Health care repeal vote postponed

Earlier this week, in an odd reaction to the shooting in Tucson last weekend, Speaker John Boehner cancelled all votes scheduled for the entire week.  That action postponed the healthcare repeal vote that had been scheduled this week.  In so doing, the Republicans deferred action on a key element of the platform on which many had been elected or reelected two months ago.  Presumably, the vote will be scheduled in the near future after the Republicans feel comfortable once again working.  

Taking the vote on whether to repeal the healthcare legislation passed last Spring and signed by President Barack Obama – often referred to as “ObamaCare” —  is fine; and it sends an important signal that the GOP majority in the House have not yet forgotten their campaign promises.  However, it will be a symbolic vote, insofar as the Republicans clearly lack a veto-override majority in the House, and do not yet enjoy sufficient numbers in the Senate to bring the matter to a vote. 

At least for the next two years, the real battle over the fundamental constitutional principles overridden by the ObamaCare legislation – including the blatantly unconstitutional provision that the government can force a person to purchase health insurance even if they choose not to – will be fought in the federal courts.  Already, one federal judge in Virginia has ruled the individual mandate provision unconstitutional; and another judge in Florida may do so this Spring.  It is likely that the controversy will reach the nation’s High Court before the 2012 election.  

Given the stakes involved in these court cases – whether there shall be any limits at all on the power of the federal government to force citizens of this country to do its bidding – it will be none too soon to get this question answered by the Supreme Court. 

In the meantime, there are some steps the Congress can take to move us at least with small steps, away from the direction in which ObamaCare is pushing us.  Appropriations bills could include cuts to funding various provisions in the healthcare legislation.  The Senate Judiciary Committee could do a much better job than in the past, of aggressively probing judicial nominees’ views on the absurd reach of the Constitution’s so-called “commerce clause” that has been stretched beyond all recognition to justify government control. And  Members opposed to the law can discuss it regularly and substantively so the problems inherent in the law remain in the forefront of the nation’s public discourse. 

A symbolic vote can be postponed; but the ultimate question presented the people of the United States by ObamaCare cannot.

- by  Bob Barr, The Barr Code

84 comments Add your comment

Eric

January 14th, 2011
6:57 am

Great article once again, Mr. Barr! You’re right, the more this topic is discussed, the more fervor for repeal.

carlosgvv

January 14th, 2011
8:16 am

Regardless of when the vote occurs, the reason for it is the same. ObamaCare will reduce the profits of the big insurance companies, one of the Republican’s main sponsors, so they must try to repeal it any way they can.

5 Easy Pieces

January 14th, 2011
8:18 am

Then just who, Eric, will pay for your sociopathology remedies which undoubtedly will take teams of shrinks working around the clock at the university level in Vienna?

Huhhhh?

moron.

The crux of the Rx fix lies not in the K’s of text putting the Z’s on our congress, but in the arrythmic heartbeats of America and it’s favorite sons: the fat, aging, and near-sighted baby boomers who will soon need it. We will start dropping like flies if’n we donts gets new hearts, arterial transplants, and viagra, (we’re getting so old that our blow up dolls don’t suffice any more)

Sorry CandyLips

We have to fund healthcare for our soon 2B senior citizens.

If not, there will be a glut of marital aids being auctioned off on Ebay, and the market will crash. Dont you conservative losers see?

To the cold, cruel but Young Republicans: Save us old creepy guys. Vote “Yeah, Baby”! on Obamacare.

The battery industry depends on it.

What if

January 14th, 2011
8:24 am

Unless you don’t have or can’t get reasonable health insurance. Maybe you guys would just prefer to line us all up and shoot us, and bulldoze us into mass graves, shades of a certain European country six decades ago? It’d be a lot cheaper that either the criminally backward nonsystem we suffered with for so long OR the common decency of health care for all citizens that tne new health care law provides. You say it’s “undemocratic” to force someone to carry health insurance? You could argue that. But if that’s the case, you certainly should also allow the hospitals to shoot on sight anyone who comes looking for the “free” care that the rest of us must now pay for. Some American you are, Barr. As uncivil as any of the rabid psychotics on right-wing radio.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bob Barr and others. Bob Barr said: Barr Code: Health care repeal vote postponed http://bit.ly/giX7Dn [...]

Stan

January 14th, 2011
8:26 am

If the individual mandate is removed from the bill, the insurance industry will continue cancellation of your insurance when you get seriously ill, denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, annual and lifetime caps on your insurance, and removal of your children from your insurance coverage when they turn 21. Bob Barr knows this, and it would be more honest if he talked about it in his columns on the health bill.

What if

January 14th, 2011
8:27 am

OH, yes, forgot to mentio that one. The data are in fact there – Barr and the rest of these folks are simply the pawns of the sucker PR generated by the insurance industry. P.T. was right. You CAN fool most of the people ALL the time. Never forget that the average IQ in the country is 100.

Sandra

January 14th, 2011
8:32 am

Bob,
There is never any clear debate on the benefits to the Health Care law. All you ever do is focus on what your supposed rights are that you can’t be made to do anything. I won’t even go to the stupidity around your gun views. At any rate, who do you think pays for all these people who go to emergency rooms and many are ultimately admitted to hospitals because they haven’t had any care for years because they couldn’t afford it? What about those people who go bankrupt because they can’t afford the bills? Who do you really think pays??? Taxpayers that is who. Your’s and so many of cohorts just don’t even really sit down and reason it out. Your motto is ” Don’t make people be responsible and get insurance because that is against their rights!!” Or maybe we should just let’em die in the streets. Or better yet give them one of your precious guns.

Several years ago Republicans were for making it mandatory to purchase health insurance. Of course all you two faced lobbyist bought politicians would never admit to that now.

All of you just make me sick to my stomach!

John

January 14th, 2011
8:33 am

While you mentioned one court case where the mandatory provision has been ruled unconstitutional but conveniently left out 2 cases where judges has ruled it to be constitutional.

But even more importantly, Republicans seemed to be wrong in some of their rhetoric. According to Forbes…More Small Businesses Offering Health Care To Employees Thanks To Obamacare.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/06/more-small-businesses-offering-health-care-to-employees-thanks-to-obamacare/?partner=contextstory

John

January 14th, 2011
8:44 am

Will the Republicans also vote to repeal their tax-payer funded, government run socialist health care they enjoy? One, and only one, Republican lawmaker (a freshman) who ran on repeal has declined health insurance offered to members of Congress. He has admitted it may be more expensive and hard to get since his wife has a pre-existing condition but he feels it would be hypocritical of him to accept Congress’ heath care insurance at the same time he’s working to repeal the health care law. Will others follow his lead? Or will they continue to enjoy their health care while trying to take it away for their constituents?

John

January 14th, 2011
8:54 am

You also didn’t mention that CBO projections on repeal. And knowingly, it would add to the deficit Republicans exempted it from their “cutgo” policy.

In a letter to Boehner, budget office director Douglas Elmendorf estimated repeal would increase the deficit by $230 billion from 2012 to 2021, the 10-year estimating period for budget projections. Moreover, Elmendorf said about 32 million more people would be uninsured in 2019 as a consequence.

How do that fit in with Republican pledge to reduce the deficit? Or do they believe that by adding to the deficit, the deficit gets reduced? More “voodoo” economics, perhaps.

Common Man

January 14th, 2011
9:10 am

Eating just hasn’t been the same since Obamacare was shoved down my throat.

John

January 14th, 2011
9:25 am

Another Republican lie…regulations (such as the banking and credit card) will hurt businesses so they want to repeal those as well. Today JPMorgan Chase announced profit jumped 47 percent in 4Q.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110114/ap_on_bi_ge/us_earns_jpmorgan_chase

Road Scholar

January 14th, 2011
9:31 am

John, good post. Conservatives have selective memories…that is if they remember history at all! Most have already forgotten science!

carlosggv: How, pray tell, will insurance companies lose money? With more people having insurance (required) how will their profits go down? Oh, policing for Medicad and medicare fraud?

[...] law back on House agenda for TuesdayPoliticoHouse to debate health care repeal next weekBoston GlobeHealth care repeal vote postponedAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)BusinessWeek -Fox News -Seattle Timesall 380 news [...]

george

January 14th, 2011
9:53 am

Main stream America, hard working, successful people will finish the job in 2012. Liberals, socialist, facists are a small minority as was shown 11/2010. Unfortunately, they, at least the ones who at least try to take care of themselves and make their own living seem to gravitate to journalism and teaching. terrible job at both.
Let’s repeal this business killing Obamacare that was passed against the will of the American people with payoffs and bribes and replace it with something that makes sense. Keep some of the great provisions like tranferability, guaranteed coverage for all who can pay and add to it TORT REFORM, COMPETITION ACROSS STATE LINES and CARE FOR ALL THAT IS EFFICIENT AND AFFORDABLE. As John and Road Scholar expouse – they think they’re smarter and more compassionate than us conservatives. They don’t like business or profit. They are socialists and most of us are flat out sick of them – 11/2010 – we’ll be ready for 2012, as well.

Get Real

January 14th, 2011
9:54 am

John…I am very anxious to have congressional hearings on the CBO numbers. Most folks realize the assumptions of which the scoring was based were not realistic. The CBO by law cannot assess the validity of the assumptions. They have to accept them as fact therefore if “pigs could fly” was one of the assumptions that would have to assume that as fact. Additionally, with all the “willie nilly” exemptions that were granted in 2010 the original scoring is null and void and needs to be recalculated. If Obamacare is truly good for the country and is a valid deficit reducer then it should stand on its own merits and it should be obvious as the numbers and the assumptions are reviewed and discussed in a transparent manner as opposed to the “behind the curtain” approach that was used when it was originally passed…plain and simple

Phil Garner

January 14th, 2011
10:06 am

Enter your comments here
The insurance mandate is no more unconstitutional than the Social Security withholding mandate, which requires us all to, in effect, pay our own way and makes Social Security a non-budget issue, especially if the Feds stop borrowing from its trust fund.Yes, one federal judge has ruled otherwise on the new mandate, but you failed to mention at least two others have ruled the law is constitutional. I long for the old days when newspapers would never hire a politician as a columnist.

[...] is cost-conscious consumers, something sorely lacking today (James Capretta and Tom Miller, 1/14). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Health Care Repeal Vote Postponed There are some steps the Congress can take to move us at least [...]

John

January 14th, 2011
10:20 am

@George…

“Let’s repeal this business killing Obamacare that was passed against the will of the American people with payoffs and bribes and replace it with something that makes sense. Keep some of the great provisions like tranferability, guaranteed coverage for all who can pay and add to it TORT REFORM, COMPETITION ACROSS STATE LINES and CARE FOR ALL THAT IS EFFICIENT AND AFFORDABLE. ”

Talking out from both sides of your mouth here. First you say we should have guaranteed coverage for all who can pay for it…then you say care for all…does that include those who can’t pay for it? Did you see my earlier post with a link to a Forbes article? I don’t think Forbes is a left leaning organization. Instead of listening to the rhetoric on either side, let’s look at the facts, which is showing to be helping small business.

As far as the mandate, the insurance industry (right leaning) has called on Congress not to repeal it. They are saying that to repeal it, the cost of insurance will rise. Another point, wouldn’t forcing insurance companies to guarantee coverage or transfer insurance be a mandated regulation on industry…isn’t that against free enterprise and being socialist and facists?

Don

January 14th, 2011
10:21 am

“…blatantly unconstitutional provision…?” I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

John

January 14th, 2011
10:29 am

@George

“COMPETITION ACROSS STATE LINES ”

This means more federal government and less states’ rights. I thought conservatives believe just the opposite. What happened to more states’ rights and less federal government. This would force states to eliminate compliance laws which vary state by state.

BS Aplenty

January 14th, 2011
10:37 am

Killing Obamacare is only the first step to setting the healthcare of this country on the right road. A first and necessary step. The course of sustainable healthcare for the vast majority of Americans lies in a competitive marketplace for insurance, healthier lifestyles (if you choose), family and limited government intervention. I believe this is the road the Republicans should pursue.

However, there will always be those with addictive personalities, they usually called Dems, who continually jones for more government particularly when their healthcare drug is free. There’s no end to what they’ll do to gain the government dole, They shudder with the DT’s when the phrase personal responsibility is mentioned. It’s time to get your responsiblity on, Dems, it’s time to go cold turkey from this drug you call Government.

John

January 14th, 2011
10:43 am

@Get Real, both sides of the aisle use and respect the CBO projections since CBO is bi-partisan. They tend to use parts of CBO reports to stress their position. Could this be going down a slippery slope to flat out reject their projections? Will both sides of the aisle not start rejecting CBO projections on bills sent by the other side? Also, if Republicans disagree with the projections, what are they basing in on? Where are their projections? They have not produced anything other than saying they reject the CBO report. Show me the numbers. Lastly, if Republicans don’t think repealing the law will add to the deficit, then why did they exempt it from their “cutgo” policy? There would be no need to exempt it from their “cutgo” policy.

carlosgvv

January 14th, 2011
10:47 am

Road Scholar

They will not be able to turn down people for pre-existing conditions or for certain other medical condtions. This will cost them a great deal of money. But, you know this already, so don’t be a hypocrit.

janet

January 14th, 2011
10:49 am

All I know is that if the insurance industry spent millions of dollars lobbying against health care reform then the reform must have been good for me the consumer and bad for the insurance industry. And one quick question for Mr. Barr what kind of health insurance do you have?

John

January 14th, 2011
10:51 am

@BS Aplenty

“The course of sustainable healthcare for the vast majority of Americans lies in a competitive marketplace for insurance”

Where do you get your health insurance? Check your insurance policy, you may be surprise that is a company competing in the marketplace…not the US Government. I guess I missed where Blue Cross Blue Shield, Kaiser, etc. are not longer private or publicly traded companies. When did they become owned by the government and merged together and not allowed to compete against each other for new policy holders?

Pizzaman

January 14th, 2011
10:52 am

The Teapublicans call it the “business killing” health care bill. The only business I see it killing is the excessive insurance company profits. Of course that’s what the Teapublicans are sworn to protect.

John

January 14th, 2011
10:59 am

@carlosgvv

“They will not be able to turn down people for pre-existing conditions or for certain other medical condtions. This will cost them a great deal of money.”

If that is true, I guess Republicans are anti-business as well. This same provision in the Republican plan. Read their pledge to America. Taken from page 27 of their pledge…

Health care should be accessible for all,
regardless of pre-existing conditions or past
illnesses. We will expand state high-risk
pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the
cost of coverage. We will make it illegal for
an insurance company to deny coverage to
someone with prior coverage on the basis of
a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual
and lifetime spending caps, and prevent
insurers from dropping your coverage just
because you get sick.

ml

January 14th, 2011
11:02 am

the level of stupid in this country is unbelievable. to watch my middle class friends, who have no healthcare and struggle with that for themselves and their children, who have no savings and won’t allow themselves to think about how they are going to live when they’re 60 and older and how that will negatively affect their families, while the whole time politicians program their thought and speech against the things that they and their families desperately need is just mind-blowing. we should help each other out with a helping hand and leg up, not just plain hand outs. we help the rest of the world all the time and with tons of money, but we can’t help America stay strong? what the hell? if your people are stronger, healthier and more fit, you can defend yourself better. you can defend your country better. don’t you care about defending America? why shouldn’t Americans enjoy good things like healthcare? why shouldn’t Americans who help rich people stay rich get a little piece of the pie? could not see you so-called buddy Jesus having a problem with that. and where are the religious leaders of country? if you truly believe in the ideals of Jesus Christ, why aren’t any of our country’s religious leaders speaking out against the bad things we all can see that are tearing this country down? because church has become a business, with most of it’s customers pressured to be republicans through the fear of what happens to you if you aren’t. and with the republican party, starting with president ‘green bean casserole’ reagan, supporting most of the things that have hurt this country, to criticize corporations and the greed of todays robber barons would be anti-republican and that would lose butts in the pews. diminish the customer base. Jesus was about right and wrong, whether hit affected a business’ bottom line or not. you don’t have to be a liberal, nobody’s asking you to, but myself and many other people are asking that you not choose to support evil as your first choice altenative.

BS Aplenty

January 14th, 2011
11:02 am

@John, I get my health insurance through my company although the insurance company, Aetna or Cigna (depending on the year), only administers the policy. My employer actually pays the health claims. I think this is true for many major employers. I actually think the insurance should be separate from the employer, however, and that I should be able to purchase that insurance from any credible company. This is a similar issue to where banking was before interstate branching and holding companies were allowed.

I think the government will always have some role in providing a Medicaid-type coverage, however, given our fiscal constraints, I think that a SUSTAINABLE healthcare system – one that does not mortgage another generation – will come from a primarily market-based system. Similar to car insurance with Health Savings Accounts for individuals. The contributions to the HSA’s can come from employers and employees (like defined contribution pensions) that can be passed on to succeeding generations tax-free.

That’d be a start to a sustainable healthcare solution. It won’t be easy to ween the addicted off the government but a gradual and continual transition is necessary or the system will collapse (it’s already moving in that direction).

Thanks for the comment.

old shoes

January 14th, 2011
11:04 am

keep your government hands off my medicare! dag-nabbit…

TiredOfTheBS

January 14th, 2011
11:12 am

Sure, the insurance industry loves the policy mandate. What they hate are those pesky restrictions like accepting those with pre-existing conditions, caps on ‘administrative’ costs and maintaining policies for those that become ill. Those restrictions will eventually be chipped away by the corporate congress, and the insurance industry will make a fortune.
The ‘death panels’ will be run by the insurance industry, as it already is.
Repeal of the ‘job killing’ healthcare bill will be a ‘people killer’ in the long run.

Darwin

January 14th, 2011
11:12 am

Support the free loaders who don’t buy insurance! Now – that’s a conservative principle we can all live with.

John

January 14th, 2011
11:15 am

@BS Aplenty

“I get my health insurance through my company although the insurance company, Aetna or Cigna (depending on the year), only administers the policy. My employer actually pays the health claims. I think this is true for many major employers. I actually think the insurance should be separate from the employer, however, and that I should be able to purchase that insurance from any credible company. ”

You’re right…most large companies are self insured, but how does the new health care law affect how these large companies operate? That’s how it was before the law…nothing changed. That’s something you should take up with your company…or exercise your right to not participate in your employer’s health insurance plan and buy your own via the private market. The law didn’t change any of that, other than help you if you choose to buy your insurance via the private market and you have a pre-existing condition.

Darwin

January 14th, 2011
11:30 am

Conservatives have no problems building water parks in Iraq and throwing money away in wars and other foreign adventures. But don’t spend a dime here at home. And again, we already have a national health care plan. As your Georgian Senator Johnny I. stated ” we have emergency rooms!”

Get Real

January 14th, 2011
11:34 am

John…all will be made clear once the hearings begin. Until that time, the numbers are in question because the assumptions were dubious. To be clear, the projections are based on assumptions that the CBO has to consider as fact. That is the problem, the bulk of the assumptions were highly questionable…

carlosgvv

January 14th, 2011
11:37 am

John

You quoted something from the Republican pledge to America. Please tell me you don’t actually beleive all those lies and do beleive that serving Big Business is their number one priority. If not, I will know you are just another Republican tool.

Darwin

January 14th, 2011
11:42 am

Hopefully the day will come when we understand that you cannot treat health care as a commodity. The only way to have a system where only those who pay get healthcare, is to deny treatment to those who do not have health insurance. Until then, we are providing healthcare to those who do not have insurance. We support it through taxes and insurance premiums. Having a national healthcare system provides more preventative treatment. Most of our costs go to those who wait until they are extremely sick and turn to the system for care. Denial is not a river.

Get Real

January 14th, 2011
12:02 pm

From the Washington Post:

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the health care law, if implemented as promised, would save $230 billion over the next decade. There are two important words in that sentence: projects and if.

Of all the cost estimates that the CBO produces, the most complex and least reliable involve health care. This is in no way a criticism of CBO. No matter how sophisticated the economic model, the multi-layered assumptions about the future cost of health spending make the $230 billion projection closer to an educated guess (albeit a guess made by very educated economists) than a take-it-to-the-bank certainty.

And even if the CBO forecasts were guaranteed to come true, there is the political calculus to consider. CBO made this point in its usual, restrained way Thursday, noting that “current law now includes a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. If those policies or other key aspects of the original legislation would have been subsequently modified or implemented incompletely, then the budgetary effects of repealing [the health-care law]…could be quite different.”

Translated into English: don’t bet on that $230 billion. The health-care law will require billions in new spending. It relies on the expectation of billions in savings from slowing the growth of health-care costs and assorted cuts and taxes — all guaranteed to produce howls of outrage, and a burst of lobbying, from the affected interests. Health-care reform, done right and with steadfastness that is not always forthcoming from the legislative branch, could be a huge contributor to reducing the deficit.

But the costs of the new law are far more certain than the savings. Anyone who’s spent any time in Washington knows better than to assume that health-care reform will end up as a money saver.

Democrats will, I suspect, have ample opportunities to accuse Republicans of hypocrisy on fiscal responsibility. This isn’t one of them. And there are stronger defenses of the new law than to claim that repeal would be a budget buster.

John

January 14th, 2011
12:04 pm

Notice how Republicans want to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with, get this…ObamCare. If you read their Pledge to America, it contains almost all of the same provisions. Really the biggest difference is ObamaCare has the individual mandate which the Republicans don’t want. Instead, Republican want more government and force the states’ to ignore their individual state’s laws and let insurance companies compete across state lines.

[...] want the Obamacare law that prompts …Defending 'Obamacare'Falls Church News PressHealth care repeal vote postponedAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog)King Sees Repeal Vote Passing HouseRealClearPoliticsAmerican [...]

John

January 14th, 2011
12:10 pm

@Get Real

“Until that time, the numbers are in question because the assumptions were dubious. To be clear, the projections are based on assumptions that the CBO has to consider as fact. That is the problem, the bulk of the assumptions were highly questionable…”

That would hold true with any bill sent to CBO irregardless of which party sends the bill to CBO. Democrats could say the same thing about bills Republicans send to CBO as well. And of course, we both know Congressmen read the bills in it’s entirety and are honest with the American public about what’s in the bill. Tell me, how many people have been put to death by the “death panels” singe the bill became law?

get out much?

January 14th, 2011
12:19 pm

I wonder when Mr. Barr and his friends are going to try and repeal the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act – that is the one that says hospital emergency rooms have to examine you regardless of your ability to pay.

Get Real

January 14th, 2011
12:24 pm

John…Don’t get me started on death panels, I agree that was bs. Read the article I posted if you have time. Health care costing is as complex as it gets, you simply cannot put it in the same category as other bills that are scored…

BS Aplenty

January 14th, 2011
12:28 pm

@TOT BS

There are ways to regulate what the insurance industry does that do not involve a government takeover of the healthcare system. Ways to insure fair-dealing. The “pre-existing condition” argument would largely go away if you separate health insurance from the employer. Meaning, you don’t lose your coverage (in spite of COBRA, which I find useless) when/if you are fired/laid-off, etc. You can continue premiums via a Health Savings Account.

Just so you’re aware, I’m not trying to limit employer benefits to employees. I just think that health care can be like other defined contribution plans with employer/employee contriubtions.

John

January 14th, 2011
12:48 pm

@Get Real

Show me the Republican projections on what effect the repeal will have on the deficit. Oh, wait, you can’t because there is none. All they say is CBO projections are not accurate because the bill is full of gimmicks…without citing any. But these are the same people who claimed “death panels” were in the bill. While you’re getting the Republican projections, can you also explain why the exempted it from their “cutgo” budget rules.

Sandra

January 14th, 2011
12:51 pm

@BS Aplenty,
Why don’t you just withdraw from your company’s healthcare and go get your own? Noboby’s stopping you!! And for your arrogant dig at Democrats, I will have you know I have worked all my life, pay my bills, and have carried health insurance coverage while seeing the cost continue to go up and my benefits down. You so arrogantly assume that everyone who is a Democrat or even votes for Democrats must be on welfare, not work, etc. You sir are an absolute bigot (and I am not implying race here even though it probably does apply based on what your postings).
Grow up and realize that there are millons of very hard working people who may not have had the chances you have had and quit being such a arrogant jerk.
Quite honestly, you disgust me.

John

January 14th, 2011
12:52 pm

@Get Real

Not trying to get you started with the death panels, but that’s the same people who want us to believe what they say without anything to back it up. I agree, it is complex…so why not take some time to really look at it and if there are areas the need to be fixed, work on those areas. Don’t repeal the whole bill…let’s work to make it better.

John

January 14th, 2011
12:59 pm

@BS Aplenty

“There are ways to regulate what the insurance industry does that do not involve a government takeover of the healthcare system.”

You keep saying “government takeover” of the healthcare system…now you say there are ways to regulate the industry. This law did regulated the industry…it didn’t take it over. Insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, the pharmaceutical companies are all still private. Are the law take them all over and added everyone in healthcare on the government payroll.

[...] The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Health Care Repeal Vote Postponed There are some steps the Congress can take to move us at least with small steps, away from the direction in which ObamaCare is pushing us. Appropriations bills could include cuts to funding various provisions in the healthcare legislation. The Senate Judiciary Committee could do a much better job than in the past of aggressively probing judicial nominees’ views on the absurd reach of the Constitution’s so-called “commerce clause.” … And Members opposed to the law can discuss it regularly and substantively (Bob Barr, 1/14). [...]

BS Aplenty

January 14th, 2011
1:38 pm

@Sandra

When someone has an idea that conflicts with you well-established political sentiment you presume they must be arrongant – but you’d be wrong. And that’s a typical Dem response to losing a political argument – start name calling.

There’s nothing in my arguments that’s arrogant other than my confidence that there are solutions to our healthcare issues that are far more sustainable. You should quit thinking about just you for a moment and consider the succeeding generations who have to pay for the government’s OVERSPENDING on our current healthcare system.

Get Real

January 14th, 2011
1:40 pm

John…bottom line, like it or not, one reason for the republican landslide in November was to repeal the bill. Call it symbolic or call it theatre, it is what it is…

I go back and forth whether or not republicans are putting the cart before the horse…repeal before detailed, transparent analysis. In either case, I truly believe (at this point anyway) that we will see transparent hearings in the very near future so everyone can understand the true impact of this bill. My biggest concern is that without the detailed analysis, which never occurred in the public forum before it was passed, will ultimately bury this country in debt and we already in a big enough hole as it is……..

mike

January 14th, 2011
1:49 pm

Its ok folks. There is nothing wrong with taking health care away from people no matter what side of the fence you think you are on. This is the American way. I got mine and forget about everyone else. Now if I can get plenty of extended clips before they are banned.

John

January 14th, 2011
2:12 pm

@Get Real…there were several reasons why Republicans won control of the House and picked up seats in the Senate. Most polls show the majority don’t want it repealed. A good percentage don’t think the law goes far enough.

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be debated…but Republicans are doing what they accused the Democrats of doing. Rushing a bill through quickly, without much debate and no amendments. Instead of looking at the law and fixing it, where needed to produce something better. They know, they cannot repeal it with a Democrat majority in the Senate and a Democrat President. So, why not work together and make it better.

When business discover a flaw in something, they don’t scrap everything and go back to the drawing board. What would happen to the auto industry for instance, instead of recalling vehicles to fix a flaw, they go back to redesign the vehicle and then replace all affected models that are on the road. They don’t start over…they work on fixing the problem. As I’ve stated before, there is common ground in the law…if you read Republican’s Pledge to America.

“I truly believe (at this point anyway) that we will see transparent hearings in the very near future so everyone can understand the true impact of this bill.”

That’s one of the problems I have…there will be no hearings. At least when the Democrats worked on an passed the bill, it was in committee with both Democrats and Republicans working on it. Republicans aren’t going to committee…they aren’t holding any debates. Their reason for this is that it’s already been debated and therefore needs no further debate. It’s going straight to the floor.

“My biggest concern is that without the detailed analysis, which never occurred in the public forum before it was passed, will ultimately bury this country in debt and we already in a big enough hole as it is…….”

That’s a legitimate concern…but what if CBO projections are correct. Are you willing to add to the deficit and bury this country in more debt by quickly repealing it without proper discussion and debate?

Kilgore

January 14th, 2011
2:14 pm

Jay bookman is a troll-coddling loser. He can’t understand how to approach the issue about global warming except to steal material from other writers and coddle his trolls who comment like the stunted and blunted wankers they truly are.

The question about global warming is this: can a planet destroy itself by being a planet in the same way a star can destroy itself just by being a star? How? A planet can create the life that destroys the planet. Look at the way we’re destroying our atmosphere: the hole in the ozone and global warming. Thus a planet might commit suicide simply by being all it can be so that life will evolve and be all it can be and thus destroy the planet, because although it’s groovy to say that we are star stuff, the truth is that we are planet stuff first.

ANd what is a planet? Pluto? Jupiter is mostly gas, is there a way to say that Jupiter destroyed itself in any terms other than the terms of life support?

Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return, and Bookman can kiss my big fat hairy patoot. The issue is too complex for Bookman or his rocket scientist troll-wipes but they just love to spread their cheeks about it. Rasberry cheers for bookman.

You stink, Jay Bookman!!!

Get Real

January 14th, 2011
3:10 pm

Kilgore….I hate to tell you but you are on the wrong site…

Get Real

January 14th, 2011
3:20 pm

John…I appreciate the civil debate, I truly do. I realize there are folks that thought the bill did not go far enough (public option) but those folks did not vote for republicans. Clearly, the reasons for the republican gains were multifaceted but their approach is going to be repeal before they start the replace part. I suppose the idea is to get everyone on the record again. I am not saying I agree with that but I do believe there will be a detailed review after the repeal vote.

Also, per your point on democratic committee review…yes that did occur but very little if any concerns raised by the republicans were considered…at least in my view. In the end, it was we won, deal with it. And, before you say it seems like we are going down the same road on the other side now.

The biggest difference this time should be the detailed public review and discussion, it is just going to occur after the repeal….cart..horse…it is debatable…

Have a good weekend…over and out..

John

January 14th, 2011
3:37 pm

Get Real…

“Also, per your point on democratic committee review…yes that did occur but very little if any concerns raised by the republicans were considered…at least in my view. ”

I was disagree with that. We hear talk about how is was pushed through but it was worked on for over a year before it was brought up for a vote. Like several other bills, Democrats and Republicans worked on it together and Republicans backed out and would no longer work on it. Democrats wanted the public option, Republicans didn’t. Democrats pulled it out of the bill and replaced it with the mandate for coverage…which is from the Republican plan back in the 90’s during the Clinton administration. It’s the same type of mandate Republican Mitt Romney signed into law in his state. Republicans claim to want pre-existing conditions to be covered…it’s in the law. There is bi-partisan agreement in most of the law. When President Obama called for the meeting in front of C-Span cameras, he wanted to focus on areas of the bill where there was disagreement. If you recall, Republicans publicly stated before the meeting, they want the entire bill scrapped and started over…they refused to look at areas of disagreement and work together to compromise on those areas.

Look at Republican’s Pledge to America and see what they want…you will see most of what they have in their pledge is in the current law.

John

January 14th, 2011
3:48 pm

Get Real…part of the problem, I think is the way both parties handled it. Republicans demonized the bill and at times lied about it (such as the death panel) and were good at creating facts to the point a big part of the population believes it. Democrats, on the other hand, did a very poor job and selling it.

But not that some of the provision have kicked in, how many people that now have their kids under 26 are willing to have the government kick their kids off their insurance? How many do you think want to have their coverage canceled due to pre-existing conditions or have yearly limits brought back?

Jefferson

January 14th, 2011
3:50 pm

There’s a great deal of interest in health care reform, with over 45% in favor. The law can be made better. You folks better start voting in your best interest or you too will be without a paddle…

Get Real

January 14th, 2011
4:13 pm

John…it should be a very interesting 2011….chow

[...] discussing healthcare, they are truly terrified of Democrats offering amendments to …Health care repeal vote postponedAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog) all 480 news articles » Comments [...]

ROCKERBABE

January 14th, 2011
4:36 pm

Individual mandates are legal; or is GA laws requiring car insurance when one drives also illegal? No one can ever guarantee that they will not be injured or get sick and thus need medical care. The healthcare industry needs to get paid for the services it performs and unfortunately, way too many people are uninsured for a variety of reasons but still need care nonetheless.

Repealing Obamacae will only allow the private insurers to deny medical insurance to 50+ million without and thereby continue the current unsustainable system we currently have. All those clamoring for repeal are being short-sighted and mean-spirited. So much for the pro-life crowd. Of course MANDATING women carry pregnancies to term that is against their will – well how come that wouldn’t be illegal? Shame on all of your for forgetting about the common good and general welfare of our citizens.

Kilgore

January 14th, 2011
5:10 pm

Get Real

January 14th, 2011
5:19 pm

Rockerbabe…50+ million?? was 30 million before that it was 10 million….I guess next week it will be 100+ million

Car insurance is not the same thing silly girl, that comparison was rebuked along time ago. You do not have to drive, Obamacare requires you buy a commodity just for being a citizen…big difference

Freedom of Expression

January 14th, 2011
6:43 pm

Nice reading, by Mr. Barr and the anti-Obamaists on the blog. I am reading well argued points about the legislation, while posts suggesting a conservative point of view are coming back with the same, old talking points including “healthcare needs reform, but Obama care is not the way to do it.” But do not offer an alternative. I especially love these oft repeated “solutions.”

TORT REFORM,
—A good way to get tort reform would be for Dr’s to stop committing malpractice. Further, the 11th circuit of GA held that a tort reform measure, putting caps on malpractice claims violated the constitution because it limits jury decisions.

COMPETITION ACROSS STATE LINES
—-Seems like this would 1) create a patch-work of varying coverages from state to state, and 2) result in the flow of insurance business to states offering the most favorable regulations to the insurance companies. For example, Delaware and Connecticut offer some of the most liberal laws for incorporating a business, therefore most corporations are created in Delaware and Connecticut. And look at your own insurance. Is your insurance company located in the state where you live? If so, you have a unique policy, Of the 4 largest providers, United Health group, is based in MN; Wellpoint in IN; AETNA in CT; and Humana in KY. So this interstate competition model already exists and has failed for everybody except a few insurance companies.

CARE FOR ALL THAT IS EFFICIENT AND AFFORDABLE.
—-Sounds like a good idea, but is by no means a plan.

AntiBoortz

January 14th, 2011
6:57 pm

Poor Ollie McClung. Health care should be enacted under the Tax and Spend Clause. Ask anyone over 65 how their goverment health care is working for them.

CrBids » News about Funny News issue #1

January 14th, 2011
8:12 pm

Made of Honor

January 14th, 2011
8:26 pm

Get Real said:
“Car insurance is not the same thing silly girl, that comparison was rebuked along time ago. You do not have to drive, Obamacare requires you buy a commodity just for being a citizen…big difference”

You should have stopped at the word before “silly girl.” For one, to “rebuke” something is to speak disapprovingly of it. You have spoken disapprovingly of the comparison, but the comparison has not been disproved or “debunked.” As for not having to drive, it would be nice if that were actually true. But if you live and work in ATL, or any other city for that matter, you know otherwise. However, assuming that one doesn’t have to drive, an option is not available for getting sick or injured. Furthermore, one can choose to drive without liability insurance, or even a license. If they are never caught or never wreck, nobody will ever know the difference. Finally, liability insurance is required for when a driver is in a wreck with another driver. Practically any expense over the deductible pays for the non-fault driver’s medical care.

Insurance is not a “commodity,” it is a “service,” big difference. In considering the insurance mandate, you should evoke founding father Ben Franklin “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Applying this formula to healthcare: An ounce of insurance is worth a pound of bankruptcy.

Eliminating ignorance an illiteracy would help the matter too.

killerj

January 14th, 2011
8:33 pm

Prez Obama Need,s To Come Out In The Public Street,s To Affirm His Belief All Americans Agree With Him And His Illustrious Followers.

Get Real

January 15th, 2011
12:31 am

Made of Honor @ 8:26 pm

Thanks for the grammar lesson, A$$wipe…My point is still valid, you proved nothing….

[...] WeekTIME (blog)A Time for RepealingLubbockOnline.com (blog)IowaPolitics.com (press release) -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -American Spectatorall 8 news articles » reddit_url = [...]

[...] a vast majority of the US electorate. …Rasmussen: 75 Percent Want Obamacare ChangedNewsMax.comHealth care repeal vote postponedAtlanta Journal Constitution [...]

[...] The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Health Care Repeal Vote Postponed There are some steps the Congress can take to move us at least with small steps, away from the direction in which ObamaCare is pushing us. Appropriations bills could include cuts to funding various provisions in the healthcare legislation. The Senate Judiciary Committee could do a much better job than in the past of aggressively probing judicial nominees’ views on the absurd reach of the Constitution’s so-called “commerce clause.” … And Members opposed to the law can discuss it regularly and substantively (Bob Barr, 1/14). [...]

Kilgore

January 15th, 2011
8:25 am

and furthermore…….

Tracy

January 15th, 2011
10:35 am

The moment the GOP took House majority the Party’s primary focus was figuring out how to avoid doing everything they promised that got them elected. Just like the “pre-stimulus spending levels” promise that’s now clearly history.

Republicans will vote on this one day, but only because it’s a symbolic vote. They know it won’t go further and as we all know, the GOP is all for big government. Just don’t tell their voters that…hush….

[...] Health care repeal vote postponed | The Barr Code. This entry was posted in Opinion, Politics and tagged ajc, Bob Barr, congress, Health care vote, opinion, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. ← A New Husband Reflects On Returning To Afghanistan : NPR [...]

mpercy

January 16th, 2011
12:04 pm

John @9:25 am Another Republican lie…regulations (such as the banking and credit card) will hurt businesses so they want to repeal those as well. Today JPMorgan Chase announced profit jumped 47 percent in 4Q.

Well, first, you can’t be sure without more information what JP Morgan Chase’s revenues came from (maybe it was simply their investments? or maybe because they purged deadbeats from the credit card rolls). But let’s go with what you say, as if it proves your point.

I wasn’t ever concerned about what it might do to the banks–I was certain the banks would make their money–but what it might do to *me* as a consumer of banking and credit services.

My credit score hovers between 795 and 805, I pay all my credit cards off every month, pay all my bills. So far, I’ve had one credit card canceled (because I didn’t use it enough) and every one of them raised the interest rates by 4-5% points.

I’ve had my bank send me 3 separate letters detailing changes they have made because of the new laws. First, I am no longer allowed to access my signature (unsecured) line-of-credit from an ATM. Then I was told I cannot tie my line-of-credit as the overdraft protection for my checking account (as it had been for the last 12 years). Finally, I was told that my line-of-credit, which had been no-cost to me for 12 years, would now carry a $25/yr fee. I also just paid $35 for a wire transfer I used to get for free.

All over the country, formerly free checking accounts are carrying fees, sometimes whoppingly large fees.

While supporters of 2009 Credit CARD (Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure) Act promoted it as good for credit card consumers, actual experience has been different, writes Todd Zywicki in The Wall Street Journal. Limits on how credit card issuers can charge their customers has driven people to payday lenders and pawn shops for credit, the very thing lawmakers wanted to curtail.

Key points of Zywicki’s article include:

* For many Americans the law has meant higher interest rates, increases in fees, and reduced credit limits.
* Unintended consequence number one: If companies can’t raise interest rates on risky borrowers, they raise interest rates on all borrowers, even those with spotless records.
* Unintended consequence number two: If companies can’t price risk efficiently and rationally, they cut off customers, which pushes them to payday lenders, which are really expensive.
* Unintended consequence number three: If companies can’t price risk efficiently and rationally, they will reduce their lending, which means credit card limits are lowered.
* Banks also drop customers altogether: “In his letter to shareholders last spring, Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase reported that, ‘In the future, we no longer will be offering credit cards to approximately 15% of the customers to whom we currently offer them. This is mostly because we deem them too risky in light of new regulations restricting our ability to make adjustments over time as the client’s risk profile changes.’” … “Meet the new payday loan customers,” wrote Zywicki.
* “Nontraditional financial products serve an important role in the marketplace for the millions of consumers who count on them. Even pawn shops and loan sharks are more palatable and less expensive than the bounced checks and utility shut-offs that would result in their absence.”

mpercy

January 16th, 2011
12:07 pm

“When business discover a flaw in something, they don’t scrap everything and go back to the drawing board. ”

Maybe Republicans are trying a Mike Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes_on_Homes) approach! It was done so poorly originally that the only way to fix it is to gut it and start over.

Dave from GT

January 16th, 2011
12:23 pm

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance the government’s reckless fiscal policies.” – Senator Barack Obama…………… need any more information?

ATF

January 16th, 2011
4:04 pm

I would feel much better about repeal if the Pubs had some idea of what to offer for an alternative. And “tort reform” is not going to address the real problems. Repealing our right to have a jury decide damages in a civil case is not an answer – that is the right we have in the Bill of rights, Amendment VII of the Constitution. Letting the government set limits on jury awards is like letting the government set limits on prices or wages – stupid. Jury systems for justice always have outliers that look and are unjust – but it is better than any other system anyone has come up with.

Don’t believe the guff about the health care bill being a “job killer”, either. The job killer is the high costs of health care born by employers. We need to get provision of health care out of the employers pockets. My former employer just closed three plants a few years ago and sent the jobs to Mexico, accounting got outsourced to Sri Lanka, and computer support is half out of India now.

I think health care is like clean water and roads – something the government should provide – although I realize I am in the minority on this. What is strange is that my libetarian brother agrees with me.

Remember, the Republicans did absolutely nothing to address the problem of double digit health care costs increases in the years they had all the power. After the repeal the current health care law, what do you think will happen? I expect nothing that will deal with the problem and I expect things will only get worse. My biggest hope is things will bog down in Congress and two more years will mean voters will see the Pubs have no answers.

Linda

January 16th, 2011
4:21 pm

Hey GOP and Tea Party Congressional representatives, I suggest you live by example. Give up your free health care ride. Also renounce your Medicare and Social Security. Really get in bed with your pals in the insurance industry.

freethinker

January 20th, 2011
8:55 pm

If you will get the Repubs to repeal the socialist health care programs such as the unfunded mandate Reagan passed to have emergency rooms treat anyone who rolls in the door without payment or citizenship as a requirement and the unfunded Medicare drug benefit George passed to get reelected and allow the government to buy drugs competitively on the open market, we can start a rational conversation