Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House plans five-hour debate on healthcare repeal, WH warns veto
The Hill ^ | 7/10/12 | Pete Kasperowicz

Posted on 07/09/2012 9:22:27 PM PDT by Nachum

The House will hold five hours of debate on Tuesday and Wednesday on legislation that would completely repeal the 2010 healthcare law, which is being called up by Republicans in light of the Supreme Court's decision that the individual health insurance mandate is constitutional. The House Rules Committee approved a rule late Monday setting out the lengthy debate on a bill that is expected to pass with Republican support, but very little if any Democratic support. The Repeal of Obamacare Act, H.R. 6079, was formally introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: debate; healthcare; house; obamacare

1 posted on 07/09/2012 9:22:37 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I know it won’t make it past Obamanation..but I am glad they are doing it.


2 posted on 07/09/2012 9:25:48 PM PDT by MEG33 (O Lord, Guide Our Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Send the message to the electorate! Here is the deal! Vote R!


3 posted on 07/09/2012 9:28:51 PM PDT by Rembrandt (Part of the 51% who pay Federal taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

What’s the debate for?


4 posted on 07/09/2012 9:31:40 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (A conservative, a liberal and a moderate walk into a bar. Bartender says "what'll it be, Mitt?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

The cameras, what else?


5 posted on 07/09/2012 9:35:06 PM PDT by matthew fuller (Election 2012- Epic Fail candidate vs Epic Fail President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder
What’s the debate for?

Sound bites for the upcoming election.

6 posted on 07/09/2012 9:35:17 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Repeal the whole thing or it will turn into a cancer for everyone including politicians.


7 posted on 07/09/2012 9:36:15 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“WH Warns Veto...”???

Is anyone still aware of the fact that a veto can, and sometimes SHOULD, be overturned? The House can do THAT too. But they won’t. No matter how much we scream at them.


8 posted on 07/09/2012 9:40:13 PM PDT by Advil000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
I know it won’t make it past Obamanation..but I am glad they are doing it.

If it gets to the Senate, rats like McCaskil will have their votes recorded one way or another and coward McCaskil (Mo) has been running hard and scared from Obamacare ever since she voted for it, there are other rats in the same position who are up for reelection in Nov.

9 posted on 07/09/2012 9:46:13 PM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Cantor and Boner need to quit acting like a couple of Pussies. Schedule the vote and separate the Sheep from the Goats!


10 posted on 07/09/2012 9:55:35 PM PDT by wjcsux ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller

“The cameras, what else?”

Too true, this all just political theater. If they were serious they would impeach Roberts.


11 posted on 07/09/2012 9:58:13 PM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Any politician who votes “NOT” to repeal Obamacare has signed their losing re-election bid. Plus they will be on record....they will go down! Down>....into the gutter.


12 posted on 07/09/2012 9:58:39 PM PDT by Fully Awake DAV (Navy Vet when homosexuality was not tolerated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Reid will prevent any vote on this in the Senate.


13 posted on 07/09/2012 9:59:34 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Good point!


14 posted on 07/09/2012 10:00:35 PM PDT by MEG33 (O Lord, Guide Our Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
...likely will go nowhere because the Democratic Senate won't consider it.
Heh, heh, heh..."likely" will go nowhere, not "will" go nowhere.

What a tell!

Who's up for reelection again on the Democrat side?
SENATORS UP FOR REELECTION IN 2012
Daniel Akaka (Hawaii)*
Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico)*
Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
Maria Cantwell (Washington)
Benjamin Cardin (Maryland)
Thomas Carper (Delaware)
Robert Casey (Pennsylvania)
Kent Conrad (North Dakota)*
Diane Feinstein (California)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)*
Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut)*
Joe Manchin (West Virginia)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Robert Menendez (New Jersey)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
E. Benjamin Nelson (Nebraska)*
Bernard Sanders (I-Vermont)
Debbie Stabenow (Michigan)
Jon Tester (Montana)
Jim Webb (Virginia)*
Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island)

15 posted on 07/09/2012 10:03:51 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The House will hold five hours of debate on Tuesday and Wednesday on legislation that would completely repeal the 2010 healthcare law, which is being called up by Republicans in light of the Supreme Court's decision that the individual health insurance mandate is constitutional.

Why is this inaccurancy constantly repeated without being contested?

16 posted on 07/09/2012 10:04:07 PM PDT by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
"...in light of the Supreme Court's decision that the individual health insurance mandate is constitutional."

Why is this inaccurancy constantly repeated without being contested?
What, in your opinion, is inaccurate about it?

17 posted on 07/09/2012 10:07:01 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Advil000

Well according to Wikipedia there are currently 433 members of the House. Two thirds of 433 is 289. From the same source there are 242 GOP members of the House. 289 - 242 = 47 Dims would have to vote for the bill to over ride the veto. Do you third there are 47 Dims who would vote to override?


18 posted on 07/09/2012 10:08:30 PM PDT by JLS (How to turn a recession into a depression: elect a Dem president with a big majorities in Congress))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
What, in your opinion, is inaccurate about it?

The individual health care mandate was not declared Constitutional. Roberts had to rewrite the wording to make the mandate a tax so that the AHCA could be declared Constitutional. That's why Ginsberg dissented with Roberts' opinion.

I'm sure you knew that, right?

19 posted on 07/09/2012 10:17:27 PM PDT by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
The individual health care mandate was not declared Constitutional.
Wasn't it declared Constitutional under the government's taxing power?
20 posted on 07/09/2012 10:21:38 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Wasn't it declared Constitutional under the government's taxing power?

You are confusing the "individual mandate" with the "Affordable Health Care Act". Perhaps that explains why this keeps getting reported incorrectly. The Act itself was declared Constitutional as a tax. That was the whole controversy with Roberts - that he literally re-wrote the bill to make it work by calling the "mandate" a tax.

While Ginsberg voted with the majority, she wanted the mandate to be declared Constitutional which Roberts disagreed with, and that is why she wrote a separate opinion.

So while the entire Act was declared Constitutional, the individual mandate was not. That is the inaccuracy - might seem subtle but it really isn't.

21 posted on 07/09/2012 10:35:20 PM PDT by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
Here is the link to the decision...
@ NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS

The individual health care mandate was not declared Constitutional.

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

He gave the government what they wanted, right?
Isn't the decision explicitly stating that the individual mandate is Constitutional under the power of Congress to “lay and collect Taxes.”?

That's why Ginsberg dissented with Roberts' opinion.
Where exactly? I've given you the link and it opens in a new tab so it's easy.

22 posted on 07/09/2012 10:39:42 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

A “Dog and Pony Show” that in the end will mean absolutely nothing.


23 posted on 07/09/2012 10:42:25 PM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

It will identify the traitors in the house if nothing else.

We need to know who’s who.


24 posted on 07/09/2012 10:47:03 PM PDT by bicyclerepair ( REPLACE D-W-S ! http://www.karenforcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
You are confusing the "individual mandate" with the "Affordable Health Care Act".
Um...I don't think so.
Public Law 111–148 An Act Entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) IN GENERAL.— The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section (in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘requirement’’) is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).

That is the law in question and that is the individual mandate, isn't it?
25 posted on 07/09/2012 10:57:05 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
Whaaaat?
I prove to be too informed so I get the silent treatment?
26 posted on 07/09/2012 11:11:49 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

bfl


27 posted on 07/09/2012 11:20:48 PM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt

28 posted on 07/10/2012 12:59:28 AM PDT by GloriaJane (Pro Choice = Pro Death - Pro Life = Pro LIFE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I believe the only agenda here is to make some Democrats in very critical races declare themselves for the President, or agree with the Republicans to survive. The last thing you really want as a Representative running in an election....is to be anchored with a stupid topic that draws attention of the voters from your district.


29 posted on 07/10/2012 1:09:07 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This whole medical insurance thing is so stupid. Just allow hospitals and doctors to turn people away if they decide not to have insurance. Simple solutions. Do people get to have a nice dinner at a resturant if they don’t have the money? No. Same thing at the hospital. If you don’t have insurance, you must prepay whatever services you desire. That is it!!!!! Damn I wish I was the President. I would not force people to get insurance, but I would not force hospitals to administer care for people who don’t have the money. Mean? Perhaps. Fiscally responsible? You bet!!!!!


30 posted on 07/10/2012 2:59:42 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fully Awake DAV

House Republicans have voted 30 times in the past year and a half to repeal, defund, or otherwise squash ObamaCare, with the first attempt coming just two weeks after they took control of the House last year. This week, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on the law, the House will take up attempt No. 31: the “Repeal of ObamaCare Act”.


31 posted on 07/10/2012 4:39:58 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Just allow hospitals and doctors to turn people away if they decide not to have insurance.

That is precisely the solution, and it's amazing how many people have come to preclude that from any consideration. You hear of alternative plans, laws, systems...but rarely does anyone point out the entrenched flaw that is making some sort of socialism the fix.

32 posted on 07/10/2012 5:11:22 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (If you believe what you're saying, quit making taxable income.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

“but I would not force hospitals to administer care for people who don’t have the money.”

Would you also arrest and imprison the thieves and quacks who run hospitals and rip people off?

Did you know that people who pay cash are charged 200 to 300 percent more than people who use insurance? Try litigating that sometime. Hospitals charge whatever they think they can get away with. Double-billing, kickbacks and charging for services not rendered is rampant at these quack institutions.


33 posted on 07/10/2012 5:15:08 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Public unions exist to protect the unions from the taxpaying public)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Someone wake me when the house decides to do something that actually matters.


34 posted on 07/10/2012 5:17:00 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

you mean a band-aid really does not cost 6 bucks?!??!

I went a couple years with out insurance. for non-emergency care I price shopped. Some where nuts (6 dollar band-aids) some where realistic. (50 cent band-aids)

it was my one trip to the ER where the doctor got it wrong and it damn near killed me and he STILL wanted 6000 dollars for his misdiagnosis.


35 posted on 07/10/2012 5:35:00 AM PDT by cableguymn (For the first time in my life. I fear my country's government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

There is no rational and pragmatic process to sue quack hospitals. Lawyers are clueless about suing hospitals. They want a huge retainer to take the case, and I’m not about to shell out thousands to a shyster so he can acquaint himself with medical fraud at my expense.

Those familiar with the lawsuit process against hospitals work in the qui tam division of large law firms, and they won’t take individual cases unless they can make at least a high six-figure payback. The only process available is a class action lawsuit, and you need a ton of litigants for that.

The fraud division at the state attorney general’s office is a clown car accident waiting to happen.

Some people have this misbegotten notion that hospitals are run by angels whose sole purpose for existing is to comfort the ill and injured. Even conservatives fall for this stupid image of the all-caring hospital. In fact, these quack factories are run by thieving liberals who will rip you off for every penny you own.

But I mostly talk to the wall on FR. Enough.


36 posted on 07/10/2012 6:03:38 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Public unions exist to protect the unions from the taxpaying public)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

My question also. This is absolutely a no-brainer. Should take about 15 minutes. No wonder they never get anything done.


37 posted on 07/10/2012 6:07:52 AM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Did you know that people who pay cash are charged 200 to 300 percent more than people who use insurance?

As long as people are offered a choice to either pay or not pay than I have no problem with this. If people don’t want to pay the prices that the hospital charges then either go somewhere else or find a witch doctor. You can’t have everything. It is bad enough we have people who go to the doctor without payment or insurance...That is what MUST stop.


38 posted on 07/10/2012 7:00:50 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13

Still waiting for you at reply 25.


39 posted on 07/10/2012 7:06:09 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Vote to repeal it all.

Rub his nose in it.


40 posted on 07/10/2012 8:07:32 AM PDT by Wordkraft (Remember who the Collaborators are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Harry Reid will refuse to let it come up for a vote in the Senate.


41 posted on 07/10/2012 8:17:40 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JLS

To get to Obama, it would have to pass the Dem-controlled Senate. Harry will table it there.


42 posted on 07/10/2012 8:19:53 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

” If people don’t want to pay the prices that the hospital charges then either go somewhere else or find a witch doctor.”

Brilliant, naps!

How stupid of me. I didn’t realize you could walk into a hospital with a broken rib and ask for the hospital’s price list to see what they charge for fixing a broken rib. And if you don’t like the price, you can drive to a hospital down the street and see what that hospital charges for a broken rib. That way you drive, compare and shop broken rib care at hospitals throughout the city.

You’re a genius. I never thought of price comparison shopping for a broken rib.

If those prices are unsatisfactory, you can go find a witch doctor to sprinkle toad hair and fix you up.

Brilliant! naps.

Sometimes, I wonder why I hang around here and listen to morons.


43 posted on 07/10/2012 3:57:12 PM PDT by sergeantdave (Public unions exist to protect the unions from the taxpaying public)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: trapped_in_LA

“Too true, this all just political theater. If they were serious they would impeach Roberts.”

And if so-called conservatives were serious about taking back this country, they’d get organized. The Founders organized Committees of Safety. Conservatives have organized nothing. But it’s always safe to pound on a keyboard and bitch.


44 posted on 07/10/2012 4:16:52 PM PDT by sergeantdave (Public unions exist to protect the unions from the taxpaying public)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

“And if so-called conservatives were serious about taking back this country, they’d get organized....”

They’ve tried a few times but usually they either loose steam or get taken over by the establishment republicans. The tea-party is just the latest example, started out good then got taken over and now is pretty much worthless as a force for change. Problem is people or at least the majority don’t really want to go back to a limited government, they like what they’re getting and vote accordingly so all that is left for those that don’t like the program is to sit and bitch about it ;)


45 posted on 07/10/2012 8:06:08 PM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

ThugCare is all he has.


46 posted on 07/10/2012 8:09:17 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fully Awake DAV
Any politician who votes “NOT” to repeal Obamacare has signed their losing re-election bid. Plus they will be on record....they will go down!

That's the whole point of the vote! They want to use the issue for their Congressional races, and that's fine with me! Make the Democrats and RINOs who support the legislation DEFEND their votes to the American People.

47 posted on 07/10/2012 8:52:32 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I prove to be too informed so I get the silent treatment?

Sorry. Wasn't ignoring you - I do have a life other than Free Republic...

There are several pages in the decision where Justice Roberts discusses the individual mandate and how the Congress does not have the power to regulate non-activity. Within those arguments are footnotes of Justice Ginsberg's dissent such as this little nugget: 4 JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “at the time the Constitution was framed, to ‘regulate’ meant, among other things, to require action.” Post, at 23 (citing Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F. 3d 1, 16 (CADC 2011); brackets and some internal quotation marks omitted). But to reach this conclusion, the case cited by JUSTICE GINSBURG relied on a dictionary in which “[t]o order; to command” was the fifth-alternative definition of “to direct,” which was itself the second-alternative definition of “to regulate.” See Seven-Sky, supra, at 16 (citing S. Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1773) (reprinted 1978)). It is unlikely that the Framers had such an obscure meaning in mind whenthey used the word “regulate.” Far more commonly, “[t]o regulate”meant “[t]o adjust by rule or method,” which presupposes something to adjust. 2 Johnson, supra, at 1619; see also Gibbons, 9 Wheat., at 196 (defining the commerce power as the power “to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed”).

And this: 6In an attempt to recast the individual mandate as a regulation of commercial activity, JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “[a]n individualwho opts not to purchase insurance from a private insurer can be seen as actively selecting another form of insurance: self-insurance.” Post, at 26. But “self-insurance” is, in this context, nothing more than a description of the failure to purchase insurance. Individuals are no more “activ[e] in the self-insurance market” when they fail to purchase insurance, ibid., than they are active in the “rest” market when doing nothing.

Justice Roberts clearly takes issue with her arguments. Ginsberg is desperate to justify the individual mandate and Roberts is not having it.

It may be semantics, but Roberts gets around his distaste for the individual mandate by referring to it as a tax, and it's clear in his writing that he believes Congress does not have the power to force activity.

Unfortunately, it makes no difference what he chooses to call it regarding it's effect on us. The way I read it, the Affordable Health Care Act was deemed Constitutional by calling the funding mechanism a tax, not by declaring the individual mandate Constitutional.

48 posted on 07/10/2012 9:33:41 PM PDT by Shethink13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Shethink13
The way I read it, the Affordable Health Care Act was deemed Constitutional by calling the funding mechanism a tax, not by declaring the individual mandate Constitutional.

How fortunate for you. So even if "the way you read it" isn't "the way it's supposed to be read" then you're always going to be right, aren't you.

49 posted on 07/10/2012 10:08:35 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson