Thread: Obamacare A Big Lie From The Start...

The question is will the law be able to be repealed which is unlikely by any scenario one can reasonably see in play. So what is the point how he got there. Show me one way the Republicans can do this without having to deal with a filibuster at some point on parts of the law? If Obama is re-elected or the Democrats hold 50 or more Senate Seats the fight is over.

I think we can agree the odds of eleven Senate seats changing hands is so remote as to not be considered likely at all so lets assume that is off the table.

Originally Posted by Mr_Truth

45,000 Americans Die Every Year From RepubliCON Care:


http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...alth-coverage/



Vote RepubliCON and see your fellow citizens die!

harvard and cambridge have no credibility. anybody can walk into any hospital and get treated, just ask any illegal alien invader.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

This reveals the whole facade right there. Most of the people not currently covered by medical insurance, who would be most vulnerable, are the same ones that would be excused from having to buy medical insurance under Obama care because of their low incomes. Obamacare is really about forcing the middle class to pay for the sick and poor. The insurance companies will be forced to lose money on the very sick, and the middle class will be forced to buy the insurance. The government is trying to tell people what they have to buy, and telling insurance companies what they have to cover, and how much they can charge.

And how about all those "waivers?" Waiver being a code word for BRIBE.

Well under the law the people that poor are supposed to go into Medicaid and if over that income level can get into an exchange with usually pretty generous subsidies for the premiums and out of pocket costs up to a fairly decent income level so few would opt out if low income. I wouldn't if I had to do an exchange I would with my income it would be a sweetheart deal and I could go to my normal level of employment again.

Anyway like I said repealing the law is not going to be easy if the Democrats keep the majority in the Senate the fight is over, if Obama is re-elected the fight is over and even if the Republicans get into the needed positions and take over the Senate with a bare majority repealing will not be easy. The mandate insurers takes everybody and other parts of the law cannot be reconciled just financial parts they could strip out alot of the law and leave the regulatory mandates out but then the Democrats can filibuster to keep those. If they move to repeal the whole law then they will be able to filibuster in the Senate very likely, unless the Democrats lose almost a dozen seats in November (not going to happen).

They could repeal the mandate tied to the tax penalty then force this back to court but by the time its heard the law will have kicked in there is no way they could get that out before the end of 2013.

Romney could issue waivers to states but if a state expands their medical care system under the ACA they must get the funding so that is not a great option. Plus this is a jobs bill for health care employment, it will make states that enter the ACA provisions appealing to small employers (if I was going to open a business with under 50 employees I would go to such a state). And added to this to states its virtually free money they can cover all the poor which is good for the medical infrastructure and gets a free $9 for every $1 they put in later on and exchanges are not going to cost that much to put into place. That is hard to say no to if the law is not going to be repealed or stalls in a repeal to red tape.

I just don't see many options for the Republicans.

I am somewhat baffled at the republican's resistance to the exchanges. could someone explain that please?

Originally Posted by unrealist42

I am somewhat baffled at the republican's resistance to the exchanges. could someone explain that please?

I can't speak for anyone but myself. The problem is that there are currently no exchanges and the PPACA provides very little specific information on exchanges.
There is no guarantee that all States will have exchanges at all or that they will be up and running at the time the individual mandate takes effect.

Even the CBO was unable to guarantee that premiums through the exchanges would be less than current premiums, and many people may still not be able to afford the premiums and may not qualify for premium assistance.

There are too many unknowns and I believe private insurers and groups(similar to employee group health or group health through organizations) could have worked as well and kept the Government out of it. Thus far nothing the Government has touched has faired well.

Well the law is pretty simple on subsidies if your earning at or under 400% of the poverty line the law provides for these in clear language. Over that your right they might be more expensive but since insurance premiums are tax deductible as are related health care costs that should be less of an impact. But it is a open market approach the government has fair guidelines and the like but costs and how the individual insurers do their plans are pretty open there are business models they can use I'm sure to make their plans good and lower cost.

But there is another matter Exchange plans are not tied to an employer it might be worth a bit more to have that if one looks at it that way.

My big issue is what is the GOP plan for the working poor those at say at 100% of the Federal Poverty line they won't ever be able to buy insurance, many can't afford it if offered now and the Medicaid expansion is at least covering this critical group. And its a large group in my area the best jobs are at "corporate full time" 28 hours more or less at a low wage many people are taking out of need. Even if two parents earn those wages its under the poverty line or close to it what about them?

Originally Posted by tkolter

Well under the law the people that poor are supposed to go into Medicaid and if over that income level can get into an exchange with usually pretty generous subsidies for the premiums and out of pocket costs up to a fairly decent income level so few would opt out if low income. I wouldn't if I had to do an exchange I would with my income it would be a sweetheart deal and I could go to my normal level of employment again.

Anyway like I said repealing the law is not going to be easy if the Democrats keep the majority in the Senate the fight is over, if Obama is re-elected the fight is over and even if the Republicans get into the needed positions and take over the Senate with a bare majority repealing will not be easy. The mandate insurers takes everybody and other parts of the law cannot be reconciled just financial parts they could strip out alot of the law and leave the regulatory mandates out but then the Democrats can filibuster to keep those. If they move to repeal the whole law then they will be able to filibuster in the Senate very likely, unless the Democrats lose almost a dozen seats in November (not going to happen).

They could repeal the mandate tied to the tax penalty then force this back to court but by the time its heard the law will have kicked in there is no way they could get that out before the end of 2013.

Romney could issue waivers to states but if a state expands their medical care system under the ACA they must get the funding so that is not a great option. Plus this is a jobs bill for health care employment, it will make states that enter the ACA provisions appealing to small employers (if I was going to open a business with under 50 employees I would go to such a state). And added to this to states its virtually free money they can cover all the poor which is good for the medical infrastructure and gets a free $9 for every $1 they put in later on and exchanges are not going to cost that much to put into place. That is hard to say no to if the law is not going to be repealed or stalls in a repeal to red tape.

I just don't see many options for the Republicans.

]Well under the law the people that poor are supposed to go into Medicaid and if over that income level can get into an exchange with usually pretty generous subsidies for the premiums and out of pocket costs up to a fairly decent income level so few would opt out if low income

How can you comment on the cost of premiums through exchanges or the "generous" subsidies when none of this exists and when few specifics on either are outlined in the PPACA? Lets stick with facts and parts of the program that have been fully implemented so as to not mislead people.

It doesn't need to be totally replealed but exchanges set up by the Fed Gov and premium assistance can be defunded and States can refulse to expand Medicaid and/or to set up exchanges all of which will mean reforming the law as it stands.

There is a chart with the exact subsidies for each tier of care from 0% to 400% of the poverty line in fact its on the info page on the law on Wikipedia and other sources, I have a book explaining it and its also in there referenced in the law.

As for defunding yes the can do that by reconciliation which is allowed to be used once a year, which sacrificing it for the budget fight at the end of 2013. But if they do this the rest of the law stands and can be filibustered the Democrats have grounds they can say fine the mandate insurers take everyone and the rest stand, when YOUR bill comes up we will THEN consider a repeal. But you have one year to do that.

Now Romney can let states opt out of the exchanges and do so by executive order but states that opt in will get the funding.

I know they could eliminate filibuster in the Senate but neither party wants to lose that option really. My guess is if Obama is not returned to office and the Senate shifts to the Republicans they will do some reforms both parties can live with and not really do much more. If it gets dirty the Democrates can likely stall a full repeal since a partial repeal will not do what must be done romove the insurance company mandate, the one thing the rest of the bill is built around to make it work.

I will lastly note who says the law is bad its not in effect yet it could be a great law and do what was promised slow the costly growthof health care slowing it down. It might make more providers available and create better delivery models using the open markets creativity. If nothing else what is the plan let the poor rot bleeding the system, risking everyones lives if a pandemic hits and spurs on faster due to the uninsured not getting care when it mattered (remember HIV, polio, the early 20th century influenza outbreak) we are in a global environment it would just take one carrier to bring in something dangerous from abroad and some uninsured to get it and bammo it might come to your household. Just in my state there was a TB outbreak when they closed the state TB hospital and the poor didn't have options to get care soon enough and some of that is immune to treatments with drugs.