[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I was doing some research because I was going through HR 3590 and had some trouble finding some of the stuff that Rockscar posted, and then I stumbled upon this site. What do you guys think?
The bill that has now become law is not the one discussed there. This site discusses HR-3200.[/quote]
I realize that but many of the same claims that Rockscar posted are the same claims on the website.
They voted on it as a single law, if any part of it changes, it’s got to get re-voted on. [/quote]
This is my understanding too. Anyone know differently?[/quote]
On Sean Hannity’s radio show, a top Republican aid believed up to 40% of the bill can be stricken through reconciliation because it does not deal with budgetary matters. If this happens, or a significant portion chamges, you might see a different story when they need to vote again.
Does anyone know which bill was actually passed? I can’t find it and I keep hearing different ones. Someone was telling me that HR3590 is the one that was passed.
[quote]Jason Lee wrote:
Does anyone know which bill was actually passed? I can’t find it and I keep hearing different ones. Someone was telling me that HR3590 is the one that was passed.[/quote]
all I know is the one that was up on the government website the day of the vote, which address I don’t recall at the moment, was hr4872. I put it up on one of my sites as 2310 page pdf file.
[quote]Jason Lee wrote:
Does anyone know which bill was actually passed? I can’t find it and I keep hearing different ones. Someone was telling me that HR3590 is the one that was passed.[/quote]
all I know is the one that was up on the government website the day of the vote, which address I don’t recall at the moment, was hr4872. I put it up on one of my sites as 2310 page pdf file.[/quote]
Thanks, that’s the one I keep coming up with too. It shouldn’t be this difficult to find out what was just passed. This is ridiculous.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve heard some opinions this may be fast tracked to the USSC and there could even be a summertime ruling.[/quote]
There is both good and bad to this being fast tracked, but the USSC usually does not want to make a political ruling in an election year. This is a very heated debate and with emotions running high we will see if the courts really are blind. In the past the courts have been thought as liberal, but if they rule to repeal this law they will be considered conservative. I think they will be in the middle where they should be.[/quote]
All SCOTUS rulings are political.
EDIT: This SC is NOT liberal. Solid conservative majority. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito vs. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Stevens.
The SC is deferential because the way in which they represent the people is more attenuated than it is for the other two branches. Nonetheless, they will take every opportunity to inject their politics.
On Sean Hannity’s radio show, a top Republican aid believed up to 40% of the bill can be stricken through reconciliation because it does not deal with budgetary matters. If this happens, or a significant portion chamges, you might see a different story when they need to vote again.[/quote]
No, the Senate bill just signed by Obama is law as is, word for word.
The House “reconciliation” bill can be completely ignored by the Senate, if it wants.
Or the Senate can approve it as is, in which case as soon as it’s signed it too becomes law, and will supersede the Senate bill just passed.
If the Senate votes to approve a bill with changes to it, then and only then would reconciliation of that bill be involved.
Main point: the bill Obama just signed is already law and any claim that it can be struck by reconciliation is wrong. The Senate bill was passed word-for-word, exact same.
I actually can’t believe Americans are still so in favour of such a militantly capitalist approach to economic and social affairs when all you have to do is look at the state of the world at the moment,and even your own country,to realise how it just doesn’t fucking work.
How can you try and say that it’s a bad thing that more people will receive medical care,and that you will have a healthier nation of people as a result??
Clearly, we’re going to need a two-track approach, simultaneously: legal & legislative (repeal & replace.) What worries me is that Republicans are already talking about relatively minor fixes to the legislation. They’re already sounding like pussies.
[quote]wigsa wrote:
I actually can’t believe Americans are still so in favour of such a militantly capitalist approach to economic and social affairs when all you have to do is look at the state of the world at the moment,and even your own country,to realise how it just doesn’t fucking work.
How can you try and say that it’s a bad thing that more people will receive medical care,and that you will have a healthier nation of people as a result??[/quote]
So you are saying that the US should be in dire straights like the rest of Europe. Come on man all the Socialist countries in Europe are worse off than we are here in the US. Europe is a prime example of what Socialism does to country budgets. We do not want to end up like you guys over there.
[quote]wigsa wrote:
I actually can’t believe Americans are still so in favour of such a militantly capitalist approach to economic and social affairs when all you have to do is look at the state of the world at the moment,and even your own country,to realise how it just doesn’t fucking work.
How can you try and say that it’s a bad thing that more people will receive medical care,and that you will have a healthier nation of people as a result??[/quote]
democrats like to say that 44,000 people in the U.S. die each year from lack of health care. Let me tell you that about 98,000 people die in the U.S. from medical errors each year. http://www.98000reasons.org/
You tell me, will this number go up or down with 32 million new people on the rolls AND a loss of qualified health professionals?
You tell me, what happens when you increase the work load on a critical shortage of primary care physicians? You tell me what happens when they pack up and leave because they don’t want to be controlled the the U.S. Government? You tell me what happens when you overegulate the industry/decrease reimbursements?
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
You tell me, what happens when you increase the work load on a critical shortage of primary care physicians? You tell me what happens when they pack up and leave because they don’t want to be controlled the the U.S. Government? You tell me what happens when you overegulate the industry/decrease reimbursements?
I’ll tell you, it will be an absolute disaster.[/quote]
What?
But there’s at least one foreigner here who seems to believe that Obamacare will increase the supply of health care.
This is actually very exciting because it will be the foundation for an entirely new school of economics, where the supply/demand function is such that amount supplied increases as the amounts paid to suppliers go down.
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
You tell me, what happens when you increase the work load on a critical shortage of primary care physicians? You tell me what happens when they pack up and leave because they don’t want to be controlled the the U.S. Government? You tell me what happens when you overegulate the industry/decrease reimbursements?
I’ll tell you, it will be an absolute disaster.[/quote]
What?
But there’s at least one foreigner here who seems to believe that Obamacare will increase the supply of health care.
This is actually very exciting because it will be the foundation for an entirely new school of economics, where the supply/demand function is such that amount supplied increases as the amounts paid to suppliers go down.
[/quote]
This is it! The basic formulaic foundation of a perpetual motion machine! TAKE THAT PHYSICS! TAKE THAT MASS ENERGY EQUIVALENCE! TAKE THAT SPECIAL RELATIVITY! TAKE THAT EINSTEIN!
Hey Bill, if we type this up, we might could win a nobel prize.