Mikeystyle
(131 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-02-11 10:27 AM
Original message |
What the Senate Dems should do on GOPs repealing healthcare effort |
|
The Republicans have introduced a bill in the Senate to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act. Democrats should insert an ammendment to the bill requiring that anyone who votes for it has to give up their "government run" healthcare benefits that they receive as members of Congress, along with their access to "government run" congressional pension, Medicare and Social Security.
|
rfranklin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-02-11 10:31 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I don't think the Republican majority in the House would allow that... |
|
but it would be fun to see. On the other hand, they have no problem with being hypocrites. They can rationalize anything they do without shame.
|
AndyTiedye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-02-11 10:33 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Looks Like the Supreme Court Will Do the Repiggies Dirty Work For Them |
|
They have got the lower-court ruling they were waiting for, now it goes to the Supreme Court and you know what will happen there. :(
And health care reform dies for another 20 years or so.
|
denverbill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-02-11 10:35 AM
Response to Original message |
3. No, they should add an amendment to replace it with'Medicare for All' |
|
Then Republicans would all have to vote against repealing 'Obamacare' and piss off the teabaggers.
|
vi5
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-02-11 10:47 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Won't get to the floor without 60, right? |
|
That's the rule, right? And there's just no way around it or to force a vote without 60 votes. Right?
|
Swede Atlanta
(906 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-02-11 10:54 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Will be interesting.................. |
|
I don't believe any of the negative lower court rulings have issued temporary injunctions staying implementation or enforcement of the law.
The FL ruling will come first to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta which is a very conservative court. I am hoping the administration will argue that the mandate is constitutional in line with requirements to pay into Social Security and Medicare where a taxpayer is in essence purchasing into a future retirement fund. I don't see where the difference should rest on whether this is purchased from a government program or a private one. At a minimum they should argue that the mandate is severable and that the rest of the law is constitutional.
If this goes up to the Supreme Court and they strike the entire thing down there will be no reform until health care costs finally nail the coffin in America's future and we sink to a has been nation. By my predictions that will happen within 10-15 years if we don't address the health care crisis.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Jul 29th 2025, 11:54 PM
Response to Original message |