Healthcare Reform Repeal Vote Scheduled

2/3 vote overrides a Presidential veto. There are many Democrats looking to switch their votes this time around. Don't forget this only passed by a margin of 4 people.

60% of Americans still want this repealed.

And 99% of Americans can't tell you what it includes, how much it helps them, and the consequences of a repeal.

Grandstanding IMO.

2/3 vote overrides a Presidential veto. There are many Democrats looking to switch their votes this time around. Don't forget this only passed by a margin of 4 people.

60% of Americans still want this repealed.

There are also some looking to switch from a yes to a no. Two are Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.). I was wrong on DADT being passed in the lame duck as I thought there would be an omnibus showdown with DeMint. I don't see the repeal happening, BUT I do see this as an opportunity for the House GOP to be on the record for repeal just like the House Dems were able to vote against the tax breaks continuing for those over $1 million. Politics as usual.

I am waiting to see what REAL reform will look like when the grown-ups gather around the table and start looking at the individual pieces. I would push for keeping pre-existing conditions and adding medical malpractice while getting rid of the 1099 reporting requirements, etc. My list goes on and on but I think all of our lists on Sowal go on and on...

FYI - some of the provisions of this "evil" bill that will go into effect this year:

-Reduced prices on both name brand and generic prescription meds for seniors. Average savings to the typical Medicare user - $700.

-Freezing the income brackets so wealthy Medicare users pay higher premiums over time. (Prior it had an inflation index to determine categories).

-Increased payments to primary care doctors - 10% more for those whose practice is 60% or more primary care. General surgeons may also be eligible.

-Free preventative health services like vaccinations, cancer screenings, and an annual (healthy person/scheduled) exam for Medicare users.

-Restrictions on pre-tax deductions and penalties for those who use their HSAs improperly.

-Restaurants with more than 20 locations or vending machines with more than 20 units must provide nutrition information.

FYI - some of the provisions of this "evil" bill that will go into effect this year:

-Reduced prices on both name brand and generic prescription meds for seniors. Average savings to the typical Medicare user - $700.

-Freezing the income brackets so wealthy Medicare users pay higher premiums over time. (Prior it had an inflation index to determine categories).

-Increased payments to primary care doctors - 10% more for those whose practice is 60% or more primary care. General surgeons may also be eligible.

-Free preventative health services like vaccinations, cancer screenings, and an annual (healthy person/scheduled) exam for Medicare users.

-Restrictions on pre-tax deductions and penalties for those who use their HSAs improperly.

-Restaurants with more than 20 locations or vending machines with more than 20 units must provide nutrition information.

"Free"?

"Free"?

Yes, they cost Medicare users $0 out of pocket (as opposed to requiring a co-pay etc).

"Free"?

I know where you are going with this question, and you are correct, but the way I see it, 30 tax dollars spent preventing a six figure hospitalization is smart medicine. You can use the term conservative, if you like.

Not providing preventative services (whether a govt or private insurer) is, a "conservative" person might say, "penny wise and pound foolish."

Not providing preventative services (whether a govt or private insurer) is, a "conservative" person might say, "penny wise and pound foolish."

It is also intended as an inducement for them to use their regular doctor for a scheduled visit instead of an urgent care or ER - where they DO have to pay some out of pocket costs.

Frankly, aside from the "making everyone buy health insurance" (which I do not support fully, but cannot see any other way to address some issues) standpoint, this bill has a lot of really good stuff in it.

My point was one, none of this "free stuff" is actually free. Secondly "free" usually leads to over consumption. Out of the entire list more "free" drugs (the expansion of the already broken prescription drug benefit program) is probably the most egregious - drug companies are far better at finagling increased drug costs from politicians and their bottomless pit of funding than they are in convincing the general public the drugs are worth it.

The whole thing is designed to pipe money out of future generations into modern day corporate coffers.

My point was one, none of this "free stuff" is actually free. Secondly "free" usually leads to over consumption. Out of the entire list more "free" drugs (the expansion of the already broken prescription drug benefit program) is probably the most egregious - drug companies are far better at finagling increased drug costs from politicians and their bottomless pit of funding than they are in convincing the general public the drugs are worth it.

The whole thing is designed to pipe money out of future generations into modern day corporate coffers.

Just imagine how the corporations would have prospered if the Republicans actually chose to participate in the legislative crafting!:roll:

My point was one, none of this "free stuff" is actually free. Secondly "free" usually leads to over consumption. Out of the entire list more "free" drugs (the expansion of the already broken prescription drug benefit program) is probably the most egregious - drug companies are far better at finagling increased drug costs from politicians and their bottomless pit of funding than they are in convincing the general public the drugs are worth it.

The whole thing is designed to pipe money out of future generations into modern day corporate coffers.

Over-consumption of scheduled preventative care? How exactly does that happen? Annual visit - max 1 per year. Same for vaccines and screenings - there are minimum time frames between.

Sorry, but incentives for preventative care like annual visits, immunizations, and cancer screenings HELP bring costs down.

Weren't you railing about ER visit costs and concerned about how increased enrollment was going to affect Florida's budget?

This bill has many provisions to fix or ameliorate that situation.

Just imagine how the corporations would have prospered if the Republicans actually chose to participate in the legislative crafting!:roll:

It doesn't make any difference which party is involved anymore. Everything Washington D.C. does is either poorly design, corrupt, or flat out busted from the very start. It's a failed system.

It doesn't make any difference which party is involved anymore. Everything Washington D.C. does is either poorly design, corrupt, or flat out busted from the very start. It's a failed system.

Now, now. You'll feel better after your colonoscopy:wave:

Anything that decouples the IRS from any aspect of my direct healthcare works for me.

Just imagine how the corporations would have prospered if the Republicans actually chose to participate in the legislative crafting!:roll:

Don't let anybody kid you, the Dems are every bit as much in the pockets of big business (plus big labor) as the GOP.

And of course, both sides are equally opposed to changing the votes for money/power status quo.

This is pure grandstanding on the part of the House because they don't have the votes to make it work in the Senate. (They'd probably actually have to have a super-majority in the Senate to even get it to a vote because I suspect it will be fillibustered there otherwise)

Speaking of "not free": A preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office out this morning shows the Republicans' bill to repeal health care would add $230 billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12040/01-06-PPACA_Repeal.pdf

And as for the vote...

Breaking News
-------------------------------------------------

The House on Friday cleared a key procedural hurdle in repealing the landmark health care law, voting 236-181 largely along party lines to move ahead to next week's final vote on repeal.