Could the GOP be doing a redo?

[Oerets]

If the Supreme Court overturns the ACA and thus eliminates the mandate. How will the GOP then pay for the benefits of the ACA that people already are getting use to having? Can't have your cake and eat it too!

From article....
"But now the GOP has a problem. In the two years since the law passed, several of its parts have become very popular with voters — among them, parents' ability to keep kids on their health plans until age 26 and a ban on denying insurance because of pre-existing conditions."


http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634...ealth-care-law




Barney

[finnbow]

The GOP House won't know whether to sh!t or go blind if they actually have to craft a meaningful and effective piece of legislation (rather than just posturing and obstructing).

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The GOP House won't know whether to sh!t or go blind if they actually have to craft a meaningful and effective piece of legislation (rather than just posturing and obstructing).

I think if push come to shove the House will make a few limited changes and call a victory with the ACA. Something they can spoon feed the faithful as their idea.



Barney

[Rex E.]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I think if push come to shove the House will make a few limited changes and call a victory with the ACA. Something they can spoon feed the faithful as their idea.



Barney

If it came from Romney, as many like to point out, then wouldn't they be correct?

[Oerets]

Romney plan in MA was never denied as a reference for the ACA. It was the plan the President thought could pass. Not really what the Democrats wanted but ended up settling on. Now Romney's big ideal is to remove the employers from offering healthcare to their employees. Putting a increase burden on the middle class.



Barney

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Romney plan in MA was never denied as a reference for the ACA. It was the plan the President thought could pass. Not really what the Democrats wanted but ended up settling on. Now Romney's big ideal is to remove the employers from offering healthcare to their employees. Putting a increase burden on the middle class.



Barney

Of course. He has to render tribute to his buddies.

Personally, I believe employers shouldn't of have any influence over anyones healthcare. They never should have had that to begin with. It's just one more thing for them to hold over your head. And under a single payer system this is what we would have. Problem is, I'm pretty sure single payer isn't what the corporate pig has in mind. Screwing this nations workers is.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The GOP House won't know whether to sh!t or go blind if they actually have to craft a meaningful and effective piece of legislation (rather than just posturing and obstructing).

Are you positing that the current reform bill in question meets this criteria?



Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Are you positing that the current reform bill in question meets this criteria?



Pete

It is certainly meaningful, otherwise there wouldn't be some much sturm and drang from its opponents. As for effective, who knows? I do doubt its effectiveness in lowering the stupendous cost growth of health care, however.

[merrylander]

Single Payer with its 2 - 3% overhead could almost pay for itself by eliminating the 30% overhead of the private health insurance companies.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Single Payer with its 2 - 3% overhead could almost pay for itself by eliminating the 30% overhead of the private health insurance companies.

True but where all the employees go to who now shuffle the ever increasing paperwork and phone calls? Then the poor lobbyist who would be out in the cold we must not forget them. Almost forgot about the CEO's and their millions a year in compensations.



Barney