It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Democrats block GOP bid to repeal health care law.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Washington (CNN) -- Senate Democrats on Wednesday blocked a Republican effort to repeal the health care law passed last year.



The party-line vote, with all 47 Republicans in favor and 51 Democrats opposed, meant the procedural motion failed to get the necessary 60 votes to pass. Two Democrats didn't vote.


well this is
unfortunite news! this law has been deemed
unconstituional , and more than half of the
united states want this law to be undone,They
like handing out waivers to there union friends
and there white house drones .I for one oppose
this bill and consider that i have recieved my waiver
when this law was deemed unconstituional by a federal
judge.What are your thoughts, and what do you see
coming out of this fight, what do you project to be the
outcome when this is all said and done?




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I disagree with the government interferring with health care period. If they run it like they have run this country and economy we are all doomed to the 7th realm of hades IMHO. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior... and that is the problem.

That being said, I do not believe this current bill in it's current state will pass. I do believe that they will try, try, again though.
edit on 2/2/2011 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)


Ex

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This is suprising , why?
The Democrats have already said they will not bring this to the floor for a vote.
President Obama has said he will not sign it

Most of the house GOP was elected on this promise. and could not sit by and NOT
have it through the house.

It's all a setup though and just another smokescreen ,
so that the rest of the Obama term will be plagued with Republicans not passing anything ,
because they won't get their way on this one.
This doesn't make Democrats un-American
as the GOP will shout.It really just shows how inept both of our parties have become.
Worrying about their own political careers over the needs of the public.

I think we should limit their terms to two terms or fire every single one of these bozos
that are so very out of touch with what average citizens
are going through in these econmic times.

Gotta love it!

Capitalism /vs/ Democracy



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 


well the bill has already passed
but i do get your point, however
i believe that we will do everything
in our power within the legal system
to oust this unfair law, but when all
legal options are exhausted, i do not
believe that we will just accept it, some
states might become sovereign some
might turn to violence.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jophiel
 


I'm glad you got that. My point was that I think it will be repealed. Not, not passed.
Geez. If not changed nationwide then changed state by state. I know my state is one of the few who are trying to stop it.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 



I wish my state was apart of this struggle
even with are newly elected governor we
remain on the sidelines, makes me think
about moving.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jophiel
 



this law has been deemed unconstituional


Ummmm....no. One Federal Judge can't can't overturn legislation.


and more than half of the united states want this law to be undone


We are a Republic and our representatives are our voice.


They like handing out waivers to there union friends and there white house drones


And to Catholic Charities, and Christian organizations, and oil companies....not exactly "friends" of the Obama administration.


I for one oppose this bill and consider that i have recieved my waiver when this law was deemed unconstituional by a federal judge.


What about the other Federal Judges that deemed the law constitutional???

How about we just wait until it gets to the Supreme Court...because that is the only decision that matters. These lower courts hold no weight.



What are your thoughts, and what do you see
coming out of this fight, what do you project to be the
outcome when this is all said and done?


I see the court cases going to the Supreme Court and I see them upholding the bill using the Commerce Clause.


Let me ask you a question...if the Supreme Court rules that this bill IS constitutional...will you accept their decision?

What if they rule that it isn't constitutional...will you then?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


i never stated that the
law was overturned,just
one judge deeming the law
unconstitutional is good enough
for me. and even if it is found
constitutional in the supreme court
ruling that will not change my opinion
on this bill what so ever. and 60 percent
of the American people do oppose this
law, unless you disagree with the polls.
are you for this bill? how would it benefit
you? just curious , thanks for your input.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jophiel
 



Virginia. Health Care Reform Lawsuit Clears First Hurdle

Richmond, Va. (AP) - Virginia's lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's health care reform law has cleared its first legal hurdle.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson on Monday denied the Justice Department's request to dismiss the lawsuit.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claims that Congress does not have the authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to require citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

The Virginia General Assembly passed legislation this year exempting state residents from the coverage mandate.

More than a dozen other state attorneys general have filed a separate lawsuit in Florida challenging the federal law, but Virginia's lawsuit is the first to go before a judge.


Even though it is an older article they are still hard at work trying to get this mess of an idea thrown out. I post the article because I slam the government so often sometimes it is nice to see some common sense being used.

I believe many more states will follow suite soon. If all of them would, then they would have to take notice. It takes a lot of b.... nerve to shove this on a nation where the majority doesn't want it.

www.jookos.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 


Indeed , if the people accept this law
and give up, be prepared for even more
laws to come removing more of the peoples
freedoms believe this law is just a test, to see
reaction of the people, I do believe that in the end
some states will just become sovereign if we loose
all legal hope of overturning this law, with Arizona
becoming the first, they already feel that the federal
government is at war with them. and for good reason.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jophiel
 



i never stated that the
law was overturned,just
one judge deeming the law
unconstitutional is good enough
for me. and even if it is found
constitutional in the supreme court
ruling that will not change my opinion
on this bill what so ever.


So as long as you can find ONE judge that will confirm your thinking...you are fine with that. Even if the Supreme Court rules it constitutional...and two other Federal Judges have already found it Constitutional...since this ONE judge said it's not....you are going to go with that?

I don't see how that makes logical sense...it seems like you already had your mind made up and you are just looking for someone to agree with you.



and 60 percent
of the American people do oppose this
law, unless you disagree with the polls.


No...I don't disagree with the polls...but I do understand that national polls for a legislation issue isn't very useful. Because each representative and senator doesn't represent the nation...they represent their own district or state.

For example...Texas could be 95% against the health care bill (made up number btw)...but if there is a representative whos district supports the health care bill 60%...shouldn't he vote for it no matter what the National or State poll says? Shouldn't he represent his own people?

That is why I don't think National polls mean much for legislation issues where senator and representatives are there to support their own constituents...not the entire nation.



are you for this bill?


Yes...I don't think it is perfect...but I think it is a good start and a step in the right direction.


how would it benefit you?


Me or my kids can't be dropped from our insurance because of some made up pre-existing condition anymore. I won't hit a "cap" if me or someone in my family gets really sick. Those are some of the direct benefits that will affect me...and you too...whether you like the bill or not...you still get those perks.

There are many other non-direct benefits as well.
edit on 2-2-2011 by MindSpin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


your right, my mind was
already made up, my
opinion is not based on
the current standing of the
majority of the decisions
played out in court so far
and unfortunately the bad in
the bill can not be separated
from the good in the bill, i can
see how it would benefit your
family , but i do not think that
we should take those good changes
in exchange for the government
telling us what we must buy and
when we must buy it.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
We have the opportunity to move 1 inch forward. I say we do that. Not quite a foot, kinda close though. I mean what are you really going to get accomplished when a majority of the population watches Glenn Beck and friends? We really do have a overwhelming demographic that is legitimately dum in this kountry.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Corporations like Wal-Mart are strongly supporting a national healthcare program.... If it wasn't for the VA I wouldn't have any source of healthcare due to preexisting conditions incurred while in the Marine Corps.. I went many years seeing doctors only when I ended up in the emergency room to get sewed up after a fight, motorcycle accident or an accident on the job.. I know very few people that can afford to go to the doctor or pay what they would have to for a good insurance policy.... The corporate medical system that has increased the cost of care by leaps and bounds needs to be changed... My family was able to pay for medical care out of pocket when I was growing up but those days ended in the 1980s and it continues increasing in cost.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jophiel
 


I don't agree with the "mandate" aspect of the healthcare law, and I do not think this law does enough to solve the healthcare crises. With the mandate I do believe it will make a situation worse, it essentially requires more people to sign up to healthcare corporations which I do believe adds further fuel to the fire in our healthcare system. This law needs to be replaced and I believe it is time for a public option, it is way overdue.

It is a shame the Democrats along with Obama cannot just fess up and admit this law is unworkable. It was pushed in as an excuse because the public option did not get in, it was pushed in as a snipe to the party of "no", the republican party, and I don't think that is representitive of what constituents want. It's politics as usual, and the more the Democrats refuse to cut this law out, the more they prove themselves to be one in the same as the republican party (non-suprisingly).

And yes, I see so many people jumping behind the republicans in their outrage against the Democrats. The Republicans have their own political agenda in the works, they have their own lobbyists. While this healthcare law is a joke, our current healthcare system is complete mess whether with or without this law. There needs to be a reform in healthcare, and yet we have so many people on this forum too stubborn to admit the fundalmental changes required.
edit on 2-2-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





While this healthcare law is a joke, our current healthcare system is complete mess whether with or without this law. There needs to be a reform in healthcare, and yet we have so many people on this forum too stubborn to admit the fundalmental changes required.....


I will agree with you there.

No one bothers to ask WHY health care is so expensive. The reason is REGULATIONS!

I was at a party with a bunch of Doctors a few years ago. One was explaining to me why the cost of X-rays increased drastically.

Seems the Universities used to manufacture the radioactive source material for hospitals at a very cheap price. Someone saw this as an "opportunity" and had the government regulate the source material. The result was universities were no longer "qualified" to produce the source material and the cost skyrocketed.

I can not remember the exact numbers but it was something like a cost of $50 bucks unregulated vs $2000 regulated.


Next think of all the paperwork doctors must now fill out. If the paperwork is not filled out correctly the medical practice could be subject to "Civil Forfeiture"Physicians are subject to forfeiture of their entire assets based on a clerical errors in medicare billing.


Paperwork takes up “as much as a third of a physician’s workday.” That’s a lot, and is coming at the expense of face to face time with patients.

Worse, look how it’s affecting medical residents.

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic found that most residents spent as much as 6 hours per day documenting, with only a fraction of that time spent with patients. Furthermore, administrative time also eats away at their educational activities, such as lectures and didactic sessions.... www.kevinmd.com...


Then there is malpractice insurance premiums. In 2002


On the North Shore, an obstetrician-gynecologist who will pay $118,000 in liability insurance next year is studying to obtain a pharmacist license.

"I never thought about doing anything else," said the 43-year-old doctor, who asked not to be named. "Now all I'm thinking about is what else can I do."

In the 12-month period ending last July, liability insurance premiums nationwide increased 24.7 percent for internists, 25 percent for general surgeons and 19.6 percent for obstetrician-gynecologists, the Medical Liability Monitor reports.

In Chicago, annual premiums total about $32,000 for internists, $76,000 for general surgeons and $110,000 for OB-GYNs. By comparison, doctors' average income, after insurance and other expenses, was $160,000 in 1999... www.papillonsartpalace.com...



In other words MORE money goes to the insurance companies than to the doctor!


That is my biggest gripe with Obamacare. We just added ANOTHER bunch of paperwork and useless drones to our medical system and guess who will pay the additional cost - US!



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jophiel
 


The law itself has not been deemed unconstitutional, only a certain aspect of it. Precisely, the individual mandate portion that required individuals to purchase health insurance lest they be fined for not doing so.

But it is duly noted that the Federal judge in Florida went further by ruling the entire law unconstitutional based upon the individual mandate. In my opinion, correctly so. Considering that the plaintiffs consisted of 26 state attorney generals.

This is just a precursor to the showdown that will occur within the Supreme Court in regards to the law. The Federal judge, Judge Vinson, set a precedence regarding the law at whole. This will force the Supreme Court to at least comment upon the law at whole, rather than the individual mandate.

Good news though! The much maligned and ill conceived 1099 provision will be stricken out of the law.

There is no doubt that the American public needs to address the health care issue, but it is not a place for the Congress to do so. Operating outside of their capacity of administering the government, their only duty is to ensure that the law, whatever it may be, is applied equally and fairly.

Here is a good run down in regards to the ruling by Judge Vinson. WSJ



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Bravo crimvelnet! No one really wants to address the deep rooted reason on why health care is rising in such as manner. Not only regulation, but also technology. Consider the equipment and procedures we utilize here in the states for a moment. Both of those require deep and complex regulations.

This isn't to say that all regulations are unnecessary or wrong, but rather a factor in the rising costs that are associated with heath care. Everyone loves their CT scans or MRIs, but don't realize such technology does come at a cost and the hospital that employs such technology is the one incurring those cost.

Not to mention the multitude and mounds of paperwork requirements that a health care provider needs to supply an insurer, all regulated by none other than the government. Or insure coverage requirements (I am not talking about the heart-tugging preexisting condition argument here) that force insurers to cover a certain limit...effectively a price floor in economic terms.

Tell me, when the government steps in and decides what is best for the people, give me one instances where it A: does not cost the tax payer more money than originally proposed.
B: does not impose restrictions and cost prohibitive measures that quiet competition
C: does not dictate what is best for an individual through taxes, regulations, or mandates
D: creates a hostile playing field for private individuals to engage in free-market practices
E: eventually lead to the prospect of bankruptcy or insolvency
F: fights tooth and nail to maintain the monopoly created via ill-gotten legislation upon the private matters of individual citizens where no authority has ever been given.

There is a difference between sound regulation of practices and regulation that serves only one purpose....tapping into the revenue stream of industries that the Government has deemed acceptable to do so.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Jophiel
 


Show me the proof that "more than half of the U.S" wants this law undone.

I've heard quite the contrary.



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Polls are polls. Both sides will tout polls that are conducive to their argument. In my opinion the real question is does a government, such as ours, have the authority to force its citizens to purchase or enter into a contract without fear of reprisal or fine.

My best guess is no.

Arguments pertaining to the constitutionality of the entire bill are and will be fruitless. It doesn't mean that is is not bad law and does not increase coverage nor decrease the cost of health care. Which again, both sides have presented their data and arguments pro/con that very issue.

I personally discount the CBO analysis because they are not accounting for possible change in individual behavior that most likely will occur once new price controls and taxes are imposed to cover the costs of the bill.

Really there is no definitive proof. But I do believe there is a profound understanding that government itself, maintains no rights to govern how I choose to maintain my health.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join