Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:45 AM ET, 02/17/2011

Two House Republican amendments aim to defund health-care law

By Felicia Sonmez

House lawmakers on Thursday will get their first shot at voting to defund the national health-care overhaul, the latest effort by congressional Republicans to render ineffective President Obama's signature legislative initiative.

Republican Reps. Denny Rehberg (Mont.) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) have both introduced measures that would prohibit federal funds from being spent on the health-care law.

The measures, which have been offered as amendments to the Republican government funding resolution currently on the House floor, are expected to come up for a vote before the day's end.

Every Republican in the House and Senate has already voted to repeal the health care law, but the effort at overturning the entire law stalled earlier this month in the Democratic-controlled upper chamber.

The fate of the health-care overhaul is expected to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, lawmakers have set forth looking for ways to dismantle it. This week's measure funding the federal government through September has provided the House Republicans with their first opportunity to attempt to directly block funding.

The amendment offered by McMorris Rodgers, the number-five Republican in House leadership, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from spending any funds on implementing the law.

A similar amendment by Rehberg, a six-term lawmaker who chairs a House appropriations subcommittee and is running for Senate in 2012, would prevent the Labor and Health and Human Services Departments from using federal funds for implementation.

In a statement Wednesday, Rehberg pledged that Republicans will fight to defund the health-care law "one piece at a time" while continuing to work for a full legislative or judicial repeal.

McMorris Rodgers said in a statement that with her amendment, the country "will move away from an IRS-driven health-care system and back towards a patient-centered system."

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King also proposed a health-care defunding amendment, but his proposal was rebuffed by the House Rules Committee, which said that the proposal would go too far in attempting to "legislate" through amendments to a spending bill. King told reporters Wednesday night that he has been in communication with House Republican leaders and that he believed his amendment would indeed come up for consideration on the House floor sometime on Thursday.

By Felicia Sonmez  | February 17, 2011; 8:45 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House votes to eliminate funding for second F-35 jet engine
Next: House approves Patriot Act extension, sending it to Obama

Comments

.

WHERE ARE THE JOBS, TEATARDS ?!?!

.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 17, 2011 7:02 PM | Report abuse

All of this debate is much ado about nothing.

People need healthcare whether there is a government mandated program or otherwise.

Regardless of the system, there will always be some who can afford more care than they need (the "Rich") and some who can afford less than they need (the "Poor"). The Rich will always be required to fill in the gap for the Poor. Afterall, the costs associated with the health, or lack thereof, of society is ultimately borne by society as a whole.

The real question is how will money be appropriated from the Rich and used to assist the Poor. One option is by paying into a mandated program. Another is paying higher taxes to cover the other social safety nets that would fill those same gaps. Still another is paying more per doctor visit so that hospitals can recoup those costs of serving the Poor, or paying more in insurance premiums or co-pays so that insurance companies can recoup those same costs passed along by the hospitals (let us not be naive in thinking either for-profit hospitals or for-profit insurance companies are going to eat into their profits to cover the aforesaid gap).

Knowing that society ultimately bears the costs, whether direct or indirect, of those of its members that are unhealthy, I, for one, would prefer that people receive the best possible health care. If society must collectively foot the bill for such care, wouldn't we all benefit from such care being available at the lowest possible price? If the current program does not meet that objective, lets work to fix it, rather than dismantle it. If it does meet that objective, what basis is there for complaint? Again, it is a matter of how, as opposed to whether, we collectively pay the bill. Deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives should be the first to say we want the least expensive option; one that provides quality care for a good value. To take any other position is disingenuous, at best.

Posted by: Afewquestions | February 17, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

All of this debate is much ado about nothing.

People need healthcare whether there is a government mandated program or otherwise.

Regardless of the system, there will always be some who can afford more care than they need (the "Rich") and some who can afford less than they need (the "Poor"). The Rich will always be required to fill in the gap for the Poor. Afterall, the costs associated with the health, or lack thereof, of society is ultimately borne by society as a whole.

The real question is how will money be appropriated from the Rich and used to assist the Poor. One option is by paying into a mandated program. Another is paying higher taxes to cover the other social safety nets that would fill those same gaps. Still another is paying more per doctor visit so that hospitals can recoup those costs of serving the Poor, or paying more in insurance premiums or co-pays so that insurance companies can recoup those same costs passed along by the hospitals (let us not be naive in thinking either for-profit hospitals or for-profit insurance companies are going to eat into their profits to cover the aforesaid gap).

Knowing that society ultimately bears the costs, whether direct or indirect, of those of its members that are unhealthy, I, for one, would prefer that people receive the best possible health care. If society must collectively foot the bill for such care, wouldn't we all benefit from such care being available at the lowest possible price? If the current program does not meet that objective, lets work to fix it, rather than dismantle it. If it does meet that objective, what basis is there for complaint? Again, it is a matter of how, as opposed to whether, we collectively pay the bill. Deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives should be the first to say we want the least expensive option; one that provides quality care for a good value. To take any other position is disingenuous, at best.

Posted by: Afewquestions | February 17, 2011 5:50 PM | Report abuse

All of this debate is much ado about nothing.

People need healthcare whether there is a government mandated program or otherwise.

Regardless of the system, there will always be some who can afford more care than they need (the "Rich") and some who can afford less than they need (the "Poor"). The Rich will always be required to fill in the gap for the Poor. Afterall, the costs associated with the health, or lack thereof, of society is ultimately borne by society as a whole.

The real question is how will money be appropriated from the Rich and used to assist the Poor. One option is by paying into a mandated program. Another is paying higher taxes to cover the other social safety nets that would fill those same gaps. Still another is paying more per doctor visit so that hospitals can recoup those costs of serving the Poor, or paying more in insurance premiums or co-pays so that insurance companies can recoup those same costs passed along by the hospitals (let us not be naive in thinking either for-profit hospitals or for-profit insurance companies are going to eat into their profits to cover the aforesaid gap).

Knowing that society ultimately bears the costs, whether direct or indirect, of those of its members that are unhealthy, I, for one, would prefer that people receive the best possible health care. If society must collectively foot the bill for such care, wouldn't we all benefit from such care being available at the lowest possible price? If the current program does not meet that objective, lets work to fix it, rather than dismantle it. If it does meet that objective, what basis is there for complaint? Again, it is a matter of how, as opposed to whether, we collectively pay the bill. Deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives should be the first to say we want the least expensive option; one that provides quality care for a good value. To take any other position is disingenuous, at best.

Posted by: Afewquestions | February 17, 2011 5:48 PM | Report abuse

All of this debate is much ado about nothing.

People need healthcare whether there is a government mandated program or otherwise.

Regardless of the system, there will always be some who can afford more care than they need (the "Rich") and some who can afford less than they need (the "Poor"). The Rich will always be required to fill in the gap for the Poor. Afterall, the costs associated with the health, or lack thereof, of society is ultimately borne by society as a whole.

The real question is how will money be appropriated from the Rich and used to assist the Poor. One option is by paying into a mandated program. Another is paying higher taxes to cover the other social safety nets that would fill those same gaps. Still another is paying more per doctor visit so that hospitals can recoup those costs of serving the Poor, or paying more in insurance premiums or co-pays so that insurance companies can recoup those same costs passed along by the hospitals (let us not be naive in thinking either for-profit hospitals or for-profit insurance companies are going to eat into their profits to cover the aforesaid gap).

Knowing that society ultimately bears the costs, whether direct or indirect, of those of its members that are unhealthy, I, for one, would prefer that people receive the best possible health care. If society must collectively foot the bill for such care, wouldn't we all benefit from such care being available at the lowest possible price? If the current program does not meet that objective, lets work to fix it, rather than dismantle it. If it does meet that objective, what basis is there for complaint? Again, it is a matter of how, as opposed to whether, we collectively pay the bill. Deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives should be the first to say we want the least expensive option; one that provides quality care for a good value. To take any other position is disingenuous, at best.

Posted by: Afewquestions | February 17, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"WHERE ARE THE JOBS, REPUGS ?!?!"

The economy has picked up since the last election.

If it recovers for 2012, you'll have to admit it was removing Democrats from congress that helped the economy.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | February 17, 2011 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are lying hypocrites unless they defund the cushy government health care they get first.

Is bonehead Boenyer giving up his government healthcare? Is McConnell giving up his government healthcare?

That would be a great place to cut spending and if Boehner gets sick then so be it.

Posted by: treefrog2 | February 17, 2011 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Let's deny health care to those who need it, and let the rich pay only a token share of the taxes needed to run an effective and helpful government. Let's get the recession started again, maybe this time getting a full-scale depression. Yea, Republicans!! So be it. Oh, by the way, let's freeze those who cannot afford heating fuel, continue tax subsidies for the oil companies, stop educating our kids, stop doing research. So be it. Yea, Republicans!! What else? Ah. Pollute the environment, shut the national parks, let the infrastructure rot. So be it. So be it.

Posted by: frodot | February 17, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Must be right wing lunatic fringe day out!

Posted by: Citi____Street | February 17, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

LostKenyanIdiot:
"VOTE DEMOCRAT, COZ IT'S EASIER THAN WORKING"

Yeah, because if you happen to lose your job and your health care and you get sick, you should just lay down and die in the street with dignity. Right?

Posted by: presto668 | February 17, 2011 4:27 PM | Report abuse

.

WHERE ARE THE JOBS, REPUGS ?!?!

.

Posted by: DrainYou | February 17, 2011 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"Your "Conversation" with your Doctor is now.."EVIDENCE"!

Your "Doctor" is now an INFORMANT!"

Jeeze, Ecto, that's a conspiracy theory worthy of Beck himself!

How about you have to prove you have insurance by showing an insurance card - just like you do now, and just like you do with auto insurance.

Your tinfoil hat needs adjusting.

Posted by: Pamsm | February 17, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

kitchendragon wrote: "I would propose a law forbidding these expenditures until the question of constitutionality is settled by the USSC"
==================

I say amen to that. Not one dime needs to be spent on this until the Supreme court ruling. It is unconstitutional... and to spend money on it before the leagal case is finished is on the same par as treasion.

Posted by: markandbeth92 | February 17, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

The most puzzling thing I find in this whole debate is the vehement opposition to the individual mandate.

There are lots of names for people that suck resources from public institutions without giving anything back. Freeloaders is one. Leeches are another.

But without a doubt the most consistent policy of the GOP for the last 60 years has been that people should pay their fair share, and that personal responsibility must be enshrined in public policy. In fact, of all the parts of the health care law, this is one that adheres most closely to GOP bedrock principles.

Does anyone opposed to the individual mandate really argue that treating the uninsured doesn't cost the rest of us money in higher premiums? Does anyone oppose the idea of people paying for what they get?

I absolutely think that the individual mandate should be modified to allow exceptions for people who can pay their own medical costs, and are willing to post a substantial bond to that effect. This is similar to the exception for mandatory auto-insurance in most states. You CAN self-insure.

But please, think about it for just a minute. Unless we are willing to toss people out of the ER that are close to death because they can't demonstrate the ability to pay, we have to come up with a mechanism where costs are shared.

Is the idea of forcing people to buy insurance if they CAN afford it, and subsiding those that can't, really that bad a solution?

Is your opposition because of this President, the process, what you have been told, or real?

Posted by: reussere | February 17, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what happens if implementation of the bill is "defunded" but the mandates remain in place on the states? Does that mean the states still have to implement but don't get any federal help in doing so?

This gets interesting. I hear the Gov. of Ga has brought up this point.

Posted by: amelia45 | February 17, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Why not they started defunding the Government with Reagan and have continued since, this is a large part of why we are were we are today.

Posted by: notthatdum | February 17, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

McMorris Rodgers said in a statement that with her amendment, the country "will move away from an IRS-driven health-care system and back towards a patient-centered system."
--------------------------------
We can't "move back towards a patient centered health care". We have never had one. Its always been about the corporate profits. If it actually was patient centered, it would be a non-prof.

Posted by: schnauzer21 | February 17, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I read a bunch of the 500+ amendments to this beast and it made the GOP look like a bunch of lunatics. I'm amazed these people are as stupid as they are.

Posted by: Nymous | February 17, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

To the GOP fricking idiots:
IT'S THE LAW!
SO BE IT!

Posted by: analyst72 | February 17, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I would propose a law forbidding these expenditures until the question of constitutionality is settled by the USSC.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | February 17, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Fact:
The party (GOP) that claims to own "family values" and "Jesus" is the LEAST family oriented AND the least Christ-like of ANY current POLITICAL Organizations (except the KKK and Aryan Nation).

Posted by: lufrank1 | February 17, 2011 1:52 PM | Report abuse

ALL OBAMA HAS TO DO..TO DE FANG THE 'RIGHT"..IS REMOVE THE "MANDATE"!

DONE!

THAT OBAMA REFUSES TO DO THIS..SHOULD TELL EVERYONE..ALLOT!

THE "MANDATE"..IS.."THE DEAL"!

As a Progressive..I WILL NOT OBEY THE "MANDATE"!

Thus I Find Myself..Actually being..FORCED (Ironically..Force..being the Primary Feature Of "HCR")..FORCED to Side with "Republicans" on "HCR"!

I find it amazing that the Obama Apologists..and thus far..even the "Right"..FAILING to realize..that its not about the "10th" Amendment.

THE "MANDATE"..IS ABOUT THE 5TH AMENDMENT!

The "IRS" is already "Selected" as the "Police" for the New Corporate Health Insurance Tax..which is what the "mandate" and thus "HCR" really is.

"HOW?"

Thats the most Important Question.."HOW" Will the "IRS" "DO"..the Following:

1) Determine If An Uninsured Citizen Has Received Health Care?

2) Determine The "Fine" Involved With The "Crime" Of Seeing A Doctor Sans "Corporate Health Insurance Coverage"?

3) What "EVIDENCE" Will Be Used To.."PROVE" Such a "Crime" Has Been Committed?

THESE..are the realities of the "mandate".

The HCR "MANDATE" Will have ONLY one "option" for the "IRS":

They Will "Have To"..Examine Every Single Interaction Between Every Doctor And Every Citizen.

How Else Can they "Discover" if a "patient" has received Treatment "Without Coverage"?

The IRS will then "have To" use..Guess what? YOUR "CONVERSATION WITH YOUR DOCTOR" AS "EVIDENCE" OF THIS.."CRIME"!

I can see it now..above the Entry to every "ER" or Clinic Waiting Room in America:

"ANYTHING YOU SAY TO YOUR DOCTOR..CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU BY THE IRS TO LEVY A FINE FOR 'FAILURE TO PURCHASE' PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INSURANCE!"

The "Forced Sharing" of ALL "Medical records" is for THIS REASON. Well..of course its also to allow "Corporate 3rd parties" of "Carriers" to Profit off of your Medical Records..but..thats another issue. (Banks are ALREADY writing "Legislation" to allow them to "Determine Ability To Repay Debt based On A Health Score thats based Upon Your Medical Records..All they need "Be" is a "Corporate Partner" of the Insurance Company you've.."Chosen" as your "Carrier". "Corporate Partners" is the EXTENT of the "Rock Solid Privacy Protections" outlined in "HCR")

The simple fact is the IRS is about to acquire the PERFECT WEAPON: Access to EVERY AMERICANS MEDICAL RECORDS.

This will allow them a form of COERCION never before witnessed in America.

For thats what the "Mandate" is: COERCION!

You "Must Speak" if your Injured or Ill.

And that "Conversation" is Now.."Evidence" against you if you're POOR or simply.."Uninsured".

The "Mandate" is the most Malevolent Form of Corporate Authoritarian Government we've yet witnessed In American History!

For NOW..to Be "Poor And Injured"..IS TO BE A "CRIMINAL".

The "Mandate"..and its "Enforcement" by the IRS..is the "Criminalization Of The Doctor Patient Relationship"!

Your "Conversation" with your Doctor is now.."EVIDENCE"!

Your "Doctor" is now an INFORMANT!

Posted by: ectoendomezo | February 17, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are an albatross around the necks of middle America. When are we going to send them packing? Further delay will be dangerous to our health and well being.

Posted by: fasm7700 | February 17, 2011 1:36 PM | Report abuse

China, Germany, South Korea, India, Saudi Arabia, England, Iran, and Canada must throw a party each time the GOP gains power in the US. Everything these dunderheads try to do strengthens our competitors around the world and weakens us. If and when the GOP achieves their goals, we'll be sickly, poor, stupid, and spending all of our time in church and brothels. What a sad excuse for a country.

Posted by: rramos01 | February 17, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I propose we cut funding for their salaries.

Posted by: pathfinder12 | February 17, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The health care reform law was passed,
signed, sealed and delivered!

Leave it alone Republicans.

New name for the nut case Republican
Party:

IDIOT PARTY

Posted by: Sirius2 | February 17, 2011 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The health care reform law was passed,
signed, sealed and delivered!

Leave it alone Republicans.

New name for the nut case Republican
Party:

IDIOT PARTY

Posted by: Sirius2 | February 17, 2011 12:57 PM | Report abuse

god DAMN it all!

I REALLY NEED for them to focus on JOBS!

What is so difficult about that?!!!

WHY DOES THE HOUSE AND TBAGGERS HATE THE MIDDLE CLASS?

Posted by: taroya
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Open a business and then go to jail for noncompliance over hiring an employee yourself, and quit moaning.
There are no jobs because Obamacare kills them.

Posted by: dottydo | February 17, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

If they do not neuter or repeal Obamacare, it appears that the Preppers Derpression will consume all business in the USA.
Simply closing doors and refusing to generate a dime for the Fed ends their fatty sticky fingers in the wallets of the employer or the employee.

Every man woman and child in the streets by the millions for the past 2 summers have said No to the Congress, and were not heard.
Egypt fared better in the Streets than the US citizens. They are apparentrly not into marching anymore, nor talk, they simply plan to refuse any money to the Fed by going on vacations for 2 years.

http://www.prepper.org/


The people seem to be firing the FED.

Posted by: dottydo | February 17, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

god DAMN it all!

I REALLY NEED for them to focus on JOBS!

What is so difficult about that?!!!

WHY DOES THE HOUSE AND TBAGGERS HATE THE MIDDLE CLASS?

Posted by: taroya | February 17, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

And how many people will die because Republicans deny them the health care that they can't afford? Maybe the Repubicans should be shown videotapes of their funerals.

Posted by: browneri | February 17, 2011 12:23 PM | Report abuse

cmpgm,
The more you speak the dumber you sound. The so called bush tax cuts to millionaires would have meant a factual TAX hIKE to everyone. How stupid are some of you who actually believe the vudu math these liberals are feeding you.
TO TOMHERE:
If Boehner was interested in pork he would have demanded the Department of Defense continue building the useless engine they wanted for their new fighter. Mr. Boehner, has NEVER asked or received PORK for his district.

Posted by: minuramsey | February 17, 2011 12:23 PM | Report abuse

cmpgm,
The more you speak the dumber you sound. The so called bush tax cuts to millionaires would have meant a factual TAX hIKE to everyone. How stupid are some of you who actually believe the vudu math these liberals are feeding you.
TO TOMHERE:
If Boehner was interested in pork he would have demanded the Department of Defense continue building the useless engine they wanted for their new fighter. Mr. Boehner, has NEVER asked or received PORK for his district.

Posted by: minuramsey | February 17, 2011 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Barry the incompetent boob Obama and his WaPo toadies can huff and puff all they want. All appropriations bills originate in the House. Read your Constitution, Dims..."

Posted by: screwjob23 | February 17, 2011 11:47 AM
=====================================
And the bills end up on the President's desk. Many don't even make that far. And some end up the waste basket.

Read the US Constitution. Not the GOP Constitution!

Posted by: kishorgala | February 17, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"I find it interesting that the GOP even holds a position to not fund a program that is the law of the land. It makes you wonder if the GOP thinks they are above the law"

Right on.

Hypocrisy at it's finest given their routine profession of love for the Constitution and democratic government. Too bad the rest of us would get slammed against the hood of a police car for disregarding any law we disagree with.

Attempting to completely defund a law after having completely failed to repeal that law is tantamount to treason, but that's what we get when idiots vote in other idiots to close out government instead of taking actual ownership of it.

There's alot of ego in the House is this year. They've plenty of oppurtunity to amend the healthcare reform laws. They're failure to do so, while turning to eliminating funding options, demonstrates fundamental deficits in leadership and intelligence.

Posted by: cleverrevolution | February 17, 2011 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Hey republican's! Go ahead defund health care reform as long as you defund your own lifetime health and pension benefits or provide the rest of America the same health care you force "We The Small people" to pay for you.

BTW! What's with Sen Kyl retiring on $170,000/year of out tax dollars!

Posted by: knjincvc | February 17, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The GOP needs to be thrown out of office plain and simple as there is no reasoning among them. They are so busy playing political football and being the "Party of No" and that defines them as the political henchmen of dictatorship.

While they say no another family is starving, while they say no another person has no job and when they say no to health care another person dies. While they say no another person cannot buy the medicine they need because the prices are unaffordable to the average hard working person but the GOP wants to lie and say oh you spend too much you cause your own grief. No the conservative republicans causes the grief--they pass laws in the Supreme Court to allow high interest and fees on the American citizen so they cannot afford to buy anything while earning a decent wage. No honest hard working American should be forced to pay 29% and higher interest on anything+ fees+added finance charges. This is insanity and overbearing hardships to the good honest hard working American people. The hard working people should not have to pay 46% higher prices if not more by now to have medical care than any other country in this world. Then when they are done with that now they are going to overtax my salary. I cannot even deduct any of that interest I paid except my house which is less interest. Easier for me to pay for a house on a fixed rate than a refrigerator. Thanks to Reagan.


Posted by: mac7 | February 17, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

We take one step forward as a nation and the GOP takes us two steps back.

Posted by: josephmbennett | February 17, 2011 11:57 AM | Report abuse

We take one step forward as a nation and the GOP takes us two steps back.

Posted by: josephmbennett | February 17, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Hey republican's! Go ahead defund health care reform as long as you defund your own lifetime health and pension benefits or provide the rest of America the same health care you force "We The Small people" to pay for you.

Posted by: knjincvc | February 17, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Let's see. If they defund "ObamaCare" the deficit problems grow according to the CBO. What will the Republicans do to increase the revenues needed to cover the increase in health care costs? How about cancel the Bush tax breaks?

Posted by: cmpgm | February 17, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Let's see. If they defund "ObamaCare" the deficit problems grow according to the CBO. What will the Republicans do to increase the revenues needed to cover the increase in health care costs? How about cancel the Bush tax breaks?

Posted by: cmpgm | February 17, 2011 11:54 AM | Report abuse


Barry the incompetent boob Obama and his WaPo toadies can huff and puff all they want. All appropriations bills originate in the House. Read your Constitution, Dims.

The House was just elected three months ago Dims, and it is controlled by the GOP.

Miserable failure Obama


Posted by: screwjob23 | February 17, 2011 11:47 AM | Report abuse

The only problems I have with this legislation that Obama shoved down our throates is 2 things-
1-He let the crooks take out the public option.
2-This will provide free medical services for the 30 million illegals in the country from mexico.
Let them pay for their own health services.

Posted by: JimW2 | February 17, 2011 11:23 AM
======================================
Enough MFs!

Which provision of the health-care reform says the illegals will get free medical services?

And are the illegals getting the medical services right now?

Posted by: kishorgala | February 17, 2011 11:26 AM | Report abuse

The only problems I have with this legislation that Obama shoved down our throates is 2 things-
1-He let the crooks take out the public option.
2-This will provide free medical services for the 30 million illegals in the country from mexico.
Let them pay for their own health services.

Posted by: JimW2 | February 17, 2011 11:23 AM | Report abuse

If ever there was a vile, destructive bunch!

The President needs to find a way to declare Federal Emergency, dissolve the House and the Senate and send the MFs packing home!

Posted by: kishorgala | February 17, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I think Realist201 needs a reality check. Happy to oblige. Let's examine that "slaughtering" you referred to. What was the turnout in the midterms? 35 percent? 40, tops? So, at most, 40 percent of registered voters came out. Now, what percentage of those eligible to vote are, in fact, registered? 60, maybe? Let's give you the benefit of the doubt again and say it's 70. OK, so 30 in 100 eligible voters don't bother to register. If midterm turnout was 40 percent, then roughly 28 out of 100 eligible people voted. Still with me? Let's really give you the benefit of the doubt and say 60 percent of those 28 voters went Republican in the midterms. This obviously isn't true, but stay with me. That means roughly 17 of every 100 eligible voters case their ballots for a Republican in 2010. Yeah, that sure looks like a "slaughtering" to me. Never let the facts get in the way of good demagoguery.

Posted by: Mountaineer87 | February 17, 2011 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Be careful what you vote for: if Obamacare is overturned it will be replaced with universal Medicare. Actually, that would be an improvement; make it so.

Posted by: raschumacher

You libs just love having another free entitlement.

VOTE DEMOCRAT, COZ IT'S EASIER THAN WORKING

Posted by: LostKenyanIdiot

====================

Medicare is funded. There are payroll taxes for it. There is a shortfall which makes you wonder why the Bush and the GOP put in Medicare part D with no offsets or no additional payroll taxes? It's the GOP that voted for FREE Medicare Part D.

You perhaps haven't notice that the CBO has priced the Health Care reform as having a net reduction in Health care costs. And while certain members of Congress grumble over the computation, the fact is that the CBO provides the official estimates that go into the budget projections.

Kill health care reform and you raise the deficit. You can disagree with the way they compute it, but it's still going to raise the projected deficit. There's no way around it.

Don't fund health care reform is an interesting choice. The law is still on the books which included cuts in Medicare. So the GOP is cutting the funding for Medicare along with it. As John McCain said ... "They're going to kill grandma." So be it, if the GOP wants to kill grandma, that's ok by me. My grandma died over 50 years ago. It doesn't affect me.

Posted by: James10 | February 17, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

If they don't have to fund the health care entitlement, I suppose that means they don't have to fund Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. In fact, they could just not fund paying the interest on the debt.

They could instantly balance the budget by not funding anything and go home for the rest of the year.

Posted by: James10 | February 17, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that the GOP even holds a position to not fund a program that is the law of the land. It makes you wonder if the GOP thinks they are above the law.

I guess that was rhetorical. They do think they're above the law. We all know they have no shame and we don't ask any longer.

Posted by: James10 | February 17, 2011 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about the numerous postings.
They kept telling me was a posting error, so "clicked" again.

Posted by: kathlenec | February 17, 2011 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps you can explain and defend the republicans actions? They tried to block and voted against anything and everything to help get our country back on it's feet.
They demanded their tax cuts, costing our country billions of dollars, insist on continued spending on projects the Pentagon say they do not want or need, and have goals of destroy our president, win at any cost regardless of the consequences.
You have your right to support whoever, but, rather than slandering, show us what your republicans have done for us and our country.

Posted by: kathlenec | February 17, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps you can explain and defend the republicans actions? They tried to block and voted against anything and everything to help get our country back on it's feet.
They demanded their tax cuts, costing our country billions of dollars, insist on continued spending on projects the Pentagon say they do not want or need, and have goals of destroy our president, win at any cost regardless of the consequences.
You have your right to support whoever, but, rather than slandering, show us what your republicans have done for us and our country.

Posted by: kathlenec | February 17, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Get it done GOP! Look to the WaPo article about the interest payments alone and tell us again Democrats how America can afford Obamacare.

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | February 17, 2011 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps you can explain and defend the republicans actions? They tried to block and voted against anything and everything to help get our country back on it's feet.
They demanded their tax cuts, costing our country billions of dollars, insist on continued spending on projects the Pentagon say they do not want or need, and have goals of destroy our president, win at any cost regardless of the consequences.
You have your right to support whoever, but, rather than slandering, show us what your republicans have done for us and our country.

Posted by: kathlenec | February 17, 2011 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps you can explain and defend the republicans actions? They tried to block and voted against anything and everything to help get our country back on it's feet.
They demanded their tax cuts, costing our country billions of dollars, insist on continued spending on projects the Pentagon say they do not want or need, and have goals of destroy our president, win at any cost regardless of the consequences.
You have your right to support whoever, but, rather than slandering, show us what your republicans have done for us and our country.

Posted by: kathlenec | February 17, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Universal M edicare would be great but the republicans would never allow it.
They want to privatize SS, cut medicare to the very minimum, eliminate many programs for the less fortunate, midle class, senior citizens, veterans, students etc while paving the way for the rich to get even richer, Wall St, once again, deregulated and corporate control, which almost destroyed our country.
How anyone can believe they truly represent the American people is beyond me.

Posted by: kathlenec

How original lib. YAWN.

Posted by: LostKenyanIdiot | February 17, 2011 10:36 AM | Report abuse

And what is the Tea Baggers plan to dispose of all the bodies which will pile up if they get their way. The states are broke, the jobless rate is high, and it is not realistic that the "Bush" plan of just going to the emergency room if going to continue to provide health care for the uninsured. Local taxpapers and hospitals can't absorb it and it has driven up health care costs rapidly. Oh! You say they don't have a plan; they just know what theya are aginst.

Posted by: withersb | February 17, 2011 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Be careful what you vote for: if Obamacare is overturned it will be replaced with universal Medicare. Actually, that would be an improvement; make it so.

Posted by: raschumacher

You libs just love having another free entitlement.

VOTE DEMOCRAT, COZ IT'S EASIER THAN WORKING

Posted by: LostKenyanIdiot | February 17, 2011 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Universal M edicare would be great but the republicans would never allow it.
They want to privatize SS, cut medicare to the very minimum, eliminate many programs for the less fortunate, midle class, senior citizens, veterans, students etc while paving the way for the rich to get even richer, Wall St, once again, deregulated and corporate control, which almost destroyed our country.
How anyone can believe they truly represent the American people is beyond me.

Posted by: kathlenec | February 17, 2011 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Be careful what you vote for: if Obamacare is overturned it will be replaced with universal Medicare. Actually, that would be an improvement; make it so.

Posted by: raschumacher | February 17, 2011 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Remember the Republican wing-nut who complained that he wouldn't get his taxpayer-funded health care until a month after his swearing-in?

The republicans are idiots and tools of the corporate class (which incidentally has paid health care as well - funded by consumers).

Posted by: WorkatHomeGuy | February 17, 2011 10:07 AM | Report abuse

---------------------------------------------
They also have the support of the American people and they WILL invlaidate Obamacare, either in congress or the Supreme Court. Time for Obama to join reality and either negotiate changes in his socialist Health Care plan to satisfy the GOP, or lose Obamacare entirely. Of course, Obama the Arrogant, won't do this and he WILL lose Obamacare.......along with the 2012 General Election.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 17, 2011 10:10 AM | Report abuse

But we already have an IRS centered health care system. No tax on employer paid health benefits, Health Savings Accounts, Medical expense deductability, giant non-profit hospital chains, etc. In fact tax policy is one of the biggest distortions in health policy.

Rodger's quote, "will move away from an IRS-driven health-care system and back towards a patient-centered system" is a wild distortion of the Affordibility Care Act and amounts to legislation by sound-bite. Very incompetent.

Posted by: chucko2 | February 17, 2011 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The republicans are trying to set our country back years.They have more interest in profits, perks for the insurance companies, Wall St and the wealthy than the survival of us and our country.
And, leaving decisions to the "non political" Supreme Court is indeed frightening as we have already become victims of their right wing decisions.

Posted by: kathlenec | February 17, 2011 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Remember the Republican wing-nut who complained that he wouldn't get his taxpayer-funded health care until a month after his swearing-in?

The republicans are idiots and tools of the corporate class (which incidentally has paid health care as well - funded by consumers).

Posted by: WorkatHomeGuy | February 17, 2011 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Blah, blah, blah. More posturing by a bunch of airheads pandering to the tinfoil hats. You lost. Get over it. Move on. Grow up.

Posted by: Mountaineer87 | February 17, 2011 9:13 AM |
---------------------------------------------
Perhaps youmissed the midterms where the Dems were slaughtered and the GOP took the house. While the GOP will defund Obama's socialist Health Care, the Supremem Court is going to invalidate Obamacare anyway. Obama IS going to lose his socialist health Plan, the only question is when.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 17, 2011 10:06 AM | Report abuse

@Mountaineer87 wrote: Blah, blah, blah. More posturing by a bunch of airheads pandering to the tinfoil hats. You lost. Get over it. Move on. Grow up.
___________________________________________

Pandering to the right wing nuts and protecting profits over your needs is as dumb as standing on train track with a speeding train heading towards you and thinking nothing will happen. Go ahead, follow the republicans and pretend that they will be there for you when you need it. Oh yes, you can take care of yourself and don't need gov't for anything. You can inspect your own food, inspect all bridges you travel on, you can handle all inspections of all planes you fly on and so on..You are a one person army and you do not need the gov't for anything.


***note to self: use the preview button:::2nd attempt...lmao***

Posted by: Realistic5 | February 17, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

@Mountaineer87 wrote: Blah, blah, blah. More posturing by a bunch of airheads pandering to the tinfoil hats. You lost. Get over it. Move on. Grow up.
___________________________________________

Pandering to the right wing nuts and protecting profits over your needs is as dumb as standing a traint rack with a speeding train heading towards you and thinking nothing will happen. Go ahead, follow the republicans and pretend that they will be there for you when you need it. Oh yes, you can take care for yourself and don't need gov't for anything. You can inspect your own food, inspect all bridges you travel on, you can handle all inspections of all planes you fly on and so on..You are a one person army and you do not need the gov't for anything..

Posted by: Realistic5 | February 17, 2011 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Good to see the GOP de-funding this disasterous Obamacare.

Posted by: Realist201 | February 17, 2011 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Republicans seem to have a deep love for the Insurance company death panels.

Posted by: Sanchos_ | February 17, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Repeal Obamacare NOW. Get Obama and the Leftists out of my uterus!

Posted by: pgr88 | February 17, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

****will move away from an IRS-driven health-care system and back towards a patient-centered system."****
___________________________________________

Yes, patient-centered system system healthcare is great and thanks to the president all patients will have the ability to healthcare when they become a patient. Instead of a patient that has no healthcare and ends up loosing everything because the republicans made sure that profits comes first and pre-ext conditions denies one the same healthcare that our public servants have. Can you believe that these public servants in the house make $174,000 a year and get free healthcare or should I say, they get HC paid by tax payers. But somehow they have gov't and tax payers sponosored HC and its ok for them but bad for the rest of us. Interesting to say the least...

Posted by: Realistic5 | February 17, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Mountaineer87 is spot on.
Maybe while these wingnuts are at it , they should de-fund ALL of their much-feared government healthcare--starting with their own health insurance, then Medicare and Medicaid. That would fit perfectly with their desire to reduce the size of government , aid the funeral industry as folks die because they can't get healthcare--sort of "people killing jobs bill", instead of their much touted "job killing health care bill". With this reduction in spending ther will be more money for more tax cuts for the wealthy-- their ONLY legislative agenda item.

Posted by: jmsbh | February 17, 2011 9:24 AM | Report abuse

MOST voted for Boehner's PORK JET ENGINE.
Money for PORK? YES!
Money for PEOPLE? NO!

Posted by: TOMHERE | February 17, 2011 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Blah, blah, blah. More posturing by a bunch of airheads pandering to the tinfoil hats. You lost. Get over it. Move on. Grow up.

Posted by: Mountaineer87 | February 17, 2011 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company