Posted on 12/15/2013 1:02:33 AM PST by Libloather
Harry Reid's ham-fisted action to curb the filibuster of presidential appointment creates an enormous political opportunity for Republicans in 2014. As more than one pundit has noted, ending the filibuster for nominations means that a Senate Republican majority can end the filibuster for legislation as well, and Reid has removed the political cover for Democrats who would have used the filibuster to block Republican initiatives.
**SNIP**
The problems for Democrats will get much worse in January 2015. Because of what Reid has done with the filibuster, the House can quickly pass those ten bills, and the Senate majority can then compel all Senate members to vote "Yea" or "Nay" on these ten items. Obama will, of course, veto all the measures, and then Democrats in both houses of Congress will have to go on record as voting to override Obama (and so defying their president and party leader), or else voting to support Obama's veto. These Democrats will have no good choices at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It could happen, except that most GOP Members, and virtually all GOP Senators, would not vote for repeal if there was a chance Obama would sign the bill.
Obamacare exists because nobody has any clue about what to do about Medicare and its ruination of the budget and the currency.
Neither the Democrats nor the GOP has any clue about a plausible alternative that could work.
They certainly are not going to repeal Obamacare without an alternative.
It’s Medicare, and the concept behind it, that needs to be repealed.
Photo ID for ALL FEDERAL ELECTIONS !!!
Yes. Even though the filibuster advantages a minority (us, now) that notion that the Senate could not change its rules was always absurd.
The core issue is Medicare’s promise to pay for all reasonable expenses, without limit, using other people’s money.
In 1965, seniors didn’t consume a lot of medical resources. The government promise to pay, without limit, created a whole new industry that inflated what was available far beyond the means of individuals to pay for.
How many seniors (or their families) would pay for a $60 000 pacemaker/defibrillator out of pocket? How many could?
Medicare has not been paid for without borrowing or money printing since 1984. It’s MEDICARE that needs to be repealed.
bill 7: Voter ID !
good idea ;)
“It could happen”...........But more than likely won’t.
Only if the imbeciles in the GOP campaign against Obamacare, a clear-cut we’re gonna repeal campaign.
Actually, I’ll go even further. GOP should corner any Senator or Rep who voted for Obamacare with questions like:
1. Did you ever read it before you passed it? A patchwork law that took over a fifth of the U.S. economy, did you read it?
2. Did your constituents EVER say they wanted it? Did you hold town hall meetings to get their feedback? Did you pay any attention to the thousands who called, wrote, and marched to stop it?
These are a few of the questions that would help elect GOP but I never hear it, sigh.
I believe in COBRA you can remain on your former company's policy for up to a year but you pay the full cost of the premium - no company contribution. So that really isn't a cost-effective solution for the average individual.
Herein lies the issue. Creating an environment in which insurance costs less.
Crossing state lines, etc are all ways to do that. If it doesn’t help reduce costs, why do it?
Employer insurance [and by extension COBRA] is more expensive than it needs to be hence the conservative solutions to reduce the costs mentioned in this thread and by some pols. Necessity is the mother of invention ;)
We should all being paying the full cost of our insurance. That we don’t is one of the characteristics of products/services that cost more than they have to cost. That is, if you don’t pay for your doctor visits, will you pay more attention to the cost/need relationship or less?
Hence the full cost of our insurance now is as high as it is for precisely the reason that we do NOT pay its full cost.
Increased competition may well lower costs to consumers but will the insurance companies go for it? In the first place it will force down what they can charge for premiums and in the second place it leaves them open for regulation in every state they choose to do business in. So what's in it for them really?
Employer insurance [and by extension COBRA] is more expensive than it needs to be hence the conservative solutions to reduce the costs mentioned in this thread and by some pols.
Why is it more expensive than it needs to be?
We should all being paying the full cost of our insurance. That we don’t is one of the characteristics of products/services that cost more than they have to cost.
My company pays about 75% of the cost of my insurance, so take them out of the equation and my monthly premium for the same level of coverage would likely quadruple or more. Why should I be thrilled about that?
Selling their product - sales revenue.
Why is it more expensive than it needs to be?
Lots of reasons but the one I mentioned was that we don't pay the full cost. So the price point continues higher until the point is reached that the portion we DO pay reaches our own individual price point at which we will choose not to spend.
If you only had to pay for your groceries after you had already consumed $250 worth - do you think you would be careful or wasteful with the first $250? Humans are not as careful with other people's stuff. People will not be as careful with someone else's $250 as they would be for their own $250. In this case of "your first $250 of groceries is free", prices would rise precisely because the $250 is not paid by the individual consuming.
My gosh, who would be thrilled about paying more? Nobody of course. The fact that your company pays 75% of the cost means you are willing to pay 25% of the cost. Would you be willing to pay more?
Right now, you don't have to consider that. All of the conservative solutions you read about are based on the assumption that people make better choices when they're using their own money. If you don't believe that, you may be on the wrong site LOL but I think you do - you just don't understand why I think prices will fall if we do pay our own way?
Of course prices would rise. They would rise until you reach the point at which you are no longer willing to part with the bux. By you only paying a portion of the cost, the food prices will rise until they reach the max of what you're willing to pay PLUS what others can be forced to pay on your behalf.
>> The most idiotic part of our “system” is the tying of health insurance to employment.
And tying routine care to insurance.
That would require - gasp - confrontation.
Well, that too. But A is the main cause of B.
If individuals paid for their own insurance, the norm would quickly exclude routine care. Just as few people buy auto or home insurance that covers routine maintenance.
Why should my insurance premium be lower if I'm paying 100% of it or 25% of it?
I wouldn't have a choice in your scenario.
All of the conservative solutions you read about are based on the assumption that people make better choices when they're using their own money.
I already know that buying health insurance is a good idea; I don't need to quadruple my premiums to know that. I also know that preventative medicine is a good idea because a medical problem found early is easier and cheaper to treat than one found late. Why would I want to pay many times more for something that in the long run benefits the insurance company?
If you don't believe that, you may be on the wrong site LOL but I think you do - you just don't understand why I think prices will fall if we do pay our own way?
I don't think they will.
“Leave it up to the stupid Republicans to screw up a great opportunity.”
They already did, when they passed that budget they eliminated any chance of retaking the Senate in 2914.
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.