Skip to comments.House plans five-hour debate on healthcare repeal, WH warns veto
Posted on 07/09/2012 9:22:27 PM PDT by Nachum
The House will hold five hours of debate on Tuesday and Wednesday on legislation that would completely repeal the 2010 healthcare law, which is being called up by Republicans in light of the Supreme Court's decision that the individual health insurance mandate is constitutional. The House Rules Committee approved a rule late Monday setting out the lengthy debate on a bill that is expected to pass with Republican support, but very little if any Democratic support. The Repeal of Obamacare Act, H.R. 6079, was formally introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I know it won’t make it past Obamanation..but I am glad they are doing it.
Send the message to the electorate! Here is the deal! Vote R!
What’s the debate for?
The cameras, what else?
Sound bites for the upcoming election.
Repeal the whole thing or it will turn into a cancer for everyone including politicians.
“WH Warns Veto...”???
Is anyone still aware of the fact that a veto can, and sometimes SHOULD, be overturned? The House can do THAT too. But they won’t. No matter how much we scream at them.
If it gets to the Senate, rats like McCaskil will have their votes recorded one way or another and coward McCaskil (Mo) has been running hard and scared from Obamacare ever since she voted for it, there are other rats in the same position who are up for reelection in Nov.
Cantor and Boner need to quit acting like a couple of Pussies. Schedule the vote and separate the Sheep from the Goats!
“The cameras, what else?”
Too true, this all just political theater. If they were serious they would impeach Roberts.
Any politician who votes “NOT” to repeal Obamacare has signed their losing re-election bid. Plus they will be on record....they will go down! Down>....into the gutter.
Reid will prevent any vote on this in the Senate.
What a tell!
Who's up for reelection again on the Democrat side?
SENATORS UP FOR REELECTION IN 2012
Daniel Akaka (Hawaii)*
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico)*
Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
Maria Cantwell (Washington)
Benjamin Cardin (Maryland)
Thomas Carper (Delaware)
Robert Casey (Pennsylvania)
Kent Conrad (North Dakota)*
Diane Feinstein (California)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)*
Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut)*
Joe Manchin (West Virginia)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Robert Menendez (New Jersey)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska)*
Bernard Sanders (I-Vermont)
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan)
Jon Tester (Montana)
Jim Webb (Virginia)*
Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)
Why is this inaccurancy constantly repeated without being contested?
Why is this inaccurancy constantly repeated without being contested?
What, in your opinion, is inaccurate about it?
Well according to Wikipedia there are currently 433 members of the House. Two thirds of 433 is 289. From the same source there are 242 GOP members of the House. 289 - 242 = 47 Dims would have to vote for the bill to over ride the veto. Do you third there are 47 Dims who would vote to override?
The individual health care mandate was not declared Constitutional. Roberts had to rewrite the wording to make the mandate a tax so that the AHCA could be declared Constitutional. That's why Ginsberg dissented with Roberts' opinion.
I'm sure you knew that, right?
You are confusing the "individual mandate" with the "Affordable Health Care Act". Perhaps that explains why this keeps getting reported incorrectly. The Act itself was declared Constitutional as a tax. That was the whole controversy with Roberts - that he literally re-wrote the bill to make it work by calling the "mandate" a tax.
While Ginsberg voted with the majority, she wanted the mandate to be declared Constitutional which Roberts disagreed with, and that is why she wrote a separate opinion.
So while the entire Act was declared Constitutional, the individual mandate was not. That is the inaccuracy - might seem subtle but it really isn't.
The individual health care mandate was not declared Constitutional.
That's why Ginsberg dissented with Roberts' opinion.
Where exactly? I've given you the link and it opens in a new tab so it's easy.
A “Dog and Pony Show” that in the end will mean absolutely nothing.
It will identify the traitors in the house if nothing else.
We need to know who’s who.
I believe the only agenda here is to make some Democrats in very critical races declare themselves for the President, or agree with the Republicans to survive. The last thing you really want as a Representative running in an election....is to be anchored with a stupid topic that draws attention of the voters from your district.
This whole medical insurance thing is so stupid. Just allow hospitals and doctors to turn people away if they decide not to have insurance. Simple solutions. Do people get to have a nice dinner at a resturant if they don’t have the money? No. Same thing at the hospital. If you don’t have insurance, you must prepay whatever services you desire. That is it!!!!! Damn I wish I was the President. I would not force people to get insurance, but I would not force hospitals to administer care for people who don’t have the money. Mean? Perhaps. Fiscally responsible? You bet!!!!!
House Republicans have voted 30 times in the past year and a half to repeal, defund, or otherwise squash ObamaCare, with the first attempt coming just two weeks after they took control of the House last year. This week, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on the law, the House will take up attempt No. 31: the “Repeal of ObamaCare Act”.
That is precisely the solution, and it's amazing how many people have come to preclude that from any consideration. You hear of alternative plans, laws, systems...but rarely does anyone point out the entrenched flaw that is making some sort of socialism the fix.
“but I would not force hospitals to administer care for people who dont have the money.”
Would you also arrest and imprison the thieves and quacks who run hospitals and rip people off?
Did you know that people who pay cash are charged 200 to 300 percent more than people who use insurance? Try litigating that sometime. Hospitals charge whatever they think they can get away with. Double-billing, kickbacks and charging for services not rendered is rampant at these quack institutions.
Someone wake me when the house decides to do something that actually matters.
you mean a band-aid really does not cost 6 bucks?!??!
I went a couple years with out insurance. for non-emergency care I price shopped. Some where nuts (6 dollar band-aids) some where realistic. (50 cent band-aids)
it was my one trip to the ER where the doctor got it wrong and it damn near killed me and he STILL wanted 6000 dollars for his misdiagnosis.
There is no rational and pragmatic process to sue quack hospitals. Lawyers are clueless about suing hospitals. They want a huge retainer to take the case, and I’m not about to shell out thousands to a shyster so he can acquaint himself with medical fraud at my expense.
Those familiar with the lawsuit process against hospitals work in the qui tam division of large law firms, and they won’t take individual cases unless they can make at least a high six-figure payback. The only process available is a class action lawsuit, and you need a ton of litigants for that.
The fraud division at the state attorney general’s office is a clown car accident waiting to happen.
Some people have this misbegotten notion that hospitals are run by angels whose sole purpose for existing is to comfort the ill and injured. Even conservatives fall for this stupid image of the all-caring hospital. In fact, these quack factories are run by thieving liberals who will rip you off for every penny you own.
But I mostly talk to the wall on FR. Enough.
My question also. This is absolutely a no-brainer. Should take about 15 minutes. No wonder they never get anything done.
Did you know that people who pay cash are charged 200 to 300 percent more than people who use insurance?
As long as people are offered a choice to either pay or not pay than I have no problem with this. If people don’t want to pay the prices that the hospital charges then either go somewhere else or find a witch doctor. You can’t have everything. It is bad enough we have people who go to the doctor without payment or insurance...That is what MUST stop.
Still waiting for you at reply 25.
Vote to repeal it all.
Rub his nose in it.
Harry Reid will refuse to let it come up for a vote in the Senate.
To get to Obama, it would have to pass the Dem-controlled Senate. Harry will table it there.
” If people dont want to pay the prices that the hospital charges then either go somewhere else or find a witch doctor.”
How stupid of me. I didn’t realize you could walk into a hospital with a broken rib and ask for the hospital’s price list to see what they charge for fixing a broken rib. And if you don’t like the price, you can drive to a hospital down the street and see what that hospital charges for a broken rib. That way you drive, compare and shop broken rib care at hospitals throughout the city.
You’re a genius. I never thought of price comparison shopping for a broken rib.
If those prices are unsatisfactory, you can go find a witch doctor to sprinkle toad hair and fix you up.
Sometimes, I wonder why I hang around here and listen to morons.
“Too true, this all just political theater. If they were serious they would impeach Roberts.”
And if so-called conservatives were serious about taking back this country, they’d get organized. The Founders organized Committees of Safety. Conservatives have organized nothing. But it’s always safe to pound on a keyboard and bitch.
“And if so-called conservatives were serious about taking back this country, theyd get organized....”
They’ve tried a few times but usually they either loose steam or get taken over by the establishment republicans. The tea-party is just the latest example, started out good then got taken over and now is pretty much worthless as a force for change. Problem is people or at least the majority don’t really want to go back to a limited government, they like what they’re getting and vote accordingly so all that is left for those that don’t like the program is to sit and bitch about it ;)
ThugCare is all he has.
That's the whole point of the vote! They want to use the issue for their Congressional races, and that's fine with me! Make the Democrats and RINOs who support the legislation DEFEND their votes to the American People.
Sorry. Wasn't ignoring you - I do have a life other than Free Republic...
There are several pages in the decision where Justice Roberts discusses the individual mandate and how the Congress does not have the power to regulate non-activity. Within those arguments are footnotes of Justice Ginsberg's dissent such as this little nugget: 4 JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that at the time the Constitution was framed, to regulate meant, among other things, to require action. Post, at 23 (citing Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F. 3d 1, 16 (CADC 2011); brackets and some internal quotation marks omitted). But to reach this conclusion, the case cited by JUSTICE GINSBURG relied on a dictionary in which [t]o order; to command was the fifth-alternative definition of to direct, which was itself the second-alternative definition of to regulate. See Seven-Sky, supra, at 16 (citing S. Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1773) (reprinted 1978)). It is unlikely that the Framers had such an obscure meaning in mind whenthey used the word regulate. Far more commonly, [t]o regulatemeant [t]o adjust by rule or method, which presupposes something to adjust. 2 Johnson, supra, at 1619; see also Gibbons, 9 Wheat., at 196 (defining the commerce power as the power to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed).
And this: 6In an attempt to recast the individual mandate as a regulation of commercial activity, JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that [a]n individualwho opts not to purchase insurance from a private insurer can be seen as actively selecting another form of insurance: self-insurance. Post, at 26. But self-insurance is, in this context, nothing more than a description of the failure to purchase insurance. Individuals are no more activ[e] in the self-insurance market when they fail to purchase insurance, ibid., than they are active in the rest market when doing nothing.
Justice Roberts clearly takes issue with her arguments. Ginsberg is desperate to justify the individual mandate and Roberts is not having it.
It may be semantics, but Roberts gets around his distaste for the individual mandate by referring to it as a tax, and it's clear in his writing that he believes Congress does not have the power to force activity.
Unfortunately, it makes no difference what he chooses to call it regarding it's effect on us. The way I read it, the Affordable Health Care Act was deemed Constitutional by calling the funding mechanism a tax, not by declaring the individual mandate Constitutional.
How fortunate for you. So even if "the way you read it" isn't "the way it's supposed to be read" then you're always going to be right, aren't you.