policy because it impacts lives, both my own and that of my clients.

As for the loan program you bashed, do you actually know anything about it? I've looked into it because it's one of the few things that might make public service in my field worth entering. In particular, I want to work for the VA with Combat Vets, but it's hard for various reasons in my field and the pay isn't great, but there is tremendous need because we seem to enjoy fighting wars. The loan forgiveness makes doing so possible. It requires you work for 10 years, make all of your payments on time, and then the rest is waived tax free. You need to work in areas where there are critical shortages of professionals in your field. This same program is available if you work private sector and make payments for 25 years, but the waived amount is taxable. It is for people who enter health care and education. This is similar to how ROTC Scholarships work: we pay for school, you serve. Oh, and it stopped cut $70 billion from the deficit by stopping one form of corporate welfare to banks.
The KOS comment wasn't actually meant for you, just progs in general. I just meant to point out that the myth of Republican input is just that - a myth. With the exception of Vitter's better boobies amendment, not a single Republican amendment was adopted.

I too am dealing with the pre-existing condition specter, as a fellow cancer survivor. That makes me leery of accepting government solutions, as I suspect that given a chance my self interest will trump my moral compass. As for the loan program, I still don't like that. With the exception of the military, government should never be receiving a better deal than those paying for government.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Im not sure if the last line was serious or not but just because he's leeching off one area less does not mean I am all happy pants over it :p

I don't expect you to be happy. But the point remains that unless you work for the health system I work for you're not really subsidizing my kid right now and have much less financial involvement than you did when he still live in MI taking advantage of the options available to people out of work. There are millions of Michiganders still looking for work, some for several years, and "leeching" off Medicaid, Re,Re,Re-extended UE benefits, Food Stamps, etc. My kid ain't one of them any more.

My kid leaves the State and doesn't take another extension, finds work in AZ, and gets added onto MY insurance which I am paying extra for is leeching? Not so much :) I know grown ass men with families who have been getting unemployment for years here now and they won't leave the State because they don't HAVE to do to all the assistance they get. Many of them stopped looking for jobs many months ago. They aren't living comfortably by any means but they are stuck in neutral. My kid ain't one of them anymore :)
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Yes yes, the evil individual mandate. Not a part of the bill I particularly like either. So, how can we eliminate pre-existing conditions and not destroy private industry without it? This is where the "replace" part comes in...and most conservatives start sputtering.
My biggest problem with the mandate is that it is on the same level as "put all racism on a rocket, fire it into the sun" - just silly. Ordering people to buy health insurance is not a cure for people not having health insurance, any more than ordering people to rent an apartment is a solution to homelessness.

My biggest problem with Obamacare overall is the scope of the power transfer to the federal government, which is already too big, too powerful, too intrusive. Hundreds of new bureaus, committees, agencies - all of which will want to grow and create a unique power base. Hundreds of sweeping new powers for unelected bureaucrats. I'd much prefer a mandated state solution, fifty-odd (assuming D.C. & territories) versions of Romneycare. Besides the fact that fifty attempts at anything are much more likely to produce an optimum solution than is one attempt, it's highly unlikely that any one solution will turn out to be the best for every state and territory. Who really believes that the Florida oldsters, California immigrants, lily white, thin, wealthy Vermonters and poor, black, overweight Mississippians will all be best served by the same plan?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
If I can interject, I think matt is just saying that he's cool with more dead people.

I hope it's cool if we leave them in his water supply. With no EPA or other regulatory body wasting resources keeping people alive the country can save billions. Of dollars. Not lives. Those people are as good as dead under the Republican plans.
It's now customary to include a line about how Republicans' violent rhetoric is causing violence when accusing them of wanting to murder people. Might want to make a note before you lose your moon bat cred.
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
If I can interject, I think matt is just saying that he's cool with more dead people.

I hope it's cool if we leave them in his water supply. With no EPA or other regulatory body wasting resources keeping people alive the country can save billions. Of dollars. Not lives. Those people are as good as dead under the Republican plans.

No, I object to trying to treat the symptoms of a problem (high cost of healthcare) rather than the cause. Putting band-aids over problems and trying to legislate them away while causing unintended consequences in the process (and this time unconstitutionally) is just stupid.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
You like the individual mandate?
Not particularly. I don't think the federal government has (or should have) that authority, but mainly I think it's a silly, superficial "solution". If people need health insurance and can afford it, they will have it without being threatened. But overall I dislike the individual mandate less than the further concentration of power in D.C.

By the way, you're right about one thing - Republicans should have an alternative solution ready for debate before they repeal Obamacare. Some things in Obamacare really help some people, and just saying that we as a society are going to screw these relatively few people a lot to avoid screwing the rest of society a little is a dick move.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I see...

The reason I asked is because you wrote this: "If people can wait till they get sick to buy coverage with no penalty, how exactly does the private insurance model survive?"

This point has been brought up repeatedly by your sworn enemies which is anyone that even remotely opposes ObamaCare. It is a part of the bill that was crafted by your heerows, the Democrats. It's one of a myriad of major flaws in this bill. Flaws so prevalent and so intertwined that many feel it better to scrap it and start over. When you condemn a part of the bill written by those you worship and try to pin it on those whom you hate with every fiber of your being, it frankly makes you look stupid.

But, maybe all that rage blinded you?

The REPUBLICAN plan is to "repeal Obamacare" and replace it with their own bill that guarantees preexisting condition coverage... but without the mandate. YOU are opposed to the REPUBLICAN scheme.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The REPUBLICAN plan is to "repeal Obamacare" and replace it with their own bill that guarantees preexisting condition coverage... but without the mandate. YOU are opposed to the REPUBLICAN scheme.
I don't think at this point anyone has a clue what "the Republican plan" is or will be.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I don't think at this point anyone has a clue what "the Republican plan" is or will be.

Well they don't have a bill because they're just trolling. But they have stated that they want to keep the preexisting condition coverage, but are adamant about getting rid of the mandate. You can't have one without the other. Either they don't understand how insurance works (yeah right) or they're deliberately being deceitful because they know they don't have to follow through any time soon.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well they don't have a bill because they're just trolling. But they have stated that they want to keep the preexisting condition coverage, but are adamant about getting rid of the mandate. You can't have one without the other. Either they don't understand how insurance works (yeah right) or they're deliberately being deceitful because they know they don't have to follow through any time soon.
You can have pre-existing coverage without a mandate if it is handled like corporate policies. Pre-existing condition coverage kicks in slowly over a couple or three years, so that taking a shit job with good insurance just to handle that problem you've been putting off doesn't work so well. What you can't do is mandate that a pre-existing condition has to be covered completely from day one, 'cause then the fine is still cheaper until you need it. Right now the people suffering from pre-existing conditions are screwed forever if they have to buy individual insurance.

Personally I think the biggest advance in health care coverage would be to rid ourselves of this notion that our regular health care should be paid for by "someone else." Insurance - any sort of insurance - should be for the unexpected.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,479
3,597
126
My kid leaves the State and doesn't take another extension, finds work in AZ, and gets added onto MY insurance which I am paying extra for is leeching?

While I cannot be sure this is the case for you insurance companies raised premiums to handled the increase in dependants (or whatever they are to be considered) covered. BCBS did, BCN did, M Care did. Therefore my insurance premiums (and most in the state) went up because other people's kids are still on their insurance.

At least he has a job now though!
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
You can have pre-existing coverage without a mandate if it is handled like corporate policies. Pre-existing condition coverage kicks in slowly over a couple or three years, so that taking a shit job with good insurance just to handle that problem you've been putting off doesn't work so well. What you can't do is mandate that a pre-existing condition has to be covered completely from day one, 'cause then the fine is still cheaper until you need it. Right now the people suffering from pre-existing conditions are screwed forever if they have to buy individual insurance.

Personally I think the biggest advance in health care coverage would be to rid ourselves of this notion that our regular health care should be paid for by "someone else." Insurance - any sort of insurance - should be for the unexpected.

No Republican plan presented last year eliminated the pre-existing condition clause. They talked the talk, but couldn't walk the walk. That's because it is anti-thema to the conservative position to force a private company to do something. That position is fine, though only supported by about 20% of the American population (with regards to pre-existing conditions)...so it creates a political problem for them. They could at least not be so damn hypocritical and stand up for themselves.

Removing the mandate is not something I'm not totally against. It's a weak mandate that will be easily exploited anyway. Insurance company infringement on routine care is becoming a real problem, especially in the field of mental health. You have X sessions to solve problem Y...oh, and by the way, it doesn't matter that X sessions to solve problem Y were created by theories with a predominantly western-European male oriented bias.

When things have become so inextricably linked, it's harder to separate them. Routine care today is more extensive, and costly, than routine care 25 years ago.

However, before we totally remove insurance companies from routine care, we need to do stuff that makes routine care much more affordable. It's cheaper to prevent problems from developing in the first place, and I don't care what the numbers say about the cost of preventative care, this is just common sense. Providers can't charge lower rates right now due to artificially restricted numbers and lawsuit problems.

I also think what we really need to do is find a way to separate insurance from employment...the whole portability thing is just another layer of bureaucracy.

All that said, none of the other proposals were better thank what we got imo. And I want reform that does some good things now rather than arguing for another 40 years and doing nothing. I'm glad the debate isn't over, which is what would have happened if HC reform had died last year. My hope is the GOP will stop this grandstanding and actually start doing shit that is productive...but history has taught me not to expect a great deal.
 
Last edited: