In its first 11 days, the 112th Congress has brought 28 separate bills to the floor to repeal "Obamacare":
H.R. 105 Dan Burton (R-IN) To repeal the Patient Protection Act & enact incentives tto buy health insurance.
H.R. 118 John Fleming (R-LA) To permit a state to elect not to have an American Health Care Exchange.
H.R. 119 John Fleming (R-LA) To prohibit hiring of irs agent to implement or enforce health insurance reform.
H.R. 127 John Graves (R-GA) To de-authorize funding of Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 141 Steve King (R-IA) To repeal the Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 145 Connie Mack (R-FL) To repeal the Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 154 Ted Poe (R-TX) To prohibit any federal funds to be used to enforce Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 171 Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
H.R. 2 Eric Cantor (R-VA) Repeal of Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 38 John Fleming (R-LA) Rescind funds authorized for Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 9 David Drier (R-CA) Requires Committees to look into Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 26 David Drier (R-CA) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 215 Don Young (R-AK) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 19 John Carter (R-TX) Disapprove rules on MLR in Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 299 John Carter (R-TX) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 358 Joe Pitts (R-PA) Remove abortion funding from Patient Protection Act (there is none)
H.R. 360 Michael Burgess (R-TX) Amend Patient Protection Act to include President in Health Care Exchanges.
H.R. 364 Tom Latham (R-IA) To Repeal Patient Protection Act
H.R. 371 Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) Repeal Title I of Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 5 Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 397 Wally Herger (R-CA) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 429 Darrell Issa (R-CA) Repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 452 Phil Roe (R-TN) A bill to repeal Patient Protection Act.
H.R. 450 Dave Reichert (R-WA) A bill to repeal Patient Protection Act.
S. 19 Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Repeal Health Mandate & therefore repeal patient protections.
S. 17 Orrin Hatch (R-UT) Repeal Tax on Medical Devices
S. 16 David Vitter (R-LA) Repeal Patient Protection Act
S. 196 Chuck Grassley (R-IA) A bill to to provide congressional staff gets to participate in Exchange.
S. 192 Jim DeMint (R-SC) A bill to repeal health care.
I understand why this is the case – every spotlight hungry Teabagger (or in Hatch's case, someone trying to ward off a Teabagger challenge) feels obligated to not only support the repeal but to propose his very own bill. Sure, anyone can cosponsor Eric Cantor's bill, but a real conservative hero would propose his own.
Beyond that I understand the cat-and-mouse game that goes on during divided government, as the Congress passes bills it knows the president will veto in the hopes that the veto can be used against him during the next election. This usually requires devising an Orwellian and misleading title, e.g. the Stop Terrorists with AIDS From Raping Your Daughter Act, so that future "Can you believe Obama vetoed this? My god! What an animal!" rage can be more easily provoked. I get it.
That said, I am not sure what the GOP thinks it is going to gain from this strategy of barraging the House floor with bills that haven't the slightest chance of becoming law. Let's be honest: the odds of any of these laws A) making it out of the Senate and B) getting the President's signature to euthanize his sole major legislative accomplishment (at least in his view) are effectively nil. I'm sure they realize that. So what are they getting out of this?
Everybody who flies into a rage at the mere mention of the health care law is already voting against Obama in 2012. Can they somehow vote more against him if Mitch McConnell reminds them that he or Harry Reid torpedoed an effort to repeal it? Will anyone on the planet remember a single one of these bills in an election 22 months from now? For the average Teabagger it is unlikely that they can even keep organized the dozens of reasons that Obama is the antichrist. Vetoing this garbage – pretend for a minute that the Senate passes it – doesn't even appear to give the GOP a useful talking point. Anyone who would care about this is already highly motivated to turn out in 2012 to oppose Obama.
"We fulfilled our campaign promise to veto it, but he wouldn't let us" does not seem like a phrase that will drive undecided voters toward the GOP or motivate would-be abstainers to get out and vote. As far as anti-Obama talking points go it's about as exciting as tap water and will hardly stand out. In every sense of the phrase this is an enormous waste of time. As the gap between the 2008 and 2010 elections proved, a lot can change in two years. If the Republicans mistakenly believe that all they need to do is keep repeating the 2010 talking points to waltz into office in 2012 they are setting themselves up for quite the disappointment. An objective adviser might recommend that the House GOP, you know, propose something on which they can hang their hats as a Big Legislative Accomplishment before the end of the year. If their big accomplishment is to cut 0.25% from the budget and to pass a bunch of shit that died in the Senate, the odds of repeating their 2010 performance would seem to be poor.
John says:
It will, however, give the GOP's for-profit propaganda arm (you know who) a large stable of 'outrage-of-the-day' segments to whip out to keep the rabidly anti-Obama crowd interested and the ratings up, which will then help fund future GOP campaigns (as we already know from the donation incident).
Nowadays, legislation is just one more form of fundraising, once you strip away enough of the abstraction layers. It's the only rational explanation for the same bill being filed over and over and over again — because it sure as hell doesn't make any sense given the way the US Legislative Branch is supposed to work.
Special Bonus Round! Check out this cute one:
"H.R. 360 Michael Burgess (R-TX) Amend Patient Protection Act to include President in Health Care Exchanges."
Notice it says President, but makes no mention of Congress. Still don't have the balls to sweat it out with the peasants, I see.
John from CT says:
The GOP is convinced that our government is broken. And as such they are doing their gawd-damn best to prove that they are correct. By filling the pipe with such non-starters such are trying to repeal health care, they won't have to deal with major issues (employment, energy policy, fiscal policy, and other grown-up stuff) that could show them as the shallow one-trick pony that they truly are. If they had any sack whatsoever, they should strip themselves of their gov'm'nt health care. Oh wait, that's different.
PhoenixRising says:
The strategy is to fling a quantity of monkey feces to create a cloud over the real, practical accomplishments of the sitting president.
The goal is to drive down voter turnout. It's just that simple, as unsatisfying as that may be to people who believe that voting is an unqualified good.
RT Butte says:
Just keep flinging these incredibly stupid bills at Obama's desk, eventually one will sneak past and then BAM! Republicans have saved everyone from marginally better access to health insurance.
Ben says:
Short answer: blue dog Democrats.
Long answer: by getting the blue dogs to vote in favor of Obamacare time and time and time again, it prevents them from saying "Oh well I voted for it in the past but then I listened to the 2010 mandate and I agree it's a poor bill".
Also, to extend the fundraising point above, it prevents blue dogs from doing a kind of two-step with potential donors. "Hey listen I know I voted for Obamacare but give me some money and I'll help gut this thing from the inside". It becomes harder to tell that story if you're constantly voting in favor of the thing you say you'll work against.
Joe Bauers says:
Reminds me of zombies. Just a huge zombie horde, stacked a hundred deep, moaning gibberish and waving copies of the Constitution that they don't understand, beating at the door, trying to get in to eat our braaaaaiiins. They never tire and they never go away and they never, ever shut up. Stupid, yet dangerous.
Look at Michelle Bachmann's crazy smile and see if it's easier to imagine her A) making a positive contribution to helpful legislation that could ever pass Congress, or B) gnawing on a bloody human shinbone.
Mickey says:
Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR:
Omnibus Appropriations, Special Education, Global AIDS Initiative, Job Training, Unemployment Benefits, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations, U.S.-Singapore Trade, U.S.-Chile Trade, Supplemental Spending for Iraq & Afghanistan, Flood Insurance Reauthorization , Prescription Drug Benefit, Child Nutrition Programs, Surface Transportation, Job Training and Worker Services, Agriculture Appropriations, Foreign Aid, Debt Limit Increase, Fiscal 2005 Omnibus Appropriations, Vocational/Technical Training, Supplemental Appropriations, UN
HoosierPoli says:
The GOP is great at complaining and moaning and obstructing, but they're still incapable of actually doing anything. It's amazing that they actually LOST power by winning a huge electoral victory, because now they still can't do anything AND they're actually going to be blamed for it this time around.
Keifus says:
Well, this, along with yesterday's court opinion is helping to keep the anti-health bill effort in the news cycle. The dutiful scolding of Fox and Friends this morning was broken up only by breaks for the sponsors to urge us to join their health protection rackets or buy their patent medicines.
Anonymouse says:
@Joe Bauer: zombies? PERFECT! I think you've captured their strategy (and their intelligence).
Fifth Dentist says:
Remember Obama's early days when the fRight wing criticized him for wasting his time on fluff* instead of focusing on the economy like a frickin' laser beam?
* Fluff included giving attention to foreign policy (aka "apologizing for 'Murkah").
Dennis SGMM says:
You're forgetting that these people don't live in the same world that we do. What we see as a futile exercise in grandstanding they see as a fight for the rights of the Murkin people. They've already skipped past the fact that the mandate was first proposed by the Republicans as an alternative to the Clinton health care initiative back in the Nineties, forget the fact that putative presidential candidate Mitt Romney signed a similar mandate into law when he was Massachusetts' governor – that doesn't count anymore. The mantra in '12 will be "We tried to repeal the Job Killing Health Care Bill and bring back full employment, but the Democratic Senate wouldn't let us! Give us the Senate and we'll really get things done!"
It just might work, particularly if unemployment is still high in '12. We're talking about an electorate that re-elected "W" and that gave back the House to the GOP only two years after that party crashed the economy.
Shane says:
If you want to see a real waste of legislative time, it is hard to beat this:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bills/HB1237P.pdf
The S.D. legislature has actually introduced a bill to mandate everyone over 21 to purchase a firearm to provide for their own self defense. Apparently, they are claiming that it is an attempt at irony to mock the healthcare bill, though I imagine there are a few that would actually allow it to pass.
I'm glad to see that they are interested in truly representing the needs of their constituents.
Georgia Jeff says:
"Shadows and dust!" I agree with Eds point…the GOP is pole valuting over mouse turds abuot health care. But let there be absolutely no bullshit feigning any semblance of objectivity in this bunch of posts. It is a disappointment to see such intelligent people be so completely bigotted and biased. Fuck all of this chatter about Dems/Repubs. The failure for this group of otherwise intelligent people to recognize Judge Vison's ruling that the bill is unconstitutional, makes me want to buy some of what you're smoking. The political wranglings are shadows and dust. The ethics of the bill are reprehensible. The United States government, under ANY party, should not be allowed to force anyone to buy anything at the point of a gun, simply for being alive and being a U.S. citizen. Shame on you all.
Shane says:
Georgia Jeff: The unconstitutionality of such a provision is not as clear as you think. The founders certainly didn't see a mandate for private citizens to purchase health insurance as a contradiction to the Constitution, which you know, they wrote.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/
While this early regulation was not universally applied, it isn't that different in substance or motivation from what is being debated now.
Dennis SGMM says:
@Georgia Jeff: you do realize that fourteen federal judges have dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the HCA bill and that another two have upheld it, don't you? Judge Vinson is clearly outside of the judicial mainstream.
bb in GA says:
Georgia Jeff:
Amen brother till the last sentence.
Perhaps a pendantic POS am I, but "shame" is often used as some kind of shamanic incantation against those who have reasoned and heartfelt differences.
If a person doesn't share my first principles (would that be ontology?) how can I shake my ju-ju stick at them and hiss "shame," "shame on you."
For instance, a bunch of Leftists do not share my belief in Judeo -Christian morality. When they advocate for and practice things that contravene those principles, it seems kind of pointless to call "shame" on them.
Sorry for Le Rant (in honor of JF Kerry, Sen)
//bb
bb in GA says:
pedantic, yes I am…
//bb
Georgia Jeff says:
And by the way Ed…My Congressman is TOM Graves not John Graves. 9th Congressional District, Georgia. HR 127
Southern Beale says:
If only they had used all of this time, energy & resources for good instead of evil.
Southern Beale says:
BTW I see lots of red states on the list above …
Georgia Jeff says:
Ok bb. I went over the top on that 'shame' business. I'll try to keep that in check. Enough shame to go around I guess.
Shane: I know that it is not so clear cut. Commerce Clause vs. Limited Federal power. But I am basing a lot of my opinion on some pretty bright legal minds who indicate that the Commerce Clause was fairly narrow until around the time when the 'New Deal' ran amok with alot of things in the Constitution in order to 'save' us all. I think an honest and thoughtful person recognizes the expansion of federal incursion into private life. (If a person favors it, then they should have the character to admit it. More government is better than less.) And then of course, the Commerce clause would probably be the fair haired child of the corporate evil that is so often chastised here. Big money and the ruling class would logically favor the Commerce Clause and oppose limits to 'the best government money can buy', a quote I take from this group.
And Dennis: Accepting that this statement may weaken my own position, I would wager the 14 federal judges are appointees with liberal bias. So may be Judge Vinson to the conservative bent. I am simply stating my own position. I applaud Judge Vinson for his ruling.
And he really showed Obama for the lying Machiavellian reptile that he is when he quoted then Senator Obama, in his ruling, for stating that it was wrong to mandate health care (a republican idea), in which case we should mandate that the homeless shuold be required to purchase a house.
bb in GA says:
I think Mr. Ungar pointed out in his article that to pursue work in the private maritime business as a sailor, you had to pay the health care tax (1%) in 1798.
The parallel I see is to auto liability insurance. If you want to drive on the public highways we have legislated that driving is a licensed privilege of the State and in most places you are required to buy liability insurance.
Driving and working as a merchant mariner (in 1798) are voluntary actions of the citizen.
Last time I checked, breathing was an involuntary act of the citizen. The health care act of today requires you to buy something because you exist, not that you are employed somewhere.
//bb
Georgia Jeff says:
Now my advice for those who die,
Declare the pennies on your eyes,
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
Southern Beale says:
But I still don't see how forcing people to buy private insurance from a private company is constitutional UNLESS you offer a "public" option … that's my issue. Being forced to buy a product from a private, for-profit corporation is the very definition of fascism. The government needs to offer its own public plan to make it legal in my mind.
But I'm no legal scholar …
Ben says:
Here's something I don't get, maybe bb and Georgia Jeff can help me out:
Would it be unconstitutional to just change the tax code to include a health care tax which one would be exempt from if one has health insurance? If so, why? And if not, how is this different than the individual mandate in the ACA?
Andrew says:
No one is required to purchase health insurance even with the individual mandate. Assuming you don't fall under one of the many exemptions of the mandate, you can choose to not get health insurance and pay the greater of $695 or 2.5% of your income in taxes (when the penalty is fully phased-in in 2016.) There are no criminal penalties for not buying health insurance, just additional tax liabilities.
In addition, there are many exemptions to the individual mandate: "financial
hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months,
undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option
exceeds 8% of an individual
Southern Beale says:
Ben:
Would it be unconstitutional to just change the tax code to include a health care tax which one would be exempt from if one has health insurance? If so, why? And if not, how is this different than the individual mandate in the ACA?
That's a damn good question. I would assume the monies from your fictional health care tax would be used to provide some kind of public care — beef up Medicaid and Medicare, say, or provide some kind of public insurance program. So in that regard, it's the "public" option I referred to in my comment. And going back to what I said, if there is a public option then a private mandate is more legally palatable in my inexpert opinion.
Southern Beale says:
you can choose to not get health insurance and pay the greater of $695 or 2.5% of your income in taxes (when the penalty is fully phased-in in 2016.)
Oh right I forgot about that. So does that money go to healthcare programs? Medicaid and Medicare? It's sort of the same as what Ben was talking about….
Andrew says:
Sorry, the rest of my comment was cut off. WordPress didn't seem to like the fancy apostrophe I copied from a PDF.
The exemptions are: "financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual's income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples)." (from the first page of http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/finalhcr.pdf).
It seems to me that a lot of people are not aware of what the individual mandate actually is, but from the above, it seems to me that it was carefully crafted to not place an undue burden on anyone.
bb in GA says:
@Ben
Don't we have what you describe for employers per the new bill?
It is my understanding that if an employer (subject to some min number of employees) does not provide health insurance, s/he must pay a fine (read tax) for this deficiency.
It appears that the fine (tax) is, in most cases, less than the insurance premium (by design IMO) to drive the number of uninsured as high as possible as a consequence of a rational economic decision on the part of employers.
Said uninsured would naturally fall into the waiting arms of a government option at some point in the future.
I don't like this, but I don't know that it is un-Constitutional
But, to answer your direct question…The power to Tax by the Congress has been upheld many times (too lazy for cites here).
Yes, I think a direct tax could be levied (at least in theory) to pay for this program, just like so many others.
If we want to cover the 30 – ? million uninsured, let's do it some other way than erecting this 2300 page monstrosity that will eventuate in hundreds of commissions, committees, and 100,000 pages of new federal regs.
I am convinced that we still don't know all the land mines that are hiding in there. But that's just paranoid ol' me….
//bb
John says:
@bb and Jeff:
I believe you two understand that it is entirely possible to be on the political left without supporting a federal mandate to purchase private insurance.
I oppose the idea of it, but to my understanding it was the 'alternative' (in the loosest possible sense) to a true public option, which Republicans and some Democrats simply refused to get behind. This despite a very clear constitutional mandate to 'promote the general welfare'. I would wholeheartedly support stripping the mandate out of the bill, but most opposition is to repeal the bill entirely, which I consider to be unconscionable considering the reforms it enacts that prevent insurance companies from leaving sick citizens to their fate in the name of profit. Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive, testified before congress that this is *precisely* their business model, and his testimony is readily available (I would link to the senate.gov archive, but they seem to have moved or purged the file. Google still shows it as the first result under "Wendell Potter testimony"):
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/potter_testimony.html
Mark says:
Can anyone give me the contact information for Ed, the guy who does this blog?
Appreciate it. Thanks.
Matt says:
@bb and Jeff: you can claim that making insurance "involuntary" is terrible right after you agree that making the provision of critical care *equally* involuntary is just as bad. Otherwise, you're just trying to push risk onto the hospitals and care providers…
Andrew says:
Oh right I forgot about that. So does that money go to healthcare programs? Medicaid and Medicare? It's sort of the same as what Ben was talking about….
Good question. The PDF I linked didn't specify, but I read elsewhere that it's just an additional income tax.
Georgia Jeff says:
To Ben: The IRS indicates that of the 330 odd million Americans that only 140 million file income tax returns. Of that group, only roughly 47% actually pay any taxes…
Georgia Jeff says:
John: I am not deterred or encouraged by 'left' or 'right' orientation. I come to this blog specifically to keep from getting a completely 'neando-con' view of issues. Fox sucks as bad as CNN as bad as Al Jazeera.
I honestly do not think that the bill in question even addresses the real issue. The issue, to me, is to provide health care for the individuals in our society who are truly vulnerable by no choice of their own. But I do not think the solution is to use the force of government to reduce the standard of living of others in order to provide that service.
In a situation that requires the most efficient use of resources, the government has proven time and time again that it is the worst at being efficient, with the possible exception of genocide.
I openly admit that I do not have a good solution, but I have also lived long enough to know that government, almost without exception, has failed miserably at advancing the human condition. Humankind has historically been advanced more ofen by individuals and groups who have gone against the grain with ideas that were considered outrageous and sacreledge in their time.
What if we just pooled all human and technical resources, globally, to find cures for the greatest scourges. Like Bill Gates is trying to do with malaria. Its radical I know, but Bill Gates and the Chinese financiers are MUCH better positioned to finance the scope of heath costs than I can in my annual income taxes.
And how wold they react to having their resources taken by force. About like I do…
Ben says:
@ Jeff and BB:
Those comments aren't really responsive to the point I was making. You both were in agreement about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate of the ACA. I offered a hypothetical scenario and asked what it's relation was to the mandate. It's my position that the hypothetical scenario (assessing a tax and offering exemption from the tax if one has health insurance) which is clearly constitutional, is indistinguishable from the mandate. If you can explain why it's not, I'd love to hear it.
And Jeff, if we're talking about the nitty-gritty of actually collecting the tax, the tax would probably be an employee payroll tax a la medicare/medicaid instead of income tax.
bb in GA says:
Ben:
1.) I beleive Taxation is Constitutional (already stated above)
2.) Taxation for Healthcare is a subset of 1.)
3.) If the heart of Rock n Roll is to insure 30E06 people who currently aren't, we do not have to erect a Ginormous Federal Monster to do it.
4.) If we posit a $10K premium (gracious plenty I'll bet) per year per person, that would be $300 billion.
5.) If we assessed that to the roughly 70 million taxpayers Socialist style, that'd be about $4K per year. OK OK too steep for the poor people.
6.) In 2008 the top 1% paid 38% of the income taxes (that would be about 750,000 people) How about those folks pay 38% of $300B or about $115B so they pay about $150K each? Nah, that 's too high as it would result in near confiscation for the lower upper income earners (1% starts at about $380K)
7) How about our 3+ trillion dollar budget, hmmmm, that's 3000 billion. Now 300 billion is 10%. Don't you imagine that we could find some combination of budget cuts and modest tax increases to cover the that 10% ???
Admittedly, this is meat axe surgery, but the original goal is achievable w/o Obama Care.
I submit the original goal was just a socialist Trojan horse.
//bb
//bb
Ike says:
BB. How could Obamacare (which it seems is pretty disagreeable to folks across the political spectrum) be a "socialist Trojan Horse" when it appears that the bulk of it was written by and favors the big private health care, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies? The plan as it is currently being rolled out bears very little resemblance to any kind of socialized medicine program anywhere on earth.
Tricare for all citizens? Single payer? That would be socialized medicine. Obamacare = mandatory enrollment in the present sucky overpriced sub-par system. A regrettable piece of legislation? Annoying job-destroying puppy killing flower wilting poop smelling new bunch of laws? Probably. Slippery slope to socialism? I'm not so sure.
bb in GA says:
@Ike
If you have control of my healthcare, you have control of me.
I retract my horse. How about the term Statist or Statism instead of Socialist?
I'd prefer to take my chances with the evil insurance industry (which I still have some slight chance to win a lawsuit against) than an all powerful government where I have almost no recourse.
//bb
ts46064 says:
@bb
How is tepid liberalism the same as socialism/statism/tyranny?
"(which I still have some slight chance to win a lawsuit against)"
LOL!
Southern Beale says:
Someone needs to explain how "Obamacare" is control of healthcare? I wish it were! But it's not. You're still doing business with the same private health insurance companies and the same doctors and hospitals. All Obamacare offers is some basic rules of the game. Like: no excluding pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps on insurance policies, allowing kids under 25 to stay on their parents' policies, etc. It's health insurance reform. It's not anything close to resembling "control of healthcare." That's some serious Kool-Aid someone has been drinking.
Now, the VA is government control of healthcare. It's government-run hospitals, government-employed doctors, and is in every sense of the word true socialized medicine. Yet no one on the right ever complains that the VA is socialized medicine, evil and needing to be shut down so the glorious free hand of the market can be in control of our mveterans' healthcare. Why is that?
Major Kong says:
"(which I still have some slight chance to win a lawsuit against)"
Tort reform!
Frivolous lawsuits!
Activist judges!
Dave says:
That said, I am not sure what the GOP thinks it is going to gain from this strategy of barraging the House floor with bills that haven't the slightest chance of becoming law.
They wish to reassure you that they are retards, and that they still deserve to be beaten with baseball bats. They're aching for it, can't you tell?
Goytotheworld says:
@Southern Beale
Two things come to mind.
1. Anything that revolves around the government even daring to tell you how to do something is socialist. OSHA is a socialist institution that only exists to undercut and destroy the profit margin of companies, regardless of safety implementations that have saved thousands of lives and limbs which means less reduction of productivity, and also less money being paid for injured workers and lawsuits for improper safety precautions. Fancy that, the government giving rules that could save you money, and also keeps your employees healthy and working at full capacity.
Why this doesn't apply to the VA? Because whoever votes to do anything to cut funding or impair the VA will pretty much be politically fucked for life and won't even be able to hold the office of PTA treasurer.
2. The ignorance of the political and economic principals behind socialism, communism, capitalism, and the mixed systems. You hate socialism? What kind? Pure socialism, socialistic communism, socialist with a heavy dose of capitalism, sorry to say but the whole "Socialistic nazi commie pinko commie socialism" crap runs really thin when people don't even bother to try to understand and describe what they find so evil.
I don't know what the hell BB is going on about here, the whole socialist trojan horse thing is a load of crap. We've had socialistic ideology and practices for decades. What does he think social security, roads, highways, interstates, parks, public museums, public grants for college students, grants for research, public education, tap water, sewage, do I really need to keep going on? Maybe if people would just start cracking open a book and just try to understand the meaning of socialism and how it is actually applied to things, maybe, just maybe we would have real health care reform and not this basic insurance reform that prevents companies from cutting you loose just because your illness requires more than a penicillin shot to cure.
It amazes me how people are fine with the insurance companies being able to all but take dad out back behind the wood shed with a shotgun and just end him like Ol' yeller because he has Melanoma. That's just good old fashioned Mom and Pop capitalism, God bless Small Town Down Town.
However, if the government even dares to suggest that because dad has in fact paid for his insurance in full, the insurance company doesn't have the right to let him die because he can't afford the 50K needed for the treatments and hospitalizations, and the insurance company just doesn't feel like they should be the ones to pay for it even though that's what he's been paying them to do for the past twenty years, the slim possibility that he might have a major illness that he would never be able to afford on his own and he might need some help to cover it. This is socialism and a threat against God, Country and Cinnamon Sugar Apple Pie.
Jesus Christ have mercy, what the hell is wrong with some of you that you seriously think this is perfectly fine?
Goytotheworld says:
Aw damnit, let me fix something. It should read more like this:
You hate socialism? What kind? Pure socialism, socialist with a heavy dose of capitalism, light socialism with a heavy emphasis on capitalism?
I didn't double check that part. I apologize for that mistake.
A says:
I've thought about this for close to 24 hours…
Isn't the point here that 27 elected individuals instead of signing onto the original (We are against anything that Obama wants) bill, did not use their time wisely/effectively by propsing a bill that could create oh I don't know – JOBS?
27 people who have good (very good) wages/benefits/heathcare/retirement – wasted a lot of time repeating what the first guy did…
Arslan Amirkhanov says:
Pretending to care about their promises to constituents is pretty high priority for these people. Remember that they have fired up these masses, and among them are those who might be willing to "punish" any traitors in the ranks. In essence, they are playing with fire.
bb in GA says:
Goy:
You are absolutely right and I retracted my horse.
Socialism in all its forms is wonderful. Hosannah and Hallelujah.
Thanks for roads, flush commodes, and public schools….well 2 out of 3.
//bb
Ike says:
BB,
You're right. It would be far better if 25% of the population was illiterate and only the wealthy and privileged were able to get a good education. Then we wouldn't have to import our manual labor workforce any more. So many problems would be solved by abolishing public schools rather than just taking the pansy route and reforming them.
Isaac
eau says:
This may be a silly suggestion.
Is it at all possible that the Repubs. don't hate this healthcare reform half as much as they would like FOXwatchers to believe? That their corporate overlords have passed down word that "Hey, we can live with this?". That they no longer WANT to repeal the thing?
kate says:
I called my newly elected Repug senator's office to let him know that I was not in favor of repeal. His very sweet employee told me not to worry that he was voting for repeal. I informed her that the parents of sick children that could then be denied hc would not be happy as well as parents of new college grads that don't have jobs or insurance yet. She says "oh my daughter needs to be on my plan, I am sure he isn't voting against that part!" They have no idea what repeal will mean.
bb in GA says:
Ike:
I did not call for the abolishment of anything Mr Wordstuffer, I am merely not thankful for it in its present state.
But, that said, do you really think you are up for reformation and what that would mean for the precious NEA and AFT?
//bb