posted January 20, 2011 12:15 PM            

The House passed a measure that repeals Obamacare with a 245-189 vote. This represents a far larger margin of victory than proponents of health care reform got when they passed it in the first place.

Is this really a "symbolic" victory? We'll see. Even if the senate doesn't act on the bill, the statement has been made. This is important because even the Supreme Court is not immune to politics. A likely 5-4 vote on the constitutionality of the individual mandate is going to need all the political push it can get to convince wavering justices that the real will of the people is to rid us of this monstrosity.

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell us assuring the GOP House members that he will get a vote in the senate on repeal:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he would "assure" a Senate vote on legislation to undo Democrats' healthcare reform law, despite Senate Democrats' opposition to holding such a vote.
"I want to congratulate our colleagues in the House on this important first step. I hope the Senate will soon follow suit with a vote of its own," McConnell said in a video release following the successful 245-189 vote in the House to repeal the healthcare law.

"The Democratic leadership in the Senate doesn't want to vote on this bill," McConnell added. "But I assure you, we will."

Those assurances are a bold move by McConnell, who leads a larger Republican conference in the Senate, but still one that's in the minority. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has wide discretion in setting the Senate's calendar, and he's indicated little interest in bringing up repeal for a vote.

Reid's been locked in a battle with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) over the issue of bringing up Republicans' newly-passed bill in the Senate. Cantor's argued that if Reid is so confident that such legislation wouldn't pass the Senate, he should bring it up for a vote anyway.

Cantor has a point. Put your money where you mouth is, Harry. Of course, Reid is reluctant to bring repeal to a vote because there are 23 Democratic senators up for re-election who will have to go back to the home folks and explain why they didn't vote to get rid of this white elephant while there was still time.

That is going to be a very hard sell come 2012.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/house_passes_obamacare_repeal.html

posted January 22, 2011 02:34 PM            

The House will begin repealing O'BomberCare piece by piece. Further, the nations purse strings are controlled by Congress. Look for budgets and bills denying funding for implementing O'BomberCare... for "commissions, bureaus and committees" which were established by O'BomberCare.

Look for Senate Republicans to hold up legislation in the Senate...until an up or down vote is taken to repeal O'BomberCare.

Of course, the very best way to get rid of O'BomberCare is for federal courts to declare O'BomberCare unconstitutional. That effort is under way with an additional 6 states joining Florida and 19 other states in a federal lawsuit to have O'BomberCare mandates declared unconstitutional.

posted January 22, 2011 02:40 PM            

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted January 24, 2011 09:11 PM            

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted January 25, 2011 10:09 AM            

My Mercury in Virgo requires an offer of a more precise statement. Being a verbal minimalist, I would prefer the single word..."Focused".

posted January 26, 2011 05:14 PM            

Well, Benjamin Franklin said...neither a purrer nor roarer be...at least I think that was Ben Franklin.

Whooooops!

Medicare official doubts health care law savings
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press
Wed Jan 26, 1:08 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Foster's assessment came a day after Obama in his State of the Union message told lawmakers that he's open to improvements in the law, but unwilling to rehash the health care debate of the past two years. Republicans want to repeal the landmark legislation that provides coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured, but lack the votes.

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.

On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.

As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."

Foster was a thorn in the side to the administration throughout the health care debate, doubting that Medicare cuts would prove to be politically sustainable and raising other questions. An equal opportunity skeptic, he was also a bane to the George W. Bush administration during the debate that led to creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003. Obama White House officials dispute his analysis and predict that he will be proven wrong about the health care law. Republicans hang on his every word.

The comments Wednesday were unusually direct because Foster generally delivers his analysis in complicated technical memos.

Foster says analysis by his office shows that the health care law will raise the nation's health care tab modestly because newly insured people will be getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without.

Costs could also increase if Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years. The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15 percent of providers into the red. The health care law funnels savings from the Medicare cuts to provide coverage to uninsured workers and their families.

As for people getting to keep their health insurance plan, Foster's office is projecting that more than 7 million Medicare recipients in private Medicare Advantage plans will eventually have to find other coverage, cutting enrollment in the plans by about half.

The health care law gradually cuts generous government payments to the plans, so insurers are expected to raise premiums or even drop out. And the main reason seniors have flocked to the private plans is that they offer lower out-of-pocket costs.

Medicare recipients who lose private coverage would still be guaranteed coverage in the traditional program, but they would likely have to take out a supplementary insurance plan for gaps in their coverage.

posted January 27, 2011 07:03 PM            

Not like you to be unsure of anything Jwhop

posted January 31, 2011 07:34 PM            

"I like the court route better since once this kind of government intrusion into American's lives...and wallets is declared unconstitutional, it's unlikely demoscats will attempt to resurrect the Socialist health care plan."

Judge strikes down healthcare reform law
By Tom Brown
MIAMI | Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:18pm EST

MIAMI (Reuters) - A federal judge in Florida struck down President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul as unconstitutional on Monday in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the reform law's so-called individual mandate went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he wrote, "This has been a difficult decision to reach and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications."

Referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Vinson sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring the Obama healthcare reform unconstitutional.

"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," Vinson, who was appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan, ruled.

The Obama administration said it would appeal Vinson's ruling and believed it would prevail on a highly politicized issue likely to end up at the Supreme Court.

"We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe -- as other federal courts have found -- that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

A White House official told reporters the administration planned to continue with implementation of the law.

"We'll continue to operate as we have previously and suspect that the states will do the same," said the senior administration official, who asked not to be named.

"Obviously this case will be appealed ... and so implementation would proceed apace ... This is not the last word by any means," the official said.

But the fact that the judge did not issue a stay of his ruling pending appeal by the government could threaten the application of many of the provisions of the healthcare law.

RULING DRAWS ATTACK, PRAISE

The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Florida case has more prominence than some two dozen similar lawsuits filed in federal courts.

The healthcare overhaul enacted last year, a contentious cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing costs. Administration officials insist it is needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.

Two other district court judges have rejected challenges to the individual mandate. But a federal district judge in Richmond, Virginia, last month struck down that central provision of the law.

Vinson's ruling was dramatically broader and drew immediate strong reaction.

"Healthcare reform is the law of the land and, now that Americans see its benefits, a majority of them oppose Republicans' dangerous plans to repeal a law that put patients in control of their own healthcare," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an influential national advocacy group that pushed for the healthcare overhaul, called Vinson's decision an example of "radical judicial activism run amok."

Republican House Speaker John Boehner was among those who applauded Vinson's ruling. "Today's decision affirms the view, held by most of the states and a majority of the American people, that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don't," Boehner said in a statement.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which says it represents small businesses across America and was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, also welcomed the ruling.

CONFLICTING RULINGS

The individual mandate is key to the law's mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured. Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a provision that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.

Vinson's ruling comes after the U.S. House of Representatives, with a new Republican majority, voted earlier this month to repeal the healthcare reform law. The repeal measure is unlikely to go any further as the Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to drop it.

Shares of U.S. health insurers were little changed immediately after the ruling, with UnitedHealth Group Inc and Aetna roughly flat and WellPoint Inc down 0.8 percent.

"This just adds to the conflicting nature of the rulings that we've seen so far," said Matthew Coffina, an analyst with Morningstar. "I think everyone watching the industry at this point has been expecting the Supreme Court to ultimately decide this situation."

States involved in the lawsuit were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Maine, Wisconsin and Wyoming.